Israel: Democracy in action.

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

Such elaborate fantasies to hang on such a slender thread. Have you ever read Robert Burns?

Sorry, old sport, simply don't get your banter. What elaborate fantasy? I've read Lewis Carroll, but even the Red Queen's advice doesn't help.

It's rare when projects set in motion closely resemble their initial concepts in all but the most broadest terms.

Rare? What kind of projects have you been working on? It may be your experience that projects you're involved in turn out more pig's ear than silk purse, but it's not mine. The form of the project as of 1919 was the same form as it was in 1937, as expressed by Ben-Gurion, whose opinion you can hardly dismiss as irrelevant. (I don't have my library to hand just now, but I'll try to get around to looking up some more Ben-Gurion quotes soon-ish, for Esther's sake.) At no point has subsequent history even suggested that the plan has changed. Sharon is prime minister (a position of great power in the rather ad-hoc Israeli government system) and has laid claim to the full package in the recent past, albeit in guarded terms. The settlers who exercise such influence at the moment (few enough in numbers, but that's how the system is) certainly haven't changed the tune. Where is the elaborate fantasy? And where are the borders?

When you are talking about Jews, suddenly it seems natural to drag out 85 year old maps drawn by dead people and say, ”Voila! This is their plan!”

As I've pointed out before, they aren't 85 year old maps. The aim of the project has been re-iterated a lot more recently than that. But a question that interests me : why do you think the fact that Jews are involved have anything to do with my posts about borders?

from a_unique_person (to Mycroft):

What sort of an answer is that?

If you find out, let me know. I suspect Mycroft has no substantive response, but he's doing the Cool Hand Luke thing. He can probably eat 50 eggs an' all.

 

[CapelDodger]

from zenith-nadir:

The war in 1948 began when the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded Israel, Israel did not invade Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

Israel did invade Lebanon, but withdrew; the Lebanese didn't invade Israel. Saudi Arabia didn't either. As far as Palestinians were concerned, the war started in 1947, after the UN partition resolution (which Israel never accepted). About half of the expulsion took place before the declaration of statehood in 1948 (after all, for a democratic Israel there had to be an overwhelming Jewish majority, which there wasn't before the expulsions).

Jordan did not invade Israel, if you want to regard Israel in 1948 as being the region granted to the zionists by the UN resolution. If you regard the West Bank as part of Israel anyway (what do you see as the borders?), then they did. Prior to the declaration of statehood Abdullah had agreed to annexe the West Bank allocated (by the not-yet dead-letter UN resolution) to the Palestinian State. An agreement made with the Israelis, with US and UK knowledge and backing and wide Palestinian support. The alternatives were chaos (no effort had been made to establish a Palestinian State) or a short-lived autocracy run by Haj Amin. Abdullah soon learnt what a deal with Israel is worth - they'd been stringing him along - as the Israelis went for the whole loaf. That led to conflict between Israel and Jordan, in which the Jordanians (outnumbered, out-gunned and horrendously under-resourced) acquitted themselves remarkably well.

Israel being a democracy, and all this having happened over 50 years ago (so, in true democratic fashion, a lot of documents of the time have been made available). all of this is very well documented.

 

[CapelDodger]

Zenith-nadir ascribes two quotes to a_unique_person:

There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists.

Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it.

In context, this is meant to be damning. With modifications for spelling and such, I don't feel damned by agreeing.

Taking the first quote, if one were inclined to look for evidence of the Zionist Occupationist Government in the White House and government agencies as composed right now, it's a no-brainer. And "Zionists" aren't only Jewish. Nor are anti-semites only Gentiles ("I am an anti-semite" proclaimed Weizmann). Gypsy influence is hard to spot, but they still get a very hard time. Christian Zionists are not to be trusted, by the way.

As to the second part, a_unique_person's reference to the UIRA (the Undying IRA) is apposite. The Irish nationalist movement has been around a lot longer than any Arab version, and has repeatedly fragmented when compromises have been accepted by the rational majority. There will always be (young) glory-heads and absolutist fanatics who will carry on "the struggle". However pathetic, irrational and ineffective it might be. That's just in Ireland, where the Troubles didn't exactly energise the Catholic world or provide fuel for incendiary cardinals aiming for the papacy.

Zionism, on the other hand, took on the Arab world and (if anybody out there wanted it at any point) the wider Muslim world as well. There's a point of dislocation in zionist thinking : on the one hand, the Arab world is a single entity which can - nay, should - simply absorb their dispossesed brethren, but no understanding that they haven't beaten the Arabs by screwing over the Palestinians. And they never will. So there will continue to be attacks whatever happens. Get used to it. When you carve a new country out of a hostile shore, that's what you get. Check out the Crusades. Profitable in parts, but long-term, not so much.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by MycroftAnalogy.

Straw man

Interesting. Let us examine this in a bit more depth than Mycroft apparently has. In his definition of a straw man argument it states, amongst other things: -

One of the characteristics of a cogent refutation of an argument is that the argument one is refuting be represented fairly and accurately. To distort or misrepresent an argument one is trying to refute is called the straw man fallacy.

What was it that Skeptic (no relation) actually claimed? Why he stated
'Of course not. But when it comes to the jews... well, we all know THEIR evil world-domination plans never change, don't we?'

Where did a-u-p state this? Nowhere it seems. Now unless I am very much mistaken Skeptic (no relation) made this up.

It really does seem that Mycroft, zenith-nadir and Skeptic (no relation) are happy in their misrepresentation of others arguments and their anti-sceptic world.

Perhaps they will one day actually deal with simple questions addressed to them? Heres hoping. Any response zenithpnadir or is that the sound of Sylvia Browne's crickets chirping?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Israel did invade Lebanon, but withdrew; the Lebanese didn't invade Israel. Saudi Arabia didn't either. Jordan did not invade Israel,

So we are going to attempt to change history CapelDodger? Is that how weak your argument has become?




OnWar.com - Israeli War of Independence 1948-1949

When Israel achieved its independence on May 14, 1948, the Haganah became the de facto Israeli army. On that day, the country was invaded by the regular forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria.

Brittanica.com - Arab-Israeli wars

The first war (1948–49) began when Israel declared itself an independent state following the United Nations' partition of Palestine. Protesting this move, five Arab countries—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria—attacked Israel.

encylopedia.com - Section: The 1948-49 War

As independence was declared, Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel. The Egyptians gained some territory in the south and the Jordanians took Jerusalem's Old City, but the other Arab forces were soon halted.

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com -Third phase: May 15, 1948 - June 11, 1948

Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 6,000 Syrian, 4,500 Iraqi, 5,500 Egyptian, and 6,000-9,000 Transjordanian troops entered the former Mandate. Together with the few thousand irregular Arab soldiers

nationmaster.com - Third phase: May 15, 1948 - June 11, 1948

Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 6,000 Syrian, 4,500 Iraqi, 5,500 Egyptian, and 6,000-9,000 Transjordanian troops entered the former Mandate. Together with the few thousand irregular Arab soldiers,

I need not go on. Over and over again the history is well documented. After the UN partition of Palestine and after Israel declared it's independence the Arabs armies invaded. How the hell did Jordan take control of Jerusalem and the West Bank if they didn't invade CapelDodger? It is always sad when posters try to rewrite history to try to win an argument.

 

[a_unique_person]

So we are going to attempt to change history CapelDodger? Is that how weak your argument has become?




OnWar.com - Israeli War of Independence 1948-1949

Brittanica.com - Arab-Israeli wars

encylopedia.com - Section: The 1948-49 War

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com -Third phase: May 15, 1948 - June 11, 1948

nationmaster.com - Third phase: May 15, 1948 - June 11, 1948





I need not go on. Over and over again the history is well documented. After the UN partition of Palestine and after Israel declared it's independence the Arabs armies invaded. How the hell did Jordan take control of Jerusalem and the West Bank if they didn't invade CapelDodger? It is always sad when posters try to rewrite history to try to win an argument.

From brittanica

In the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

Re-write that.

 

[zenith-nadir]

From brittanica...In the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
.....Re-write that.

Ok, so we'll skip over Capeldoger's rewiriting of history, fast forward 20 years and use a sentence out of context in a feeble attempt to a) bail Capeldoger out of his abyss of lies or b) just forget Capeldoger ever said what he said and turn the debate into "Israel is evil" again. Excellent work a_u_p.

For those who don't know much about the Six Day War in 1967... The Six Day War 1967 - OnWar.com

The Egyptian armistice line remained quiet, and there were few incidents along the Jordanian line until 1965, when Egyptian-sponsored guerrilla raids by Al Fatah first occurred. Beginning in 1960, there were repeated guerrilla activities and shellings of Israeli settlements from the Golan Heights of Syria, but these incidents remained localized until 1964.

In April 1967, increased Syrian aircraft-shelling of Israeli border villages encountered an Israeli fighter attack during which six Syrian MiGs were shot down. Syria feared that an all-out attack from Israel was imminent, and Egypt, with whom Syria had recently signed a mutual defense treaty, began an extensive military buildup in early May. On May 18, Egypt's president, Gamal Abdul Nasser, demanded the withdrawal of UN forces from Gaza and Sinai; Secretary General U Thant promptly acceded and removed the UNEF. Four days later, Nasser announced a blockade of Israeli shipping at the Strait of Tiran, an action that Israel since the 1956 War had stressed would be tantamount to a declaration of war. Jordan and Iraq rapidly joined Syria in its military alliance with Egypt.

On the morning of June 5, Israel launched a devastating attack on Arab air power, destroying about 300 Egyptian, 50 Syrian, and 20 Jordanian aircraft, mostly on the ground. This action, which virtually eliminated the Arab air forces, was immediately followed by ground invasions into Sinai and the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and finally Syria. Arab ground forces, lacking air support, were routed on all three fronts; by the time the UN-imposed cease-fire took effect in the evening of June 11, the IDF had seized the entire Sinai Peninsula to the east bank of the Suez Canal; the West Bank of Jordan, including East Jerusalem; and the Golan Heights of Syria. Unlike the aftermath of the 1956 War, however, the IDF did not withdraw from the areas it occupied in 1967.

 

[Baker]

double post

 

[Baker]

What was it that Skeptic (no relation) actually claimed? Why he stated
'Of course not. But when it comes to the jews... well, we all know THEIR evil world-domination plans never change, don't we?'

Yes because aup never made the world dominating evil Jew comment besides making every reference to it.
Then it can't be true?
AUP has made close to 100 threads criticizing the US but still claims he doesn't hate the US because he never came out and said I hate the US he's not anti-American?

 

[Esther]

Sorry for the delayed responses, weekends during the summer are usually a busy period for us.

What Israel has got wasn't given, it was taken. Asking didn't get it for them. "The Arabs" did indeed reject the partition plan of the Peel Commission, but the mistakes of the Arabs (constant, stupid, infantile mistakes) are not really the issue. Israel is said to be hoping for peace with its neighbours, but how can that be achieved when Israel's future territorial requirements - not demands, but facts created on the ground - are left undefined? The only definition available is the map put forward in 1919 at the Versailles Peace Conference - the conference that created the Polish Corridor and the Sudetan problem, amongst other monstrosities.

Your use of words is interesting. Israel was given to the Jews when it was established and the rejection of partition plan of the Peel Commission from the part of the arabs was only the hors d'oeuvre in a policy of rejections.I wonder and I would like to read your opinion on that. Why the arabs kept rejecting the plans? Did they believe that they could win the Israelis in a future war ? What did they have in their minds when they were rejecting the plans?

The mistakes of the Arabs are part of the issue because for every mistake the arabs made the Israelis moved a stepped further from their original plan. Can you blame us for that? Of course you can't. The state of Israel exists to protect the interests of its citizens the same way the state of Great Britain exist to protect the interests of the British people.

Re: the map. I get your point which is not baseless. By reading your posts though I get the feeling that you look Israel with the eyes of the 70ies. We are not the post 6 Days War Israel anymore. People both in Israel and in the States have started questioning policies and the power of the ultra orthodox and the extreme right is not as big as the critics of Israel present. Things have changed and as long as the Arabs do not join us in honest negotiations there is no need for us to show our cards. This is a war of survival, this is not a joke.

There would also be the demographic problem - a large proportion of expellees would suddenly be back inside Israel, which had to expel them in order to be a democracy and a Jewish State. On the other hand, if these were not included the executive would lose power. Mycroft wonders at a conspiracy of a nation of 5 million, but as I've pointed out the form of Israeli democracy gives commanding power to the executive. And the executive is the plaything of a few.

The notion of the jewish state is not very appealing for the younger generations that weren't brought up with the vision of Zion.I'd say that for us, the jewish state is a necessity. I cannot persuade you for what I am going to say, you will have to take my word for it but although I hate segregation I don't wish to live with the arabs in one state because I do not trust them and I am afraid of them. If segregation is the price we have to pay in order that we live safely, so be it. I do not say that with a light heart. I am totally aware of what I am saying but this is how I feel. I do not wish to live with the Arabs, it's better they have their own state.

When you invoke nationalism, you take a ride on a tiger. Compromise - the sine qua non of successful diplomacy - becomes treason, and there will always be someone to the "right" of you to shout it out. Look what happened to Rabin - shot from behind by a Lone Gunman in the most security-conscious state in the world. Israel cannot define its own borders because of its own inherent contradictions. Any more than it can define what a "Jewish State" is in a manner acceptable to the modern world.

All the above are not far from truth but our nation was created under dramatic circumstances, also, being jewish is many other things apart from the religion without being a national conscience as well. To you this might sound weird but to us is a lifestyle. The most important thing for us is to be with our people, we don't bother others, we don't preach, we are not interested in making other people jewish, we wish to be left alone but together. Being together is very important for us since nobody ever tried to persuade us that assimilation is a good thing.It never was. This might seem retarted to you but some times other people's lifestyle appear very empty and retared to me as well. I cannot imagine a life totally cut from my jewish community. This, in terms of modernity had to be translated into something else, viable for us. The jewish state appeared at the moment a good idea.

The destruction of Israel does not mean the annihilation of the Jews of Palestine. We both know that. A one-state solution is the only viable option. It must be democratic, but must not raise fears of the "dictatorship of the majority". It doesn't have to be like Saddam's Darkest Arabia. In fact, it could be a real beacon to the Arab - and wider - world.

This would be the ideal situation but the facts don't permit such visions. When I was younger I embraced those visions now, I am so fed up with people's hatred that I am not interested in what people say for the jews anymore, all I am interested in is to be left alone and focus on the building of the jewish state we want.

 

[demon]

Esther:
"This would be the ideal situation but the facts don't permit such visions. When I was younger I embraced those visions now, I am so fed up with people's hatred that I am not interested in what people say for the jews anymore, all I am interested in is to be left alone and focus on the building of the jewish state we want."

That would be profound if you included the Palestinians in the equatiion.
"left alone and focus on the building of the jewish state we want"

 

[Esther]

Enough for me to meet via random searching and personal communication, and even for other Israelis I met to say its fairly common. The polls indicating how many Israelis confirm this imo.

The opinion of ten people might be enough for you but is it enough? Our own experience cannot play the role of a statistical index, as for the polls, I was reading some critics lately about a poll that was set up by the on-line edition of "Jerusalem Post". On line polls do not reflect the opinion of the general public. I don't know if you have heard of an israeli joke according to which everytime you say " Good morning" to an Israeli, he sets up a poll in order to see what to reply.Israelis have a twisted relationship with the polls.

I am aware of how many americans see blacks as less then human, which is why I'm more willing to believe in Israeli bigotry, not less, seeing as they are in a more extreme position then us.

Exactly although considering the extreme positon in which israelis are things are not that bad.

My site argues for many reasons, not just special priveldges for political reasons. For example parties that call for equality among jews and non-jews (a mixed Israel) are banned from elections. Jews get automatic citizenship (something no one else gets). Jewish organizations are given special tax credits that other groups do not get. Palestinians are not as regularly invited into military service (which grants many benefits), and more benefits are given to Jewish then Palestinian towns of equal economic plight (economic plight is supposed to be the only determining factor.)

Fair points although there is a rebutal for every single one of them. I am not interested in posting state propaganda here I only wish to comment on the right of return. Israel was established to become a jewish state not a multi national mixed state. The multi national and mixed state is not our ideal.

Well you may say its merely in response to terror, I'd say that sounds post hoc. I really doubt the Israeli's were completely immune to prejudice pre-terrorism, and I really doubt it would stop if terrorism ended tomorrow. Terrorism contributes surely, but can it be labled the sole culprit? Doubtful.

When you talk about terrorism obviously you have in mind only suicide terrorism. In reality israelis have been suffering from the arabic terrorism since the establishment of Israel. It was not only the action but the policies and the promises of the arabs to destroy Israel. A jew, especially those who came from europe has a different idea of what security means. Maybe I'd should say that a jew doesn't really know what security means. Other people take it for granted, we don't.

And even if it was (which is doubtful) would that justify racism of this scale? Do the latest arab or right-wing terrorist attacks justify outlawing or deporting either kind of person? I'm not accusing you of such a defense exactly, but your claim is certainly ambiguous.

In my opinion there is nothing that justifies racism, there are things that explain fear but the fight against racism and fear is a constant one. Israel hasn't enjoyed even a single day of peace by the day it was established. In war period the important thing is the security of the civilians. Your country is War and although it's geographically so far away from the war zone measures have been taken in order to protect the citizens.I remind you that Israel is in the war zone.

Sure you can, by recognizing that the fence is made to thwart terrorists, not arabs. And by thus allowing arabs to immigrate in. You may not have all of what's best from both worlds, that is true, but you can have some from each-through compromise.

Theoritically you are very right but you live in the States and you ask from me that I live in Israel and I am afraid even to use the public transportation to fulfill your ideal of a democratic state. How fair is that?

Yes but the Palestinians would say they are responding to the Jews taking their land almost a hundred years ago. And to the amount of deaths caused by Israeli occupation-in which case the trend continues forever.

Palestinians are right up to a point to claim such things but on the other hand if they want people to believe them they have to prove what theyhave done to ameliorate their conditions. The answer to that question is very disheartening, believe me.

Again, I'm not distancing myself from both sides as I am trying to be objective. That means that even though I support Israel, I'm willing to point out its faults (nobodies perfect.) And I believe that pointing out these faults is of the utmost importance in trying to support the nation, because only by pointing out such faults can we actually help a nation, any nation (including Israel) improve.

I agree wholeheartly with that.

 

[Esther]

Which rather makes my point that Israel's neighbours in "the rest" of Palestine can expect an Israeli attack at some point to achieve the zionist "dream". This quote, I believe, comes from the time of the Peel Commission, and clearly shows that the full land of Israel (as understood at that time, and presumably since) remained the objective. With the 1967 war it was substantially achieved, although the refusal of Lebanon to get involved left that for later - Sharon and Begin's invasion in 1982. The frequent references to Hizbollah by Israeli and Likud officials when discussing purely Palestinian affairs shows that a re-invasion is very much on the cards. Just not quite yet.

I believe that this post of yours confirms my suspicion that you judge today's Israel with the terms of the post 6 Days War Israel and this is totally wrong. The quote I posted comes from a speech of Ben Gurion after the 6 Days War. In our days israelis are not willing to cover the cost of zionist dreams especially because the aim of the zionists is fulfilled. The hills of Zion are ours now.

:The treaty with Egypt returned the Sinai, which is traditionally a place that Jews come out of, not return to. As such, it's not relevant. And anyway, Sinai (like Gaza) might turn out to be part of the "dream" in the future.

This is quite a spin, in my opinion.Sinai is what Egypt wanted in order to sign to peace treaty it might be irrelevant to you but it wasn't irrelevant to them. Both parties got what they wanted and they proved that honest negotiations do bring an outcome.

The "we're at war" argument is a smokescreen, since the natural state of Israel is war. There was never any prospect of it being anything else. Do you think the Israeli military will ever allow peace? I'm very doubtful myself. The prospect of peace would certainly be a good test of Israel's democracy.

Although I do not have any kind of education, to my understanding, in every country the army wants war. It's in the nature of the national states to wish for the existence of external enemies. It's in the nature of any structure, national or financial to seek for external enemies. Maybe you believe in the notion of the "chosen people" more than I do and you expect the israeli military to be different in that in a situation where the enemy exists and it doesn't need to be artificial. I agree that peace will be a good test for israel's democracy I am looking forward in taking it.

The matter of Israel's borders is discussed, and should be more extensively. But officially, no limits to Israel's borders have been accepted or proposed by an Israeli government. Even the Osla Accords left the matter to later discussion, which (under Netenyahu, who rejected Oslo) went nowhere. Some proposal will have to made if there's to be peace. Don't hold your breath ...

I do not hold my breath because it's an unhealthy practice. Again you accuse the israeli part of taking advantage of a weak and disoriented palestinian authority. Do you take israelis for super humans or do you really believe that they are the perfect people, the chosen one? I don't think that this is true.We are only humans.

 

[CapelDodger]

from zenith-nadir:

It is always sad when posters try to rewrite history to try to win an argument.

For once you make a good point. Let me fill in the pieces of my post that you left out:

As far as Palestinians were concerned, the war started in 1947, after the UN partition resolution (which Israel never accepted). About half of the expulsion took place before the declaration of statehood in 1948 (after all, for a democratic Israel there had to be an overwhelming Jewish majority, which there wasn't before the expulsions).

[Jordan did not invade Israel], if you want to regard Israel in 1948 as being the region granted to the zionists by the UN resolution.

from you:

After the UN partition of Palestine and after Israel declared it's independence the Arabs armies invaded.

The UN partition resolution was passed on November 29th 1947. Israeli statehood was declared on May 14th 1948. Did the Arab armies invade twice, after each of these events?

So, for the Palestinians, the war did start in 1947, and about half of the expulsions had occurred before the declaration of statehod, with no intervention by Arab armies. (More accurately, of course, for the Palestinians the war started the day it was declared by the First Zionist Congress.)

How the hell did Jordan take control of Jerusalem and the West Bank if they didn't invade [,] CapelDodger?

I declared that Jordan did not invade Israel unless Jerusalem and the West Bank are regarded as being part of Israel. Do you think that is the case, or was Israel at the time defined by the UN partition plan? Whatever position you take, my statement was quite correct.

By leaving out large chunks of my post - without even using ellipsis to make the fact clear - which contained most of its substance, you are re-writing my posts in order to win an argument. It may be that your comprehension skills are at fault, or perhaps you're just dishonest. I don't have enough evidence to judge, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Elind]

This would be the ideal situation but the facts don't permit such visions. When I was younger I embraced those visions now, I am so fed up with people's hatred that I am not interested in what people say for the jews anymore, all I am interested in is to be left alone and focus on the building of the jewish state we want.

And when I was younger I clearly remember the start of settlement building in the west bank, and the Israeli justification that this was a security need to give a defence buffer, not just a land grab. Admittedly there was some rationale in that at the time (never mind your versions of islamic fanatics who say God told them to do it), but it has been abundantly clear since that time that it is just another version of wanting more lebensraum. Needless to say, the Palestinians will always shoot themselves before accepting any accomodation that would actually benefit them, so talking of negotiation is useless. Probably we can agree on that much.

What I really resent personally however, is prissy people like you who tell us (the USA) to butt out of your affairs, when you would not exist without our support, yesterday and tomorrow. We have been suckered into being forced to defend your approximation of democracy because it is the only approximation in the region, but by now my opinion is that "suckered" is the operative word and frankly you and your own fanatics have not been worth the cost to us in being the fundamental cause for hate between the 21st century and the 14th.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Esther:

I believe that this post of yours confirms my suspicion that you judge today's Israel with the terms of the post 6 Days War Israel and this is totally wrong. The quote I posted comes from a speech of Ben Gurion after the 6 Days War.

Mycroft accuses me of living a century in the past, and you of thinking life began in the 60's. I'm too old for the latter, and too young for the former. I mistook the quote (since the message was much the same) as this one :

[Establishing] a Jewish State in part of Palestine is not the end but the beginning. The establishment of such a Jewish State will serve as a means in our historical effort to redeem the country in its entirety.

This was in a letter to his son at the time of the Peel Commission. So, what did he mean by the "country"? You can see how the neighbours might need to know before they can sleep easy in their beds.

In our days israelis are not willing to cover the cost of zionist dreams especially because the aim of the zionists is fulfilled. The hills of Zion are ours now.

Romance is all very well in novels, but a disaster in reality. Has the aim been fulfilled with the current arrangement of settlements? Is that the aim? Because people keep sticking up new ones, and Israelis pay to subsidise and defend them. They may not want to, but their willingness doesn't seem to be a requirement.

This is quite a spin, in my opinion.Sinai is what Egypt wanted in order to sign to peace treaty it might be irrelevant to you but it wasn't irrelevant to them. Both parties got what they wanted and they proved that honest negotiations do bring an outcome.

The Egyptians see the Sinai as their territory, taken off them by conquest and subsequently regained. Israel does not regard it as its territory. So yes, agreement was reached. Does Israel regard the "hills of zion" as a bargaining chip? My point is : the Sinai cannot be compared to the West Bank.

Although I do not have any kind of education, to my understanding, in every country the army wants war ... Maybe you believe in the notion of the "chosen people" more than I do and you expect the israeli military to be different in that in a situation where the enemy exists and it doesn't need to be artificial

The enemies are, and always have been, real; that was inevitable. The status of the military in Israel, which was formed in and by war, is highly unusual. The military plays a much more central role in Israeli society than almost anywhere else. Peace would change that, and the military might use their political influence to prevent it. I agree that it would be excellent if there was a chance to find out.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Esther:

I believe that this post of yours confirms my suspicion that you judge today's Israel with the terms of the post 6 Days War Israel and this is totally wrong. The quote I posted comes from a speech of Ben Gurion after the 6 Days War.

Mycroft accuses me of living a century in the past, and you of thinking life began in the 60's. I'm too old for the latter, and too young for the former. I mistook the quote (since the message was much the same) as this one :

[Establishing] a Jewish State in part of Palestine is not the end but the beginning. The establishment of such a Jewish State will serve as a means in our historical effort to redeem the country in its entirety.

This was in a letter to his son at the time of the Peel Commission. So, what did he mean by the "country"? You can see how the neighbours might need to know before they can sleep easy in their beds.

In our days israelis are not willing to cover the cost of zionist dreams especially because the aim of the zionists is fulfilled. The hills of Zion are ours now.

Romance is all very well in novels, but a disaster in reality. Has the aim been fulfilled with the current arrangement of settlements? Is that the aim? Because people keep sticking up new ones, and Israelis pay to subsidise and defend them. They may not want to, but their willingness doesn't seem to be a requirement.

This is quite a spin, in my opinion.Sinai is what Egypt wanted in order to sign to peace treaty it might be irrelevant to you but it wasn't irrelevant to them. Both parties got what they wanted and they proved that honest negotiations do bring an outcome.

The Egyptians see the Sinai as their territory, taken off them by conquest and subsequently regained. Israel does not regard it as its territory. So yes, agreement was reached. Does Israel regard the "hills of zion" as a bargaining chip? My point is : the Sinai cannot be compared to the West Bank.

Although I do not have any kind of education, to my understanding, in every country the army wants war ... Maybe you believe in the notion of the "chosen people" more than I do and you expect the israeli military to be different in that in a situation where the enemy exists and it doesn't need to be artificial

The enemies are, and always have been, real; that was inevitable. The status of the military in Israel, which was formed in and by war, is highly unusual. The military plays a much more central role in Israeli society than almost anywhere else. Peace would change that, and the military might use their political influence to prevent it. I agree that it would be excellent if there was a chance to find out.

 

[Esther]

Capel Dodger, I was wrong about Gurion's quote. It's from a speech of his to the 20th Zionist Congress in Zurich ( August 7, 1937).

I have heard that this disease that plays nasty games to your memory... what is its name... emental I think... gets really bad once you get older.I am glad I don't suffer from emental yet.

 

[Esther]

And when I was younger I clearly remember the start of settlement building in the west bank, and the Israeli justification that this was a security need to give a defence buffer, not just a land grab. Admittedly there was some rationale in that at the time (never mind your versions of islamic fanatics who say God told them to do it), but it has been abundantly clear since that time that it is just another version of wanting more lebensraum.

I don’t think that we can agree on that. On June 11 1967 Israel touched the vision of The Great and Biblical Israel but both parties Labour and Likud didn’t know what to do with this vision. Calling the West Bank Judea and Samaria turned out to be nothing but cheap rhetoric. Ben Gurion’s political heirs enjoyed hiking the Occupying Territories with the Bible in their hands but none of them took the decision either to annex or to return the territories. Instead they introduced the catastrophic messianic and religious based policy of the settlements . Why do I consider the settlements Israel’s greatest risk to disaster? Because I was born in Israel and grew up knowing that Israel is my land. I learned to speak Hebrew to communicate with our people. Now day by day I discover that Hebrew is not enough to communicate with Israelis in the land of Israel, in order to communicate with Jews in Judea and Samaria you need to know Russian or English, how ironic. Russian and English in the “Land of Abraham”. What sort of development is that? It’s really negative in my opinion and it doesn’t make me feel optimistic about the future and I do not refer to the famous anecdote about the optimism of the average Israeli.

. Needless to say, the Palestinians will always shoot themselves before accepting any accomodation that would actually benefit them, so talking of negotiation is useless. Probably we can agree on that much

What are you talking about? I remind you that according to you out of the two of us, _I _am the fanatic not you.

What I really resent personally however, is prissy people like you who tell us (the USA) to butt out of your affairs, when you would not exist without our support, yesterday and tomorrow. We have been suckered into being forced to defend your approximation of democracy because it is the only approximation in the region, but by now my opinion is that "suckered" is the operative word and frankly you and your own fanatics have not been worth the cost to us in being the fundamental cause for hate between the 21st century and the 14th.

Actually I was referring to the Europeans and their ideas about the one state solution that I am fed up with but since you mention it I find quite amusing the fact that you believe that Israelis owe something to the Americans. We owe you nothing and if you believe that “I and my own fanatics do not worth the cost” you have a way to end this. I hope you look good in khaki because you will have to go to Middle East to look after the Arabs for the sake of the organized interests that run your approximation of democracy.

 

[Esther]

That would be profound if you included the Palestinians in the equatiion.
"left alone and focus on the building of the jewish state we want"

What do you mean? I don't wish for the Palestinians to disappear, I am for the establishment of a palestinian state, I do not favor the one state solution.