Wall a huge failure

[The Fool]

I don't care what you guys say, I've been to Israel, my family lives in Israel. All you know is what you gleen from your slightly biased internet sites sitting on your butts 10,000 miles away. If I went on a message board acting like a know it all on Polish society and Polish security and Polish foreign policy and yet had never stepped foot in Poland or spoke Polish you, as skeptics would run me off with pitchforks.

Can we look forward to you limiting your opinions to areas you have visited and have family living? How is it you comment on a lot of other places beside Israel? You must have done a lot of travelling and have a very large family?

 

[Jim Bowen]

I absolutely agree. And I predict that the Israelis will in fact take no aggressive actions except to move ahead on the Gaza pullout.

I think the building of the wall slows way down too.

That is, Arafat's passing sets the stage for a monumental shift. I predict that the Israelis will try to be open to it. My bias though is that there are more forces arrayed against peace on the Palestinian side. That is, they will be the ones to step up the aggression.

If I'm wrong however, a new day dawns.

What are your predictions on the violence levels if Arafat dies soon?

I'm honestly not sure, mate. I would hope that the Israelis take the sensible option and try to come to a genuine workable solution with whoever takes power after Arafat's demise. However, considering the strength of feeling involved on both sides and the disparate Palestinian and Israeli extremist groups, it may simply be a case of more of the same. Perhaps Arafat prestige was sufficient to keep someone of more extreme views out of power. Whether Arafat passes on or Sharon falls, I'm hoping that the moderates get a chance.

Regarding ZN and his views as to the apparent ignorance of people commenting on the Israeli/Palestinian situation who don't actually live there, perhaps we are more qualified to comment, not being as subjective as thee.

Jim Bowen

 

[a_unique_person]

I absolutely agree. And I predict that the Israelis will in fact take no aggressive actions except to move ahead on the Gaza pullout.

I think the building of the wall slows way down too.

time to pull your head out of the clouds. In the mind of Sharon, the Gaza pullout means he can finish the wall faster and more aggressively.

That is, Arafat's passing sets the stage for a monumental shift. I predict that the Israelis will try to be open to it. My bias though is that there are more forces arrayed against peace on the Palestinian side. That is, they will be the ones to step up the aggression.

You are confusing Israelis with the Israeli Government. Sharon has just done a flip flop that would never be countenanced in the US, it would be like Dubya jumping ship to join the Democrats.

While Isrealis have always been prepared to give back the West Bank and Gaza, all the government have always had a policy of enouraging the assmilation of these areas in to Israel proper.

And don't consuse the removal of the settlements with the removal of Israel from controlling Gaza. It will still reserve the right to launch military strikes at any time, will control the borders, and virtually make Gaza and the various west bank enclaves a huge prison.

If I'm wrong however, a new day dawns.

What are your predictions on the violence levels if Arafat dies soon?

It will make little difference. The Israeli governments have always been prepared to talk to whoever will do just what it wants. As soon as one guy looked like he might want to make a real deal with the Palestinians, he was assasinated.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't care what you guys say, I've been to Israel, my family lives in Israel. All you know is what you gleen from your slightly biased internet sites sitting on your butts 10,000 miles away. If I went on a message board acting like a know it all on Polish society and Polish security and Polish foreign policy and yet had never stepped foot in Poland or spoke Polish you, as skeptics would run me off with pitchforks.

This entire nightmare is because six decades ago a very small group of dictators and theocratic Islamic monarchs defied UN Resolution 181 and the 33 nations who voted for it. They didn't even try to negotiate, they chose war instead. Sixty years later millions have paid the price for that xenophobic decision. Now their grandchildren send their children strapped with explosives to die for the cause. And you two make Israel seem like home of the anti-christ.

I think what I find really ironic about you two is not what you do say regarding the middle east conflict at JREF, but what you never say regarding the middle east conflict ...

Which gives us an insight into how people see the issue from their, and how people look at the issue from various viewpoints. Along with the other people on JREF with an interest in the issue, some Jewish, some not, some Zionists, some not. It all adds up to a bigger picture.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Can we look forward to you limiting your opinions to areas you have visited and have family living? How is it you comment on a lot of other places beside Israel? You must have done a lot of travelling and have a very large family?

This coming from another expert on the Middle East...who has never been there...I tried to go to Lebanon, but our Arab-owned tour bus was shot at and a bullet went through the window so the driver turned around and went back to Haifa. I went to Egypt too and guess what, in Egypt people threw stuff at my sister because she had red hair. Go figure.

Originally posted by The a_unique_person
Which gives us an insight into how people see the issue from their, and how people look at the issue from various viewpoints. Along with the other people on JREF with an interest in the issue, some Jewish, some not, some Zionists, some not. It all adds up to a bigger picture.

Bigger picture? Hahahahahahaha...If you truely wanna know how badly your "bigger picture" needs more developing I suggest you go to Israel. You know nothing about Israel except what you accept as facts from surfing the internet 10,000 miles away in Australia.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Regarding ZN and his views as to the apparent ignorance of people commenting on the Israeli/Palestinian situation who don't actually live there, perhaps we are more qualified to comment, not being as subjective as thee.

So you are nonsubjective? Now that's funny too. You and a_u_p should tour the comedy clubs.

But I wanna give you a chance to put me in my place. Show all the JREFers what part of your nonsubjectivity in this thread - (about a wall to stop suicide bombers) - covered the topic of islamic fundamentalism and the problem of suicide bombing? How about the part of your nonsubjectivity that covered the islamic fundamentalist terror groups like Hamas, Al Aksa or Islamic Jihad who send women and children suicide bombers? How about the part of your nonsubjectivity that covered the Palestinian Authority's failure to stop any suicide bombing since the first one ten years ago?

You are the one claiming you are more qualified to comment on the Middle East due to your nonsubjectivity. Here is an excellent opportunity to use your posts in this thread to validate that claim.

 

[The Fool]

This coming from another expert on the Middle East...who has never been there...

I have to ask you again...are you planning to continue to provide us with your valued contributions about Cuba, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Australia, France, Iraq, Germany....and they are just the ones I remember? You must travel a lot and have a lot of relatives living throughout the world...

 

[zenith-nadir]

I have to ask you again...are you planning to continue to provide us with your valued contributions about Cuba, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Australia, France, Iraq, Germany....and they are just the ones I remember? You must travel a lot and have a lot of relatives living throughout the world...

Sure you can have an opinion, that doesn't automatically make your opinion informed. What's makes you informed about the Middle East conflict when you have never been to the middle east? How can you truely understand what is happening there when you just use your internal filter and pick and chose stories off the internet from 10,000 miles away in Australia?

You don't know what it is like to live there. I've been there. I've seen Israeli jews and Israeli Palestinians/Arabs walk the streets together, work together, own businesses together, party together. 20% of Israelis are arabs, the official second language of Israel is arabic.

Cross the line north, east or south and as a jew I can be be killed in the street - or in a hotel in Egypt - for just being a jew. Why? Islamic fundamentalism. The same Islamic fundamentalism that took over 200 of your countrymen in Bali. The same Islamic fundamentalism that caused 9-11. The same Islamic fundamentalism that took lives in Madrid, Russia, Afghanistan, Kenya...it's not all about settlers, that is the excuse not the cause. I suggest you go to Israel and see that the people aren't evil, that they don't like the conflict with the Palestinians or party in the street dressed in bomb vests and white robes shooting AK-47s in the air.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Tony.
What claim?

The claim you made.
The one I posted it for you.
Never mind, let me remind you yet again.
'That's all you do. You ignore the facts and prefer to argue from ignorance.'
I loook forward to you providing evidence for that claim i.e. the claim posted for you once already.

You just attacked me for using an ad hom, then go on to use one yourself (and a non sequitur). Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy.

Au contraire. I proved with your own words your Islamophobic stance. My description of you is therefore completely accurate.

Because the muslims I was talking about are fundamentalists. It's clear from the context in which I was speaking.

Are you now saying that your previous unmoderated Islamophobic remarks were not an accurate representation of what you actually meant. If so, perhaps you would like to reword them to represent exactly what you did mean.

You chose, as is your typical style, to make knee-jerk assumptions and unfounded non sequiturs.

My statement about you chosing not to moderate your claims was completely accurate, as can be demonstrated by simply reading the thread. You, on the other hand, chose not to use any moderators in your quotes about Muslims and Islam that I listed. (Please note that the claim I have just quoted is the claim I am talking about. Just in case you decide to ask yet again 'what claim'?) Once again you have chosen to make a claim without justification, therefore I believe I am entitled to point out that you seem to have a problem justifying your claims or even recognising them.

I didn't say you talked about it. But that is the implication of your assertion of so-called "islamophobia".

Au contraire. You claimed that '...You’re saying that speaking out against fundamentalism...' That is simply false and obvious if you actually read my post.

In addition, my clear and justified assertion of Islamophobia is taken from your own words when, without moderation of any sort whatsoever, you claimed that ''The isrealis are dealing with muslims. Genocide and persecution of minorities (especially jews) are holy pursuits in islam. They are bound by their love of allah to kill, and oppress the infidel.'

'But it is my duty as a human to oppose and condemn hateful ideologies and religions, so I'll keep opposing and speaking against Islam and Nazism (your two favorite ideals).'

Oh really? Then why do you choose to apologize for the atrocities of islam? If a person were doing the same in regards to Nazis or the KKK, it would be safe to say that person is in one of those camps.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that people have to be religious to oppose religious bigotry? Your invention about my religiosity is just that, an invention.

I note that once again you have chosen to make a claim about me and once again have chosen not to support it or produce any evidence for it. This seems to one of your characteristics. Perhaps you would like to do so at some stage, after all - this is a sceptics site.

Please list all the places where I have justified any atrocities, never mind those which, in your Islamophobic way, you try to attribute to an entire religion rather than to those terrorists who claim to be members of that religion. I am sure you don't believe that the terrorists who helped found Israel demonstrate that Judaism is a terrorist religion or that the catholic terrorists in Northern Ireland demonstrate that catholicism is a terrorist religion. I certainly don't, on either count.

 

[Atlas]

time to pull your head out of the clouds. In the mind of Sharon, the Gaza pullout means he can finish the wall faster and more aggressively.

[/QUOTE] AUP, perhaps thats what it means... Is that your prediction?

I'm looking at it like this. The death of Arafat will give both sides a moment to reconsider the intifada. If the violence diminishes in the near term both sides will be able to signal their intentions. I believe the Israeli leadership and people want peace more than the Palestinian leadership and people. The Israelis will slowdown construction and see how the Palestinians respond.

My bias is that the Palestinians will continue attacks in Gaza and continue killing Israelis wherever they can because the only peace they will countenance involves the destruction of Israel.

What is your prognosis?

Originally posted by Atlas
That is, Arafat's passing sets the stage for a monumental shift. I predict that the Israelis will try to be open to it. My bias though is that there are more forces arrayed against peace on the Palestinian side. That is, they will be the ones to step up the aggression.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You are confusing Israelis with the Israeli Government. Sharon has just done a flip flop that would never be countenanced in the US, it would be like Dubya jumping ship to join the Democrats.

While Isrealis have always been prepared to give back the West Bank and Gaza, all the government have always had a policy of enouraging the assmilation of these areas in to Israel proper.

And don't consuse the removal of the settlements with the removal of Israel from controlling Gaza. It will still reserve the right to launch military strikes at any time, will control the borders, and virtually make Gaza and the various west bank enclaves a huge prison.

I don't know about Sharon's flipflop. Nixon did it when he went to China. In fact it was because of his hawkish, distrustful, historical posture on communism that we accepted it. We knew he wasn't coming home waving a Neville Chamberlain piece of paper.

A lot of hawks trust Sharon. Because of his past he will have more credibility to say "Now is the time, countrymen."

Originally posted by Atlas
If I'm wrong however, a new day dawns.

What are your predictions on the violence levels if Arafat dies soon?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It will make little difference. The Israeli governments have always been prepared to talk to whoever will do just what it wants. As soon as one guy looked like he might want to make a real deal with the Palestinians, he was assasinated.

You know that history better than me. Was it Israelis who assassinated him or other Palestinians. I'd like to know that history. Can you give some examples?

 

[a_unique_person]

AUP, perhaps thats what it means... Is that your prediction?

I'm looking at it like this. The death of Arafat will give both sides a moment to reconsider the intifada. If the violence diminishes in the near term both sides will be able to signal their intentions. I believe the Israeli leadership and people want peace more than the Palestinian leadership and people. The Israelis will slowdown construction and see how the Palestinians respond.

My bias is that the Palestinians will continue attacks in Gaza and continue killing Israelis wherever they can because the only peace they will countenance involves the destruction of Israel.

If I made that sort of claim about Israelis, I would never hear the end of it, and rightly so. But this sort of claim is made about Palestinians all the time. There are Palestinians who want this, no doubt, but there are also Isrealis who want nothing less than the biblical god given borders. The majority of people on both sides, IMHO, just want the whole goddam mess to be over, and some sort of life to be possible. As it is, the Palestinians come out of this worse of, every way. They are already expected to take 20% of what they had at first, with Israel controlling strategic parts of their lives forever, and yet we are told they are turning down offers that are so good they are stupid and irrational. From their point of view, all they have ever done, (from what I can read), is that they have resisted the takeover of their country. A pretty simple and understandable premise.

What is your prognosis?

I don't know about Sharon's flipflop. Nixon did it when he went to China. In fact it was because of his hawkish, distrustful, historical posture on communism that we accepted it. We knew he wasn't coming home waving a Neville Chamberlain piece of paper.

A lot of hawks trust Sharon. Because of his past he will have more credibility to say "Now is the time, countrymen."

You know that history better than me. Was it Israelis who assassinated him or other Palestinians. I'd like to know that history. Can you give some examples?

I'm sorry, I was not clear in that post. The assassination was the assassination of Yitzak Rabin, (sp?). He was actually prepared to compromise, (though not necessarily end), the settlement movement, which appears to have had broad based support from all governments, even if the people of Israel do not appear to have supported it.

There is also the curious case of the rise of Hamas. The Israeli government actually helped to get it started. Why is a good question.

Don't confuse the intifada with terrorism. The intifada is a popular uprising and civil disobedience campaign, it is not a part of the suicide bombings. You can have Palestinians who support either, both or none.

 

[Atlas]

If I made that sort of claim about Israelis, I would never hear the end of it, and rightly so. But this sort of claim is made about Palestinians all the time. I'm sensitive to that. I explicitly offered it as bias and then tried to make it a hypothetical prognosis if in fact Arafat dies soon. I believe Arafat has been more of an obstacle to peace than the Israelis. I imagined you feel differently.

There are Palestinians who want this, no doubt, but there are also Isrealis who want nothing less than the biblical god given borders. Agreed.

The majority of people on both sides, IMHO, just want the whole goddam mess to be over, and some sort of life to be possible. As it is, the Palestinians come out of this worse of, every way. They are already expected to take 20% of what they had at first, with Israel controlling strategic parts of their lives forever, and yet we are told they are turning down offers that are so good they are stupid and irrational. From their point of view, all they have ever done, (from what I can read), is that they have resisted the takeover of their country. A pretty simple and understandable premise.

Perhaps that is so. But that has never been their argument. Their argument has always come across as: the destruction of Israel is necessary and good. They have clung to that message even after they have promised to abandon it, haven't they?

I'm sorry, I was not clear in that post. The assassination was the assassination of Yitzak Rabin, (sp?). He was actually prepared to compromise, (though not necessarily end), the settlement movement, which appears to have had broad based support from all governments, even if the people of Israel do not appear to have supported it. I remember Rabin but Barak is still around.

There is also the curious case of the rise of Hamas. The Israeli government actually helped to get it started. Why is a good question.

Don't confuse the intifada with terrorism. The intifada is a popular uprising and civil disobedience campaign, it is not a part of the suicide bombings. You can have Palestinians who support either, both or none.

I don't know the history or origin of Hamas. Countries do make counterproductive strategic decisions. Installing the Shah seemed like a good idea to us but after a couple decades it led to the Ayatollah.

I have confused the intifada with terrorism. Probably because they are both instigated by Arafat and both are killing innocent Israelis and use many of the same tactics. (edit: I did believe suicide bombing was a part of intifada's tactics but it does use weapons other than sticks and stones.)

 

[Mycroft]

Don't confuse the intifada with terrorism. The intifada is a popular uprising and civil disobedience campaign, it is not a part of the suicide bombings.

By what basis do you claim terrorism is not part of the intifada?

 

[The Fool]

Sure you can have an opinion, that doesn't automatically make your opinion informed. What's makes you informed about the Middle East conflict when you have never been to the middle east? How can you truely understand what is happening there when you just use your internal filter and pick and chose stories off the internet from 10,000 miles away in Australia?

Do you understand how silly this is making you look? Attempting to dismiss peoples positions because they have never set foot in the country?

so baCk to my question....are all your opinions on any topic outside of the US and Israel uninformed?

 

[a_unique_person]

By what basis do you claim terrorism is not part of the intifada?

Because not all people taking part in the intifada are terrorists.

 

[The Fool]

By what basis do you claim terrorism is not part of the intifada?

If I choose to walk down the street and chuck stones at the occupying troops I could see how my actions are part of something commonly called "The intifada" However I would hardly classify them as terrorism.

Take the example of the US "war on terror"(our word for intifada) does the torture of prisoners count as part of the war on terror? Do all criminal acts by coalition troops count as part of the "war on terror"?

There are many and varied acts of resistance going on by many and varied groups, most of which know nothing of each others plans or actions....I know there are many people who like to believe there is just one source of co-ordination and control behind it all but to me its fairly clear that much of the violence directed at the occupying army is simply localised action right down to individual children deciding to peg a rock at a soldier.

 

[Jim Bowen]

But I wanna give you a chance to put me in my place. Show all the JREFers what part of your nonsubjectivity in this thread - (about a wall to stop suicide bombers) - covered the topic of islamic fundamentalism and the problem of suicide bombing? How about the part of your nonsubjectivity that covered the islamic fundamentalist terror groups like Hamas, Al Aksa or Islamic Jihad who send women and children suicide bombers? How about the part of your nonsubjectivity that covered the Palestinian Authority's failure to stop any suicide bombing since the first one ten years ago?

You are the one claiming you are more qualified to comment on the Middle East due to your nonsubjectivity. Here is an excellent opportunity to use your posts in this thread to validate that claim. [/B]

I think if you took note of the posts that disagree with your views, you would have noticed that I have called for both sides to come to a compromise. I'm still interested in why you think that only people who live in Israel are really fit to comment on the situation in that region.

Jim Bowen

 

[Mycroft]

Because not all people taking part in the intifada are terrorists.

Many of them are. My question is on what basis do you exclude terrorism as part of the intifada?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
Mycroft,
OK, fair enough.

Then let me ask you this.

You seem to think that land that is not currently occupied by Palestinians should be open to whoever wants to migrate there and build a settlement. Do I understand you on this?

No, not really. Earlier I told you my purpose was not to defend the settlements, but to correct the way they are portrayed. The future status of this land is uncertain as far as issues of political sovereignty, so it seems to me anyone buying and building on it would be taking something of a risk. I imagine people buying land in Hong Kong in the days when it was still ruled by the British felt they were taking something of a risk too, but it didn’t stop them.

Your statement of misunderstanding goes to the heart of the very question I asked you. Assuming the land is legally purchased, in what way does building a housing development intrinsically harm the Palestinian-Arabs? These developments are portrayed as the reason for Palestinian-Arab hostility, and that claim, by some, is taken at face value without skepticism.

Originally posted by davefoc Then do you also believe that Palestinians should just be able to move into Israel and start building settlements on any piece of land that isn't occupied currently?

An interesting question. I can think of some scenarios where that could happen. Suppose, for example, a peace agreement involved a one-state solution instead of two? Or suppose years after a two-state solution had been implemented successfully, and the violence had been forgotten?

Suppose some Chinese people purchased some land in Israel and built a housing development? Would Israelis start killing them, or would it just become like Chinatown in San Francisco?

Originally posted by davefoc Or is your point that even if the Israeli government wouldn't allow non-Israelis to just move in and start setting up settlements a Palestinian government doesn't exist therefore there's no authority to forbid the setting up of settlements by foreigners so even if popular opinion amongst the Palestinians opposed foreign settlements it doesn't matter. No government, no restriction on foreign settlements, no moral issues with Israel setting up settlements in Palestinian territory?

Calling it "Palestinian territory" presumes an agreement that hasn’t been reached yet.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why would you think that chucking stones has to be terrorism before you call terrorism part of the intifada?



Why wouldn't it?

The prisoners were tortured to make them easier to interrogate, what could be more part of the WOT than that? Just because it was wrong doesn't make it not part of the WOT.



And all these "varied acts" are part of the intifada. Some of these "varied acts" include terrorism.



Many of them are. My question is on what basis do you exclude terrorism as part of the intifada?

On that parts that are acts of terrorism and the parts that are not. Civil disobedience, throwing rocks that troops, etc, are not terrorism.

 

[The Fool]

Many of them are. My question is on what basis do you exclude terrorism as part of the intifada?

I don't. Acts that are clearly terrorist acts are obviously seen by the people that do them as part of the intifada.I don't have a problem with that. The vast majority of the palestinian resistance is slightly less dramatic than bombs... Roman soldiers dodged showers of stones, the popularity of occupying soldiers has not changed much today.

what I do have a problem with is Intifada=terrorism. They are two different things.