BOAZ,

You answer to Sandgroper was unsatisfactory. You rely on two tried and trusted techniques employed by the Israeli lobby.

First you claim that an accusation is simplistic and doesn't take into account the whole picture. Then you claim blame can be apportioned to either side in different circumstances. This basically admits that Israel attacks its neighbours. But more importantly it allows you to move to the second part of the 'how to deflect an accusation' handbook.

And that is of course, obfuscation. This you do well by making irrelevant comparisons to Australia, broader nebulous historical forces, some bible quotes and the mother of them all, the struggle for very existence of Israel (Mmmmm).

You simply provided an apology for the many aggressive attacks Israel has made on it's neighbours.

And you say I have no credibility…

David Boaz

It is obvious you want to refute facts by sugesting they aren't conclusive or aren't relevant

I'm tiring of your bigotry, criticism based on assumptions and lack of logic. I don't have time to enter into a prolongued debate with a bigot and don't intend to post anything more in this forum.

If you want a bigger picture here is one of many more I've found that I could present to refute your assertion that Israel hasn't been agressive to its neighbours

Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,' writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.

SANDGROPER
don't despair of making valuable progress in this thread. You misquoted me or misattributed that I claim 'Israel never attacked it neighbours' I did not say that. I said.. 'there is another side of the coin' Of COURSE Israel has attacked, and been attacked. That is my point. I can't quite work out how you just want to see it in one direction ? Groper, it seems you have submerged in the quicksand of the 'day to day'. How do u define a starting point for all this ? This is the problem. It all began in not 1948, but in AD70, when the Jews were exiled by the Romans. 1948 was just the 'latest episode'. Each side seems to pick the point in history which most supports its own view. Thats why I keep hammering on the 'big picture'. The starting point for 'really' understanding this conflict goes back to Abraham. (Genesis 11, 12 etc) You can see the beginning of the Arabs and the Jews, and the ultimate source of the conflict.

It seems you want to 'convert' me into believing "The Arabs are the good guys, Israelis are the bad guys" but my position is that they are both good and bad at different times and circumstances.

JOSH

"You simply provided an apology for the many aggressive attacks Israel has made on it's neighbours."

Josh, I don't need to apologise for the IDF actions. They can do it themselves. Its just plain unfair to speak of the 'many aggressive attacks on their neighbours' in isolation from the events leading up to those attacks. I mean..c'mon.. u have done clear thinking... right ? How can u understand ANY event apart from its context ??????
A text without a context is a PRETEXT. Just so with international events.

The assumption behind that statement appears to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that Israel must just lay down and wait till it is attacked before taking action to defend itself, when it knows full well what is about to happen. (have u heard of intelligence ????? )

But who needs intelligence when the president of Egypt says:

"In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser (Egypt) answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State. Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose; on March 8, 1965 he said:

'We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.'

Now..even blind freddie can see where this is heading, but apparently you cannot ?

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_backgd.php

~~~

"From early 1965 to the Six-Day War in June 1967, the PLO through Fatah pursued a consistent policy of border attacks, particularly along the Jordanian and Lebanese borders. Criticism of these activities by the Arab governments and by local public opinion persuaded Fatah leaders to adopt a new approach known as "the entanglement theory." This involved using sabotage to force Israel to adopt an offensive position, which in turn would force the Arabs to step up their military preparedness. This cycle of action-retaliation-reaction would lead to a gradual escalation of tension on the borders, and eventually to the Six Day War in 1967.

In 1965, 35 terrorist raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.

~~~

A few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' goal to be:

.".. the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

Now.. lets be fair here, these quotes are WRONG or they are RIGHT.
Dont go anywhere else, dont call me a bigot like sandgroper did, dont rummage around the dictionary or thesaurus for cute words to attack me,

JUST RESPOND TO THIS. and do it FACTUALLY WITH SOURCES.

Otherwise u definitely will not only have zero credibility you will also be the laughing stock of the thread.

EXTERNAL FACTORS.
"On May 13, 1967 a Soviet parliamentary delegation visited Cairo and informed the Egyptian leaders that Israel had concentrated eleven to thirteen brigades along the Syrian border in preparation for an assault within a few days, with the intention of overthrowing the revolutionary Syrian Government. This was a complete fabrication designed by the Soviets to destabilize the Middle East"

Don't forget the Egyptian closing of of the Gulf of Aqaba.

check this ANTI Jewish site, where some of the same quotes (from the same bibliography) are found.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-genocide-middleeast.html

If u can show me the quotes are WRONG. I will apologise unreservedly.

but by this time you probably feel 'obfuscated' so I draw your attention back to the main point I was making. "You cannot JUST look at what Israel did in order to condemn it, u must look at background and both sides"

UNLESS.. u have a specific anti "Israel_can_exist" political agenda u seem to feel will be advanced by your comments here.

David Boaz
"my position is that they are both good and bad at different times and circumstances."

HOO-BLOODY-RAY

Thats the point I've been trying to make all along

You have not been forthcoming with this view point till now. I don't think any of the other people in this forum would argue against you on this point

I said I was on Israel's side till they they took the occupied teritories. Perhaps it may have been necesary. But with the backing of the USA (see previous post) and having the 2nd most powerful airforce in the world Israel was in a position to take the smallest of risks to be conciliatory thus raise the prospects of a peaceful settlement.

Israel's beligerence is akin to belting a hornets nest with a stick to get rid of it.

There are better ways than trying to achieve an end than through military conquest. Nothing has ever been successfully resolved though fighting as any sane person will agree. The human spirit is too resilient to be snuffed out by bombs. Israel is dragging the rest of the world into conflict. Only they are in a position to offer an olive branch as they are the stronger party in the conflict. If the Palestinians were to do that it would be seen as a sign of capitulation.

Aussies used to be able to travel safely thoughout the world Now we are high profile targets for Arabs who simply see themselves as freedom fighters due to clumsy US middle-east policies and John Howards sychophantic groveling to the USA. I've been accused of having the Arabs as pin up boys just because like most I can predict human behaviour and understand & state their point of view. I'm angry that I have to be fearful of travel because of Israels refusal to take a tiny risk and negotiate a resolution. Now that Arafat is out of the way the time is right

Before you accuse me of being a lefty I've been a office bearer of the Liberal party

I've broken my vow not to post again but your statement of blame being attributable to both parties prompted me to endorse that particular view. Its a pity you cant be completely objective and unbiased and see the conflict from the point of view of both sides. Both sides are terribly wrong in my view I'm scared of Arabs and don't support their methods but the same goes for Israelis too

You are right that both sides blame the other for starting the conflict If it started in this day and age a resolution would most likely be negotiated. It's a chicken and egg situation and the world needs to get both sides to negotiate and compromise for the sake of every creature on this earth

Just imagine how different things would be in the middle east if the USA had helped to set up a Palestinian state 50 years ago and had offered Palestinians a substantial sum of money for the land given to the Jews.

In current day values the USA has given Israel 3 billion in economic and military aid annualy since 1948. If half of that had gone to Palestine for hospitals, schools and factories I'm sure any trouble that may exist would be miniscule by comparison to what we see today

BOAZ,

I agree you need to look at the context of Israel attacking its neighbours. I also agree Arab countries would have liked to push Israel into the sea. The speech you quoted by Nasser illustrates that pretty well. Personally, I don't like all the Arab talk about rivers of blood etc. Sadaam also talked like that and it didn't do him much good. It seems to be part of Arab culture and unfortunately to us it just sounds medieval and stupid. But you shouldn't forget it had a propaganda value: to generate hysteria in Israel (its still going) and to sum up his support among the peasant masses in the Arab world - context remember.

I guess the context is where we differ. For each of the many times Israel has attacked and occupied lands from its neighbours you see Arab armies being poised to attack. This may have been confirmed by intelligence. Well, firstly the intelligence could be wrong - just ask the Iraqi's about inaccurate intelligence, it cost them 100000 lives. Secondly, armies poised to attack is not the same as attacking. I was in Rajasthan, India (along the Pakistan boarder) three years ago when the two countries amassed something like a million men along the border. As both are nuclear armed, estimates were that 10 million people would die in the event of war. In the end tensions were diffused and conflict avoided, but of course had either of these countries adopted Israel's 'preemptive doctrine' there would now be ten million people dead. I guess the bottom line is the Arabs didn't invade; Israel did. Justifying attacks after the fact is called propaganda.

More importantly however, in terms of context, it WHY the Arabs called for the destruction of Israel. The Europeans persecute the Jews so that's seen as an excuse to rob the Palestinians of their homes. Why don't you put yourself in the position of a Palestinian? Your forefathers have lived in that land for millennia and then suddenly you lose everything. How would you feel?

As I've said before, in historical terms Israel is illegitimate; it has proved a disaster for regional stability and world peace. Imagine how the world might have looked without Israel (sigh..). However, like I've also said before it's here now and it's not going anywhere. In the early days it was a fight for survival, but even though those times have long passed Israeli rhetoric has stayed the same. You seem to believe they're still under threat; I don't. It's in their interest to appear the underdog, to appear a persecuted victim. But the truth today is much different. It's by far the most powerful nation in the region. It's under no threat by any of its useless neighbours. There's also Israel's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons acting as a strong deterrent. And I bet the existence of these weapons is a lot surer than Sadaam's or Iran's.

To me the only justification you can provide for the existence of Israel is the biblical one. You know I don't believe it. However, perhaps you can clear up a theological point for me anyway. I thought the destruction of the temple was seen as God driving the Israelites out of the holy land for whatever reason (probably sin). But I've heard it asked why, if God kicked them out they should be allowed to return now. Has God asked them back?

Hopefully this wasn't too difficult to understand (I've tried to keep big words down to a minimum).