roberto wrote:

scott wrote:It's times like this I wish the US would just nuke Israel and put an end to all this bullshit.

I don't understand how comments like this can be tolerated and further more applauded by some on this forum.
Imagine the uproar of outrage if someone suggested that
The US nuked Palestine or Lebanon.... ‘to end all the bullshit’

In an otherwise intelligent and fair discussion, im surprised no one raised an eyebrow at such an ignorant, stupid and racist comment....

[funny]Oh don't mind Scott, he's the board's pet fascist. His collection of nazi-related guitar paraphernalia is second to none.[/funny]

Earwicker wrote:You said you couldn't believe the lack of objectivity regarding this situation I think leveled at anti-occupation arguers but I might say the same thing at those supporters of Israel (if that's what you and others are?).

Do you agree with what the Israeli government is doing?
If not what would you do instead?

I think my views are pretty objective. Feel free to read through the thread if you'd like. I am a supporter of both the Israeli's and Palestinian's right to exist. I am in favor of a viable Palestinain state and of the Israeli's right to defend themselves, preemptively if necessary. I also support the wall, provided it follows the green line. It is the most effective way to prevent bombers from entering Israel.

I agree with the principles of the Israeli response (not rewarding the militants, punishing them relentlessly) without condoning their tactics (bombing of the power station, reckless endangerment of innocents).

AlBStern wrote:I agree with the principles of the Israeli response (not rewarding the militants, punishing them relentlessly) without condoning their tactics (bombing of the power station, reckless endangerment of innocents).

So what would your tactics be?

And, as you are on both sides, do you therefore also agree with the principles of certain Palestinians responses even though you don't agree with their tactics (walking onto crowded buses and blowing themselves and others to smithereens)?

Earwicker wrote:

galanter wrote:
Don't be naive.

What happened when Israel *was* at the 67 borders? They were attacked that's what.

It's been a while since I went through this but I seem to recall it was Israel who attacked - pre-emptively.
Yes, Nasser and the others had been sabre rattling and mobilizing and Israel and Syria had been spatting over their border but Israel launched the offensive.
And let's not forget what led to the sabre rattling. Israel had joined in with the Frogs and the Brits to attack Egypt over it's desire to nationalise the Suez Canal. They backed off after UN pressure, ten years later Egypt told the UN to leave. Escalation - 1967 War.

I suppose you also think Israel started the war on the day of the inception of their state? This is why looking backwards will never solve the future of the middle east. There are multiple contradictory texts, and there is no way to reconcile them. Folks who demand "first history must be addressed" just prolong the problem. The focus should be on todays children not yesterdays fathers.

Earwicker wrote:

galanter wrote:It doesn't matter where the border is. Wherever it is those who have vowed to wipe out Israel will go up to the line and start launching missiles.

Of course it matters where the border is. Now you're being naive.

Bad writing or a misreading or something. What I am saying is there is no evidence whatsoever that moving the borders will end hostilities. A number of parties deny Israels right to exist. If the borders are moved to the 67 lines, or whatever, that will just become the new front in a war against Israel. Israel pulls out of Gaza and Lebanon and what happens? Rocket attacks from right over the border. What evidence is there that the 67 borders will stop attacks on Israel? None. What there *is* are vows to wipe out all of Israel. Why don't you take them to task for that?

Earwicker wrote:

galanter wrote:When Israel had internal radicals they literally dragged them out of Gaza kicking and screaming.

What exactly do you mean 'had internal radicals'? They have them.
You're doing it again - making me think you are being wilfully ignorant.
If Israel pulled back to the 67 borders Israels biggest problem would not be from the Arabs it would be from extremist Zionist groups within Israel.

Again bad writing on my part...but also you have a tendency to take any ambiguity and give it the worst possible reading. What I am saying is that Israel has demonstrated a willingness to deal with its own internal radicals. They used their own army against their own people to achieve the pull-out of Gaza. Can you imagine how difficult that was? The world has hard evidence that Israel is willing to deal with their internal radicals.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have elevated their internal radicals to elected office. Countries like Syria and Iran fund Hammas and Hezbollah as attack pawns so they can fight wars and then deny fighting wars. The world has hard evidence that many of the Arab states support and make heros of their internal radicals.

Which action contributes to peace, and which to never ending war?

Earwicker wrote:

galanter wrote:(As if they would magically stop at the 67 borders...where is *any* evidence that that's true?)

Since 67 most other Arab countries have recognised Israel's right to exist and accepted the only solution is a two state one.
I am sure that peace wouldn't happen immediately (and I qualified this when I made the statement you quoted) but they would starve the extremism of oxygen if they pulled back.

The situation as it is now is clearly not leading to peace either so something radical is needed. I say, after being asked, they should either pull back to the '67 borders (my preference) or get it over with and kill all the Arabs to make the problem go away (not my preference) what's your solution?

Israel wasn't driven out of Gaza or Lebanon. They unilaterally pulled back. It would have been nice, for example, if the Arabs would have said "this is a positive step. In return we will cease military action on those fronts. As Israel recedes to other parts of the 67 border we will cease military action on those fronts as well".

Something like the up-side of tit-for-tat. Reward cooperation with more cooperation.

What happened instead? On the day Israel left Gaza Hammas was dancing in the streets like a bunch of macho idiots celebrating their "great victory". Then they started launching rockets from the new border.

Something "radical" is needed alright. Hammas, Hezbollah, and most importantly their sponsors Syria and Iran have to come to radical acceptance that Israel is not going away, and that quid-pro-quo peacemaking leading to a two state solution offers the only positive future for their children.

Think for a minute about the nature of negotiation in general. Unions going on strike, or dickering over the price of a car. The way success is achieved is for each side to take small steps towards a middle ground. The world should put pressure on *both* sides to take those small steps towards a middle ground. Why hasn't this happened?

I am afraid the reason this hasn't happened is that Hammas, Hezbollah, and even the Palestinians are merely pawns of Syria and Iran. They don't negotiate because they can't negotiate because they aren't in command of the situation. In this sense the Palestinians are victims of other Arab states as much as they are victims of Israel.

It's a mess, but I suspect that if the world would put equal pressure on Israel and Syria and Iran problems with Palestine, Hammas, and Hezbollah might start improving.

History would seem to indicate that treating this simply as a problem between Israel and the Palestinians will not work because the others involved won't let it work.

Earwicker wrote:

AlBStern wrote:I agree with the principles of the Israeli response (not rewarding the militants, punishing them relentlessly) without condoning their tactics (bombing of the power station, reckless endangerment of innocents).

So what would your tactics be?

Aside from the power station and the overly reckless bombing in populated areas, I think they are doing the right thing

Earwicker wrote:And, as you are on both sides, do you therefore also agree with the principles of certain Palestinians responses even though you don't agree with their tactics (walking onto crowded buses and blowing themselves and others to smithereens)?

If by principles, you mean protesting the occupation and trying to gain back occupied lands, then no I don't have any problems with it.

If I were them (the Palestinians), I'd encourage massive, ongoing peaceful street protests, sit-ins etc. The civil rights movement all over again. Bring respected speakers in from all over. No guns, no masked militants, no talk of vengeance. Show that they want to live as peaceful neighbors. They just want their rights restored. I have no doubt that large numbers of Israelis would happily join in. Most people want peace. It would send a powerful message. MLK Jr accomplished a lot more than the Black Panthers.

(Hey look everybody, I'm a hippy.)

galanter wrote:
Don't be naive.

What happened when Israel *was* at the 67 borders? They were attacked that's what.

Earwicker wrote:It's been a while since I went through this but I seem to recall it was Israel who attacked - pre-emptively.

galanter wrote:
I suppose you also think Israel started the war on the day of the inception of their state? This is why looking backwards will never solve the future of the middle east.

Hey, you brought up Israel being attacked in ’67. Which was a/ in the past and b/ well, not actually in the past.

You can’t resort to history to back up a claim and then criticise when someone else does it. That goes double for you because unlike me you don’t think the historical background matters (or should matter).

Earwicker wrote:
Of course it matters where the border is. Now you're being naive.

galanter wrote:What I am saying is there is no evidence whatsoever that moving the borders will end hostilities

I didn’t say it would - completely. I said ‘as near as that region will get to peace’ or words to that effect.

Earwicker wrote:

galanter wrote:When Israel had internal radicals they literally dragged them out of Gaza kicking and screaming.

What exactly do you mean 'had internal radicals'? They have them.

galanter wrote:Again bad writing on my part...but also you have a tendency to take any ambiguity and give it the worst possible reading.

Apologies if I misunderstood but I wouldn’t have said it was that ambiguous.

galanter wrote:What I am saying is that Israel has demonstrated a willingness to deal with its own internal radicals.

Would you call someone who comes from Sheffield and moves into territory illegally occupied (according to everyone but Israel) and then claims, ‘well this land is ours’ when asked to justify the expulsion of an Arab family from a house it has held for several generations an ‘internal radical’?

If so, what the fuck is Israel doing about them? (And don’t bring up the Gaza pullout cause several of them are being rehoused in the West Bank or, as that is an inconvenient truth, are you going to dismiss it as ‘historical’)

If you don’t think they are ‘internal radicals’– why not?

The only acceptable answer (for me) is they are not ‘internal radicals’ because the land they are on is not inside Israel!

galanter wrote:(The Palestinians, on the other hand, have elevated their internal radicals to elected office.

Here’s some more history for you. Sharon was ejected from the army for being too radical. He was a war criminal.
Oh, hang on, can’t mention it, it’s historical.

galanter wrote:
Israel wasn't driven out of Gaza or Lebanon. They unilaterally pulled back. It would have been nice, for example, if the Arabs would have said "this is a positive step. In return we will cease military action on those fronts. As Israel recedes to other parts of the 67 border we will cease military action on those fronts as well".

Something like the up-side of tit-for-tat. Reward cooperation with more cooperation.

What happened instead? On the day Israel left Gaza Hammas was dancing in the streets like a bunch of macho idiots celebrating their "great victory". Then they started launching rockets from the new border.

Has something given you the impression that I think the behaviour of Palestinian extremists is clever?

Ghandi – that’s who they should be taking after.

galanter wrote:
The world should put pressure on *both* sides to take those small steps towards a middle ground.

Agreed, but at the moment pressure is placed much more heavily on the Arabs. And in terms of taking small steps Israel is a massive giant while Palestine is a cripple in a wheel chair (an appropriate metaphor if ever there was one (hang on, that’s referencing history again – red light! red light!))

galanter wrote:
It's a mess, but I suspect that if the world would put equal pressure on Israel and Syria and Iran problems with Palestine, Hammas, and Hezbollah might start improving.

Agreed again (yaaay!) so where’s this pressure on Israel?

And, again, if you were in charge of Israel right now – what would you do?

AlBStern wrote:

Earwicker wrote:And, as you are on both sides, do you therefore also agree with the principles of certain Palestinians responses even though you don't agree with their tactics (walking onto crowded buses and blowing themselves and others to smithereens)?

If by principles, you mean protesting the occupation and trying to gain back occupied lands, then no I don't have any problems with it.

If I were them (the Palestinians), I'd encourage massive, ongoing peaceful street protests, sit-ins etc. The civil rights movement all over again. Bring respected speakers in from all over. No guns, no masked militants, no talk of vengeance. Show that they want to live as peaceful neighbors. They just want their rights restored. I have no doubt that large numbers of Israelis would happily join in. Most people want peace. It would send a powerful message. MLK Jr accomplished a lot more than the Black Panthers.

(Hey look everybody, I'm a hippy.)

Then we are hippies together.

This is precisely what they should be doing.

(though I still disagree on your judgement of what the Israelis are doing)

Galanter, some ideas that I'd agree with there, a lot that I don't. Your insistence that all parties forget history, particularly recent history, is wrong. Bluntly put, pre-Israel, the Palestinians had there land, post-Israel, they've been shunted, exiled and put into a state of apartheid. If someone steals your wallet, would you sit happily in the bar feeling penniless whilst the thief waves your cash around and drinks fancy cocktails? The point that I keep coming back to is that the Palestinians are living in genuine poverty and Israel has consistently stood back with its arms crossed saying, "well, tough, you can have this tiny bit back, but the rest? We've got guns and God on our side."

I would also maintain that the Israeli army was forced out of Lebanon, and that the celebration of the locals was proportionate. No-one likes having nervous, aggressive and rude youths with automatic rifles threatening you on a regular basis. The firing of rockets from this regained land is wrong, but then again so are the regular Mach 1+ flyovers by Israeli jets and various other acts of non-violent aggression by the other side. Both are being childish.

Where I do agree with you is that it is wrong to maintain that Israel should be dismantled. Too much time has passed, too many new generations relatively untainted by the crime of land robbery have made a good living off the land. But again, I repeat that some reparation should be made. I would say that this is on the same moral basis as the return of Nazi gold and stolen property to the families of Holocaust survivors. The monetary side to reparation would improve some trod-upon lives, but more importantly the acknowledgement of guilt would go some way to bridging the communities. (You have not mentioned the fact that the recognition of Israel by Arab countries is already well on its way, and that until the current US and Sharon administrations came in, there were signs that the more radical pro-Palestinian parties were moving to accomodation.)

ALBStern, I wish for the same civil rights movement in the Occupied Lands. I just have a horrible feeling that they would have the complete shit kicked out of them. And even ignoring the power station/airport bombings, Israeli retaliation for the kidnap of two soldiers is utterly insane and bloodthirsty. At the current score, which is how it is tempting to present things, this looks like eight eyes for an eye, eight teeth for a tooth.

Earwicker wrote:And, again, if you were in charge of Israel right now – what would you do?

None where it counts - the guys who sell them the weapons and jet aircraft.

In response to Earwicker's question:

First, unlike most neighbors, Israel is a democracy so no one person is in charge. So I would have to deal with a lot of internal politics.

But assuming I had mastery of the local political scene I would shout from the mountain tops a commitment to a two state solution and challenge the current Palestinian government to do the same.

Leaving aside any question of the borders until later, the world has to expect the other side to say in principle some kind of 2 state solution is the goal.

If such a commitment was made in no uncertain terms by Hammas and others I would no longer have to insist they retract their commitment to the destruction of Israel. I would just move forward as if they had implicitly by making the 2 state commitment.

(The 2 statements are a contradiction, but who cares. Hammas is too macho to reverse this position, so a face saving way for them to do so must be found).

I would find ways to reward Gaza for peaceful coexistence, and not just penalize them when they are not peaceful.

I would cease current military strikes in Lebanon with the exception of very specific Hezbollah targets near the border, and try to wind that down too.

I would open secret negotiations with the current lebanese government, and try to lead towards a joint proposal to the UN for assistance in driving Hezbollah troops out of the country. (The UN has already passed a measure long ago that Lebenon is required to do this).

I would spend some of my wealth on education programs near the borders with mixed classes of Israelies and Palestinian youth. Free classes and free lunch and free transportation for those who want to participate.

I would ask for US aid to create agricultural and technology transfer programs with Palestine. Rather than fighting over how to cut the land-pie I would try to grow the pie by creating more good land.

I would also try to hold Syria and Iran publicly responsible for the troubles in the middle east. I would argue that they have no more business being involved in Palestine than Israel, and if they would get out of the way Israel and Palestine might be able to make peace.

I don't have all the answers, but this is the tone of what I would attempt.