No it doesn't "all come down to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank." It actually comes down to the original misguided Zionist campaign, starting in 1897, to set up an exclusive apartheid Jewish state in someone else's country. Nothing good could ever come from this, as we now see so clearly. As for all those awful Muslim dictators, so many were in fact imposed and supported to the hilt by the USA, those lovers of freedom and democracy except when it comes to oil. The dreaded Saudi regime is a case in point. And the rise and rise of Islamic militancy is an understandable reaction to endless meddling in the region, including support for Israel's land grabs. For instance, would the mullahs have gained power in Iran so easily if, way back in the 1950s, the CIA and MI5 had not replaced the democratically elected Mossadegh with the compliant Pahlevis in that cheap coup. And then taught the Shah how to torture his subjects. Meanwhile the freedom loving Brits kept tinpot dictatorships going in places like Jordan and Oman, putting down any unfortunate movements towards democracy and justice there as well. And wasn't Saddam Hussein himself helped by the West in various ways? As someone in the State department once said, "he's a bastard but he's our bastard." In short, if the Arab/Muslim world is becoming a tad uncivil and anti-Western, what's to be surprised about ?

I notice that kang has just posted. Is there a kodos out there as well?

Just add to what Kang has already said, If the west wants to support the middle east then they must stop supporting the middle eastern Governments. The 911 terrorist didn't come from Iran they come from Saudi Arabia. As for the Jewish sate of Israel well that say's it all really as long as it is a Jewish state propped up by Jews around the world, and not a secular one. Then the Arab dictators have some to deflect their anger of its people somewhere. Yes they do do that but that doesn't mean there is any grounds for that anger.

After reading "Kang" I thought I had to post just anything to refute his idiocy. I mean it would be one thing if it represented an opinion but, to cobble together random bits of anti-Jewish rhetoric, and present it as rational thought, well, like the man said, "you can't fix stupid."
Anybody want to jump in with some actual history of the M.E. Apparently Kang thinks Israel was created inspite of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Can we post a map of the M.E. circa 1946.

Kang:

Thank you for proving my point. According to you, it's all the fault of someone else - either A) the Zionists and their "misguided campaign" that began in 1897; or B) those evil Western imperialists and their Middle East meddling. You reliably trot out the old "understandable reaction" excuse.

Heaven forbid that the Arabs should come to terms with their responsibility for the mess that is the Islamic Middle East. It is so much more convenient to blame the other. This sort of cultural immaturity poses a far greater impediment to progress in the Arab world than anything Israel, the US or the UK have done.

And by the way, Kang, the upshot of your comment is that you oppose the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland.

It's funny that you say "nothing good could ever come from this [Zionism]. I would have thought that a big humanitarian such as yourself would appreciate the fact that the Jews have managed to create the only nation in the Middle East that consistently features freedom of the press, freedom of speech and government rule by the authority of the ballot rather than the bullet.

In fact, until the free elections in Iraq and Lebanon in recent years, the only Middle East Arabs who were the beneficiaries of democratic rights were those who are lucky enough to be Israeli citizens.

But then, you seem to think that democracy isn't such an important thing, after all.

Good article.

While I can understand the anger at Western meddling, the author is right in saying the majority of their woes are home grown, and they need to look inward more than outward to sort out the regions issues.

The fact is these tribes were doing a stellar job of killing each other well before there was any western influence or Israel, and I dare say they'll keep on with it regardless of Israel's existence, or the west. Look at Palestine and Iraq. These people will never truly unite, since they hate each other as much as the west or Israel.
Would the Sunni & Shiite militias really stop the mayhem if the Allies pulled out? Of course not, but the death toll along with everything else there is somehow the fault of the Coalition. The reality is responsibility for the vast number of deaths can placed squarely on the shoulders of... you guessed it, other Muslims.
The coalition doesn't detonate car bombs in busy markets, killing & maiming hundreds in one hit.

It seems to be a common thread within Islam, whereby they never take responsibility for their own actions, and blame everything on some outside group, ask that group for help, then blame them when they fail to sort out their mess for them, starting the cycle again.
Many of those who live here engage in the same rubbish at the local level, always crying racism or discrimination at the drop of a hat. A bit rich when one considers how multi-cultural Australia is.

Imagine if Western people & governments went on with this kind of blame shifting & hatred, rather than working together to sort out their domestic problems. How many Hitler types would have come to power by now through the frustrations of the populace?
World War III would have come and gone many years ago, and maybe even WWIV, and that's if we didn't blow the world up in the process, but hey we haven't since we are for the most part reasonable HUMAN BEINGS.

KANG.....

given...that Australia is the result of the momentum of history and the supermarket where you go to buy your munchies was once Aboriginal land... I find your condemnation of Israel rather dodgy.
You accept on a daily basis the result of injustice to support your present life, but you condemn the SAME historical momentum occurring in Israel which you describe as unjust.

Now..Imagine if we whiteys had PREVIOUSLY inhabited Australia, but due to some bigger power, had all been exiled to England.. but then, we got out act together and CAME BACK... would you have no sympathy for our efforts ?

This is the case for Israelis.. it was Jewish for over 1400 yrs from Abraham to Christ, and the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and exiled the Jews. Now..this is a very well documented fact of history.
Most of the Arabs in Israel/Palestine came with Islamic Invasions..I have little sympathy. At least they are not being systematically beheaded in batches like Mohammed did to the Banu Qurayza Jews.

So, I'm afraid you have very little ground on which to stand in your condemnation of Israelis/Jews reversing a terrible crime of history.

The difference between them and say our Indigenous people, is that they had the guns and numbers.

Robert Mugabe, in his rather stumbling way is also reversing a crime of History and in principle he has my total support. 10% of Rhodesias population (white) taking 90% of the best land and leaving the remaining gravel heap for the 90% of the black population was not our finest historical hour. Mugabe KNOWS this, and HAS the numbers AND the guns, and thus, is DOING something about it.

The saddest thing about Israel today is that they have forgotten the Lord their God, who brought them out of slavery in Egypt.... most are secular.

Ted 's pro Israeli propaganda piece is based on a wrong assumption: the terrorists are representative of Arab states and Arab peoples.

It's like saying Shane Warne is representative of Australians. Everyone is proud of him for his efforts but almost eveyone despises his excesses of wanton immorality.

'...the vital interests of the Middle East’s sole democracy...'

Ted's arrogrance and holier than thou attitude doesn't accept nor want the existance of democracies among the Arab nations.
Lebanon is trying democracy: Result Israel attacked Lebanon.
The Palestinians are trying democracy: Result Israel is trying to overthrow the elected Palestinian Government.

I wonder what Freud would make of Ted's statement.

Further, on a re-read of Ted's propaganda, many of the blatant racist statements in the article could be used to describe Israel.

Let's have a few:

'...rulers themselves have made catastrophic policy decisions that have wrought havoc upon their own people.'

'... with power comes responsibility. But despots from Baghdad to Benghazi have schemed and manoeuvred to enjoy the former while eluding the latter.' (Including Israel)

'...has long featured the propensity for avoiding unpleasant home truths by shifting blame to external enemies.'

'...is overdue for a long hard look in the mirror that will reveal its wounds to be largely self-inflicted...'

'...this eternal quest for the guilty “other” has an infantilising effect that precludes any possibility honest self-appraisal.

This final quote is typified by Ted's current propaganda piece. The blame is all on the Arab side...eh Ted?

'The resulting political culture of delusion and denial has sown the seeds of social and economic stagnation throughout the Levant'

Ted so prophetic, for Israel is part of the 'Levant' but we all hope peace arrives before your prediction comes to fruition.

Ted we all see, just like Tony Blair and Jim Baker that it takes two to tango. Why can't you and your mates?

Over the last 60 odd years the solutions Israel has adopted haven't worked for peace. The exceptions Egypt and Jordan. And of course those peaceful renedies were forced on a reluctant Israel by it's friend the US.

That's happening again.

I'm going to waste a post.

Ted

This movement for peace by the US and Great Britain has it's seed in that destructive campaign in Lebanon.

Israel over stepped the mark and the West finally woke up.

The West Bank and East Jerusleum belong to the Palestinians.

Take a look in that mirror Ted, see the occupation and land stealing for what it is.
Why don't you make your work express a desire to ensure the return to Palestine of all those lands rather than continually getting into this stupid blame game stuff of which your article is so typical.

If you work for peace it will will reign. You current attitude can only ensure a continuation of the past

Despite all the statements directed back at kang, everybody seems to have conveniently ignored the facts he has presented and gone straight for the emotional angle.

Perhaps there IS a cultural problem in the Middle East inhibiting a clear resolution but the West certainly has played a major historical part in what we see there today.
It’s a historical fact – announced in their Parliament - that the official policy of the British government was always to keep the Middle East destabilised to prevent it from becoming a united force. That’s why the borders were drawn up the way they were after WW1.
Together with the other western countries they taken several controversial steps to protect their own interests.

Israel has played a part in most of these activities too and cannot keep playing the perennial victim. One only has to look at the fallout from the Suez crisis to see how Western foreign policy can backfire – just as it is happening now in Iraq.

I also note an approving reference to Mugabe -a perfect example of the ends justifying the means.

Perhaps this is what is at the root of all the problems in the Middle East.

I also assume that BD would morally support a campaign of terror by dispossessed aboriginals if they ever decide to rise up and take back their ancestral lands.

Stomont – you may be interested in the history of the car/truck bomb and see who popularised its use.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=76140

Finally, keith says that efforts over the last 60 years haven’t worked for peace.

We could give it another say 40 years, or just admit that it isn't working and we need to try something else.

If we have all played a part in creating the mess, we should all be prepared to seek a mutually agreeable solution but you can’t have a conversation while everybody is shouting at each other at the same time.

Ted

I agree with " right of the Jewish people to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland" but that also applies to other peoples in the region, in fact the whole world.

Your use of the term Jewish also intirigues me, surely you mean Israeli. Or do you have to be Jewish to live in Israel

rache

I don't think that the West played any part at all in the bitter enmity between the Shia and the Sunni.

Or for that matter in the inequality between the sexes, or a growing culture of encouraging children to kill themselves. These things are an anathema to the Western ideals.

A policy of divide and rule only works when there are already serious divisions in a society. And nations like India, with a large Muslim population, Singapore, Korea and Taiwan all with similar colonial exploitation have somehow progressed very nicely.

The West might have played a part in the problems of the middle east but how much of the fault must be acknowledged by the Arab people themselves?

Ask yourselves what difference would it have made if Israel had not been there? I suspect very little.

Steve I hope that I have made a point forcefully but without shouting.

Israel now has greater threats to worry about than Palestinian activism.

Hezbollah appears to be building a credible force that Israel has not been able to attack successfully in the military sense or in terms of the battle for western public sympathy.

Iran's moves towards building nuclear weapons have to date gone unchecked. The Saudi's are countering this by considering their own future nuclear weapons potential. So Israel will soon not have its traditional and (until recently) unspoken nuclear dominance over its Middle Eastern neighbours.

Hopefully cool heads will prevail and Israel won't attempt preemptive strikes against nuclear ready Muslim states.

But this is the Middle East. Noone should hold their (one day irradiated) breath.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

You can't whinge about the existance of Israel and state but, it was created by those colonial imperial bastards the British and is therefore artificial and can go. But that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, also equally created by British influence can stay, and are not artificial because they're Arab. Or that an artificial Arab people were created and named Palestinian that the world never knew about until the borders of Israel were carved out of the sand but that there is no such thing as a naturalized Jew.
That Palestinians and Israelis have serious issues to resolve in order to become good neighbours is not at issue by either side. To say that the surrounding Arab states have had no play in the current reality that is the case of the "Middle East vs. Israel" is laughable and utter nonsense.
Funny how the Arabs are comfortable with the borders imposed on them by the hateful British but just can't accept Israels.

I think the Arabs major problem is their religion. Islam was a successful and modern religion in the 12th and 13th centuries but today it has become a political and social straightjacket. Moslems seem incapable of attending to their many problems and find it easy to blame others for their general mismanagement and inability to cope. They are adept at organising a rent-a-crowd for some perceived slight to their fragile religion or inducing compatriots to blow themselves up in its defence. The Middle East has the opportunity to modernise and build infrastructure with its oil wealth but they chose to blame the rest of us and fight among themselves while entwined in a religious stricture.

'Finally, keith says that efforts over the last 60 years haven’t worked for peace.

We could give it another say 40 years, or just admit that it isn't working and we need to try something else.'

Not quite what I said. But hey try selling your sentiment to the Israelis and their propagandists anyway.

'... you can’t have a conversation while everybody is shouting at each other at the same time.'

No and equally you can't hold a reasonable conversation while one participant has his jackboot held squarely on the throat of the prostrated other participant.

RAche... would I support an Aboriginal terror campaign ?

Nope.. all that would do is bring about their total annihilation.
They have neither the numbers nor the weapons.

They should have killed Cooke and company and every white face which ever set foot on this place THEN.. now, its too late.
There is a big lesson in that for our current situation, but killing is not the answer, 'immigration policy' is. I we don't learn from the Aboriginal situation, we deserve everything we get.

MIDDLE EAST structured for instability ? No Rache, it was cobbled out by a number of Nations.. France, England etc.. and was not set up to fail, quite the opposite. It just failed anyway. The French were silly, if anyone set it up for failure, they did, (So I agree with you there) by including a lot of Syrian Shia into the new lebanon nation, thats why we have such a strong Hezbollah now.

Keith.. you naughty boy you.... so many half truths, so much ignoring of history. *smack*... "East Jerusalem "belongs" to the Arabs ? woooo...dare I say 'how did they get it' ? and then dare I say, "Did not the Israelis get it BACK the same way ? :)

David

East Jerusalem was mandated to the Palestinians by the UN in the 20th century. It's title is not claimed by reference to some book with a Hebrew bias in which the Hebrew 'God' gave title to the Israelites.

You need to get into the 21st century way of thinking and leave all that disgracefully flawed thousands of years old fundamentalism behind.

Then at least you might have a little credibility when you accuse others of being liars.

Can't help but laughing at your silliness...keep it up. Especially the bit about your 'final solution'. Would you apply that same solution to indigenous Australians?

"You need to get into the 21st century way of thinking and leave all that disgracefully flawed thousands of years old fundamentalism behind."

So the Arabs have moved "...into the 21st century way of thinking..." and left "all that disgracefully flawed thousands of years old fundamentalism behind."?

The only move they've made is to modernise their weaponry, and push their thousand year old agenda on the rest of the world, not just Israel.

How can you expect one side to do that while the other outright refuses to in everything they do, and you seem to support this behaviour. Does the word hypocrisy mean anything to you?

"East Jerusalem was mandated to the Palestinians by the UN in the 20th century" True, but Israel was mandated to the Jews, and the Palestinians are incapable of leaving Israel alone or respecting those "mandated" borders, which is why the Israelis have created buffer zones around themselves, like any sane person would when surrounded by crazy people. The Arabs want it all for themselves purely out of anti-semitic hatred, similar to your anti-semitic attitude. You would have done well in Nazi Germany. Only difference being my grandfathers would have had the opportunity to bomb the bejesus out of you along with all the other racist ratbags who they nailed. People like you and the Arabs have been blaming the Jews for everything under sun since time imemorial. Thank God there are those of us who won't let you get away with it anymore.

It's a ridiculous statement to make in reference to this issue considering which side is living in the 13th century, and trying to drag the rest of us down to their level.

rache, whomever invented or popularised a weapon is irrelevant. Is every war since the invention of the gun the fault of the inventor, or the first army which 'popularised' it's use? So you'd blame the Chinese for the gun? I mean, they invented gun powder.
Just because the Stern gang used car bombs, doesn't justify their use in Iraq, Bali, Thailand, or the Phillipines now does it?

Dear "Logical" I was not presumptuous enough to leave the ? off my user name. Nevertheless I enjoyed your contribution.

Stormont your ignorant personal attack and slur is an utter disgrace. A retraction and apology is in order.
.

Keith, I'm sorry if I offended you, but your comments left me with little doubt of your position.

You are essentially defending the Arabs right to destroy Israel, and for that I'd say you are the one who should be apologising.

Is that not racism to you, or are you too blind to see your comments for what they are?
You clearly have no problem with blaming the Jews for all the problems in the ME, and considering my step-father is a holocaust survivor, and my ancestors died trying to stop said holocaust, I found your comments very offensive, and quite frankly I have no time for people with your attitude.

At least I'll concede both sides are at fault, rather than believing the Arabic 'we never do anything wrong' propaganda, which blind Freddy can see is a lie.

To me, your' outright dismissal of Ted's article as "Israeli propaganda" is exactly what I accused you of, anti-semitic, and there can never be peace in the region if all the blame is put on Israel (or on the Arabs for that matter), which is exactly what you did! It's sad to see this attitude still exists in this country since so many men died (clearly in vain) to end it. Maybe you should have a look in the mirror as you suggest others need do?

So no, I won't cede to your demand for a retraction, nor an apology since you made personal attacks against other posters, or are you the only one allowed to attack others?
Now who does that sound like?

I won't argue with fools stomont.

retract and apologise

Surely the point is that Jews Muslims and Christians have all made their home in Israel. There are people of all faiths who were born there and live there. They get on quite well together in comparison with other countries in the region. In modern terms this should give them all a right to be there.

And I keep repeating, though this is continually ignored or brushed aside, what about the half of the Israeli Jewish population who are descended from ancient middle eastern or North African Jewish communities? What are their rights given their treatment in those countries after the Arabs invaded? They were in the same position as the Palestinians and in similar numbers.

What do Hezbollah and Hamas intend to do if they ever gain control of Israel? Set up a secular state with equal rights for all including women?? Israel has such a tiny land area compared with the rest of the Islamic world and has no natural resources like for example oil and gas. Why are the Muslims so keen to own it?

Your inflamatory statements remain on the public record.

I object to:

'... like any sane person would when surrounded by crazy people. The Arabs want it all for themselves purely out of anti-semitic hatred, similar to your anti-semitic attitude. You would have done well in Nazi Germany. Only difference being my grandfathers would have had the opportunity to bomb the bejesus out of you along with all the other racist ratbags who they nailed. People like you and the Arabs have been blaming the Jews for everything under sun since time imemorial.'

1. You claim Arabs as crazy people. That's a racist slur. You stupid fool.

2. You claim Arabs are Anti Semitic. The Arabs are a semitic people. You stupid fool.

3. You claim I am anti-semitic. I have a differnt opinion to you therefore I'm anti-semitic? This is the usual mode of attack of racist anti-Arab Israeli propaganda merchants. You stupid fool for adopting such a blatantly stupid mode of attack. Again the Palestinians are a semitic people.

4. You claim in Nazi Germany I'd have done well. In Nazi Germany liberal open-minded people like me were persecuted. Stupid narrow-minded bigots like you supported the stupid narrow-minded national socialists. The evidence paints Israelis as stupid narrow-minded socialist racists. You stupid fool.

5. You seem to claim your grandfathers went to war and the Second World War was fought to rid the world of racist ratbags. I hate to have to tell you but the second war was fought to rid the world of oppressors of freedom. The riddance of racist ratbags was a consequence only. The oppressors were people undertaking actions the same as those currently being imposed upon the Palestinians by Israelis. You've cheapened the memory of the sacred sacrifice of many. You ignorant stupid fool.

6. You claim I blame the Jews for everything. I've only ever refered to Israelis actions. I once supported Israel. I changed my mind. You stupid fool.

Your attack confirms I was very wise. I'd never support a bunch of ignorant narrow-mind cowardly racist ratbags like you.

Keith Kennelly.

keith

"The evidence paints Israelis as stupid narrow-minded socialist racists."

This does not sound like the views of a liberal open minded person. That statement is just as ridiculous and just as hurtful as claiming Arabs are crazy.

Keith, Stomont cool down and be a bit more objective. And what about the Jews from Arab countries?

It is only you and stupid stomont who refer to Jews. Why is that?

Why didn't you criticise stomont's excess when you had the opportunity. You had over 24 hours. Your admonishing me is hollow and uncalled for.

keith

I only referred to Jews in terms of Israel where it was relevant.

And I did criticise stomont's excesses. I could not do that in that 24 hour period because like you and others I am subject to limitations in time. Besides I am debating, I am not a policeman.

Rubbish on both points.

You try to equate what I say about Israel as criticism of the Jews. So does stormont.

You never criticised David when he called me a liar either. It took you less than an hour to criticise my response to stupid Stormont and 32 hours to critise his initial disgraceful spiel. You acted like a policeman protecting his mates.

keith

To tell you the truth I never read David's offerings in great depth. If he called you a liar it would have been something I did not read. It is not my sentiments. My response time is related to what other activities I have and what other debates I have engaged in.

I do not equate your criticism of Israel to a criticism of Jews. It may be my inadequate writing if I gave you that impression.

If I offended you it was not my intention and I apologise. My reason for butting in on your argument with stormont is that I think both of you were getting too explosive, and I prefer a debate. I now understand better the Arab viewpoint as a result of discussions.

I do not regard Israel as an apartheid or racist state, and I do think both sides have faults and both should acknowledge them.

Good article, Ted.

Keith, cc: BOAZ_David, Stomont

Keith: "East Jerusalem was mandated to the Palestinians by the UN in the 20th century."

Actually, it wasn't. The last UN decision re the final status of Jerusalem (East and West) was Res. 181, the 1947 Partition Plan, which mandated that the city be internationalized. This resolution was rejected by the Palestinian leadership, and is today moot. In the Olso Accords, Israel and the PLO agreed that Jerusalem's final status is subject to negotiation between the parties, not that it is "mandated to the Palestinians".

Keith: "The evidence paints Israelis as stupid narrow-minded socialist racists... You try to equate what I say about Israel as criticism of the Jews. So does stormont."

Keith, whether your bigotry and prejudice is just as distasteful and offensive whether directed against the entire Jewish people or the entire Israeli people.

So let's return to the borders as mandated under UN Res 181 and leave Jerusalem as an internation city.

Yep state you equate what I say about Israelis with Jews. That Just proves I'm not racist and that you are.

You really are showing yourself to be that stupid stomont, and your foolishness continues to show it's boundlessness.

Every time you open your mouth it's confirmed.

sganot

To me personally when you use abusive language I wonder if it is an advantage to have you on the same side as me. Please stop it.

Some aspects of this debate are becoming silly, I feel embarrassed to be involved.

Logic,

Old-fashioned anti-Semitism has fallen out of favor in polite company, especially since the Holocaust. Thus, some people try to shield their views from direct criticism by hiding behind more socially acceptable, politically correct prejudices -- against Zionism, against Israelis, etc. But few anti-Zionists are principled, consistent opponents of nationalism or self-determination for peoples throughout the world. Most are quite happy to enjoy the benefits of their own nation states, homelands, etc., and likewise support maintaining the sovereignty of pretty much every state in the world, and extending national independence to additional groups – the Palestinians, Kurds, Tibetans, etc. -- while the promote denial of the same to the Jews.

Other than sheer hypocrisy and an anti-Jewish double-standard, what can explain why some people acknowledge that more than a score of Arab states, as well as dozens of other states with various ethnic, religious, and linguistic identities -- Chinese, Korean, Greek, German, Irish, Croatian, Thai, Russian, Polynesian, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., can exist, while the one Jewish state must be destroyed?

Keith says he isn’t anti-Jewish, but he is shockingly comfortable telling us that “the evidence paints Israelis as stupid narrow-minded socialist racists”, comparing us to supporters of Nazi Germany. He apparently feels it necessary to deny the embarrassing accusation that he is bigoted and prejudiced against millions of Jews, but “corrects” this by showing that really, his bigotry and prejudice is directed against millions of Israelis. To me, this is just as distasteful and offensive.

I cannot understand what "abusive language" you think I used. The only explanation is that you confused me with someone else.

Sganot,

You are full of it!

First let's correct your obvious error. No-one decent is trying to deny a home for the Jews. No-one decent is trying to deny the Israeli state the right to exist. Except the extremists. You start your criticism of me with those simple fallacies. Throw some mud and it might stick? Those, now refuted, claims were intended to prejudice anything anyone might think about me sfter reading your later accusations.

Let me state catagorically ...just so you understand, my postion.

I believe Israel should exist within the pre '67 borders. Equally I believe Palestine should be allowed to be unoccupied by the Israeli's and the soverignity of all illegal settlements should be returned to a Palestinian free state.

That is my position. It has been placed on the public record a number of times.

Yet you say I believe in the destruction of Israel and therefore am anti semitic. How can you justify that position on the basis of my oft expressed views?

Yes I said

'the evidence paints Israelis as stupid narrow-minded socialist racists'

They elect socialist Governments. (That's just plain stupid in a liberal democracy.)
They refuse and dismiss the peace overtures of the Arab League. (That long term is sheer stupidity)
They continually claim, like yourself, Arabs only want to see the destruction of Israel. (Yep narrow-minded given the experiences of Jordan and Egypt.)
They have different laws for different racial groups within Israel. (That's racist.)
They continually believe violence will ensure their existance. (That's both narrow-minded and stupid)

That's a start. Now is my statement correct or not? Is it racist or not?

Now let's deal with your misrepresentation of what I've said:

The world went to war because Nazi Germany overran Poland and occupied the place. They were oppressors. Israel overran Palestine ('67) continue a 40 year occupation and repress the Palestinians. They are oppressors.

Is that an unfair comparison?

Now if you cannot comprehend what I have said you would be exactly the same as that other defender of the unjust and bastion of stupidity and foolishness, Stomont.

keith we are coming together on general principals and that is great.

But the analogy with Germany I believe has some serious errors. Germany was not threatened by Poland when it attacked. Israel had already been attacked by the Palestinians and other Arab countries, several times before. It was during such an attack on Israel that Israel fought back and took the Gaza strip, Golan heights and Gaza and the West Bank all of which had been used as a base to attack it. The stated rhetoric of the Arab states was to destroy the Jewish state.

Occupying the territories was an understandable attempt to remove a hostile element. What happened after that is muddied by the refusal of the Arab world to remove its opposition and by hawks in the Israeli government to a stage where an understanding by the two sides is becoming difficult. The arrival of Arab Nationalism and the Islamic fanatics has made things much worse.

Israel has one legal system for everyone.

I agree wholeheartedly about the settlements and have made that position clear many times.

What,s wrong with democratic socialism? Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands thrived on it although it has now probably passed its use by date.

sganot you have accused keith of being as being distasteful and offensive and insisted that you know his motives. Keith in turn has been very abusive, I would rather that stopped and we confine ourself to the argument - that is just my preference, otherwise things escalate everyone gets angry and we fail to learn from each other.

Yes Logic we have graviated towards a common ubderstanding. I accept such has mean't a great deal of difficult giving on your part. That's generous and admirable.
The same unfortunately cannot be said for many Israelis and their supporters. The desire to cling to Palestinian lands and the insistance of the 'spoils of war' judtification hamper the peace process in the mid-eazst and indeed here in OLO.

I however must call issue with your statement regarding the Arab world and it's calls for the destruction of Israel. I must remind you much of the Arab world has dropped it's insistance for the destruction of Israel and again point two Egypt and Jordan and the peace initiatives of the Arab League. I mmust also point to the removal of that insistance from the Hamas Party election manifesto prior to the Palestinian election. The continued reliance on this aspect in defending Israel's provocative acts and occupation is disturbing. It shows a commplete lack of trust in the Arab peoples and their Governments. I agree the extremists are the major problem. But as I see things support would waver for them if Israel was fair dinkum in it's desire for peace and took genuine steps towards ending the occupation and returning soverignity of all Palestinian lands ('67 Borders)to a soverign Palestinian state. I'd contend aupport would largely evaporate should the occupation cease.

Islamic fanaticism has been around for centuries.

Israel has one law for one and another for others in it's conscription requirements.

True socialism has had it's day. It was found to be unworkable. Long term greed takes over ... naturally ... sadly. Unfortunately it is not just extremists in Israel it is both Lukid and Labor who have similar attitudes to the occupation. They are both hawkish. They are not minorities.

I do become agitated when wrongly accused and in the face of outright lying I react badly. However I take your point and fair criticism. In future I'll temper my comments and merely poke fun at my stupid antagonists.

keith

Firstly I wonder if anyone else is reading our discourse.

Anyway re different laws in Israel conscription is waived for certain Jewish groups, and for others it perhaps is because Israel does not expect others to risk their lives for the predominately Jewish state.

I have not really had to give much as I am not actually one eyed in my thinking, as with you I want to see peace and an end to the suffering. I have a high regard for the Arab people and their culture but do not have your confidence in the Arab governments. I hope though that on this subject that you are right and I am completely wrong.

Two questions:

I have told you that I am Jewish, is your background Muslim or Arabic, I am just curious?

Also when you type in comments to OLO does a spell check appear or did mine come with the latest Firefox upgrade.

Israel will be destroyed.
Arab tyrants will be overthrown.
Islamic Law will be revised.
East and the West prosper.

Anglo celtic. NZ by birth, spent all adult life in Brisbane. Parents: one Irish Catholic, one liberal athiest. The later was more sussessful. I'm probably agnostic infidel.

Who wants peace in the Mid East?

To all you defenders of Israel please explain! Especially you Ted!

Headline in todays New York Times:

First Settlement in 10 Years Fuels Mideast Tension.

Read the bloody article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

The Israelis are nothing but a bunch of land thieves and causes of the disruption in the mid East. This is absolute proof. Ehud Olmert is merely another lying Israeli PM.

Who can trust any of them?

Keith “East Jerusalem was mandated to the Palestinians by the UN in the 20th century. It's title is not claimed by reference to some book with a Hebrew bias in which the Hebrew 'God' gave title to the Israelites.”

But the Palestinians went to war and lost it. Some might say give it back, because of what the UN decided. Others would say “the Spoils of War”.

The political principle of “the spoils of war” has been used and applied throughout the millennia and the edicts of the UN has occasionally been implemented, baring vetoes in the security council. To my way of thinking, unless the UN can guarantee future peace, it has no right to impose national borders.

Oh, keith, here is not a place to bother to try to climb aboard a high moral horse and demand “retract and apologise”.

The biggest beast allowed is a shetland pony and I always feel a little ridiculous sporting full armour and chain mail, sat majestically astride a beast upon which my feet still touched the ground.

Is it democratic to force democracy on people?

Kaith

I do not know why the Israelis do not just tell the refugees to go back to jordan! They became Jordan's responsibility after Jordan illegally invaded, occupied and annexed the West bank in 1948/50. Jordan annexed and considered the Pals their own, even offering citizenship. The current situation on the West Bank is totally the fault of Jordan's and the Pal terrorist-nutters themselves.

Why should Israel put up with this nonsense any longer? We Australians certainly would not!

The Pals are the world's biggest whingers and ingrates. They are an undeserving pain-in-the-ass and it is time to shut up their tedious mewling.

Col

Damn I’ve borrowed my mate’s mother’s show horses. They’re Clydesdales and I’ve got a cannon, body armour and camouflage. I’ll win a war with stupid fools any day.
But Col ‘flaming’ posts such as stomont’s are usually removed. His wasn’t so I reacted…I know abysmally. I should have asked David Boaz to have him/her ethnically cleansed.

But anyway if you use the ‘spoils of war ‘ defence then you cannot grizzle when Arab states and terrorists say they are going to push Israel into the sea or when they eventually destroy it with nuclear bombs. You defence can only lead to war.

You are right on one count though peace can only be guaranteed by both sides and not imposed by weak outsider organisations or governments. I think a nuclear armed Iran and the US will eventually settle the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

Neocommie

David Boaz will be pleased you support his very unjust and unreasonable ‘final solution’…ethnic cleansing.
And here, silly me, I always thought the pommies were ‘the world’s biggest whingers and ingrates’.
Your thoughts lead me to doubt your authenticity. Are you really fair dinkum Australian? You know with your racist attitude and penchant for Nazi tactics? We modern Australians listen, debate and seek resolution we don’t ethnic cleanse.

Mickijo

No definitely not…but I reckon it reasonable to remove any condition that denies the choice.

Keith:

As usual, the selectivity of your outrage never ceases to amaze and amuse. You are indignant over the first Israeli settlements in 10 years, presumably because they "fuel Mid East tension" (per the NYT) by violating the Road Map peace plan.

But what does the Road Map really say? The preamble to the document states that peace will only be attainable when:

"the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty"

And a bit later on, the Road Map stipulates that the Palestinians must:

"declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere."

But in January this year the Palestinians elected a jihadist government that is dedicated to the proposition that Israel must be destroyed. A few quotes from the Hamas covenant make this rather clear:

""There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised."

And let’s not forget the 1,500 Qassam rockets that have fired into southern Israel since the disengagement from Gaza in August 2005. Hamas purportedly has observed a “tahadiya” (truce) with Israel, but as the sovereign PA government it has done nothing to prevent its sister jihadist groups from shooting rockets into Israel.

Thus the Road Map has been nullified by Palestinian words and deeds. You say nothing about Palestinian terrorist violence towards Israel, but then you get your knickers in a knot when the Israelis build a few homes in the West Bank because they purportedly violate a treaty that has rendered moot by Palestinian action

Re Keith,
According to Keith what we have in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a good old 18-19 century Euro border dispute. If only Israel would return to the 1967 border, all would be well, & they would live happily ever after.

Keith is victim of his own Euro centric mindset.

It is not about a piece of land - “occupied lands” & the 1967 war are the SYMPTOMS -not the cause.

Israel does not occupy any Iranian land-yet Iran is foremost in its anti -Israeli advocacy .
Israel does not occupy any Saudi land -yet the Saudis at govt level heavily fund anti-Israeli forces, & at a non-official level provides many of the foot-soldiers for terror groups .
Israel does not occupy any Egyptian land -yet many of the terror leaders are of Egypt origin
Likewise to a lesser extend most countries of the region, & in foreign policy at least, Indonesia & Malaysia.

The heartland of these countries is captive to common ideology.
An ideology whose leading-lights can, without fear of sanction or rebuke call for :
-Israel to be driven into the sea & its women to taken as the spoils of war.
-All non-Moslems to be driven out of the Saudi peninsula
And who operate on the principles:
- If you attack me it is an offence, if I attack you (even on your holiest of days ) it’s OK
- If I take or desecrate your holy site it’s Ok . If you seek to build on mine its sacrilege

The antagonism wont be defused by Israeli withdrawal -or US isolation -or any of the other little Keithian formulas.

It would much more likely be solved by the protagonists opening up their societies ,allowing free & open debate, & alternate interpretations of current/world events , & by allowed their peoples access to competing creeds.

So Ted you think you've found a way to justify land stealing?

Two wrongs never make a right Ted.

Was the invasion of Lebanon part of the road map Ted?

Look Ted in a democracy parties and people standing for election issue a list of policies. It's called an election manifesto. It is what parties or individuals are elected to carry out. Quite simple really, in fact so simple that it doesn't usually even need be explained. But here we are explaining it to you. Now does that really say you lack an unbderstanding of the basics of democracy? Probably? Why Ted? Is it because it doesn't suit you and your arguments? In the case of Hamas they dropped the demand for the destruction of Israel from their election manifesto. You continually ignore this basic operation of democracy. Is it merely that you simply cannot bring yourself to trust Arabs from who you support the stealing of land?

As for a few houses on Palestinian land ... Ted there is no scale of right or wrong in this case... well maybe your particular ethical standards allow such but most of us don't. Our simple decency and morality determine even one house built illegally is wrong.

Ted ceasing the building of houses might no longer be part of Israel's road map but surely even you can understand it can only lead to further friction and eventual further violence. Regardless of any local accord the action still violates the articles of the Geneva Convention. Oh but that's right you continually choose to reject that internationl conventional, we all accept, as piece of bs too don't you?

Why is it you reject the conventions and the morality the vast majority of us true believers in democracy and freedom of the individual abide by?

You might find my attitudes amusing but I find yours will only lead to violence. And we can all understand, with the arrogrance contained in some of your latest post, exactly why.

Keith Kennelly

keith

The Arabs stole Jewish and Christian land. They attacked long standing Jewish homes in Hebron and took them for themselves. In Iraq murderous actions against ancient Jewish communities forced the people out. In Egypt pressures on Jews and Christians forced them to leave. In all cases the Arabs were relatively recent conquerers. Jews were forced out of Yemen and in the Palestinian territories pressures are on the Christians with occasional killings.

In the UN mandated sections of Israel Arabs are claiming the lot not even making allowance for the Jews who fled Arab lands (about half of the Jewish population).

In Europe many Muslims are entering the countries, often illegally and then trying to radically alter the social landscape instead of fitting in with populations who sheltered them like all other immigrants have done. And would you really blame Israel for the bombings in India, Bali, London, Madrid, or for the wars between the Shia and the Sunnis?

But keep it up. Your arguments are so full of holes it is a pleasure to debate with you.

Keith:

You claim:

"In the case of Hamas they dropped the demand for the destruction of Israel from their election manifesto."

Well, I guess Mahmoud al-Zahar, the Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority's Hamas government, never got that memo. At a Hamas convention in the Gaza Strip on 20 October 2006, al-Zahar said:

"Israel is a vile entity that has been planted in our soil, and has no historical, religious or cultural legitimacy. We cannot normalize our relations with this entity."

And in an interview the next day with the Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat, al-Zahar elaborated on the Hamas agenda:

"We [aim to liberate] all our lands. If we have the option, we will establish a state on every inch of land within the 1967 [borders], but this does not by any means imply that we will relinquish our right to all the Palestinian lands. We want all of Palestine from [Ras] Naqura to Rafah, and from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river."

(For the geographically challenged, that means all of Israel proper, pre-1967, and even pre-1948)

So the Hamas dedication to the cause of Israel's destruction isn't a mere "election manifesto," as you claim. It is a central tenet of jihadi theology that is at the core of the Hamas (and al-Qaeda) world view.

What you don't seem to be able to comprehend the impossibility of trying to make peace with someone who doesn't believe you have a right to exist - especially if they try to enforce that belief through terrorist violence.

Moreover - you accuse the Israelis of land theft. On what basis other than treaties (Oslo, Road Map, etc...) that have been scuppered by the intransigent Palestinian refusal to eschew terrorist violence and genocidal war aims?

(BTW - you should recall that in a previous exchange I conclusively refuted your claim that UNSC Res. 242 provided such legal grounds. You'll have to do better than that...)

Ted

I’ve explained once how democracy works. I’m not going to do it again. Why can’t you comprehend the operation of democracy?

I understand the impossibility of trying to explain things to people who are intransient.

Tell me Ted exactly which neighbouring Arab Government has currently a declared policy of wanting to destroy Israel or who has not refuted such a policy?

Here is what you reject in UN Res 242.

‘…Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; …’

There in UN Res 242 are the words expressing the ideas we all know and accept are the key to peace in the Middle East.

Now Ted as you support the occupation and further Israeli land stealing…do you really want peace in the Middle East?

I think you do not. You’ll have to do better.

Keith
I have been watching your argument for some time and you still ignore the fact that Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people and the land was stolen from them firstly by the Romans and then by Islamic invaders. So please explain at which point this real estate became immutably the rightful possession of the descendants of those Islamic invaders? Because it seems to me that if you accept the legitimacy of the Palestinian’s claims to the land based on their acquisition of it as "spoils of war" then you must(to be morally consistent) accept that Israel's claim to the territory made on the same basis. Further it is no crime to retrieve from somebody, that which was stolen in the first place.

The reality of the world is that no people can sustain a claim to a territory that they cannot exclude others from.

None the less Israel has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to cede territory to acquire peace (the return of the Sinai to Egypt springs to mind) and the unilateral withdrawll from Gaza is a good example of one of the many opportunities for peace and state building that the Palestinians squandered on the altar of Jihad. Even the hated security fence would not exist if the Palestinians had not taken to sending suicide bombers into the cafe's and buses of Israel. The old adage that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity, to miss an opportunity is sadly still true.

Some how I expect you will trot out some justification for their tactics along the lines that the Palestinians are fighting a vastly superior military force; so I ask you now do you support the targeting of Israeli civilians in cafes and busses by the Palestinians

Allow me to answer on your behalf Keith.
I support the targeting of any Israeli civilian, who commits a criminal act.

Iain

I appreciate the decency of your questions and the legitimacy of the arguments you present.

I cannot at the moment fully respond...but it is my intendion to comprehensively respond.

Briefly though I will not trot out any justification for any of the violence but I will trot out a justification for a peaceful resolution.

Regards Keith

Chad “please explain”
Are you saying that all those civilians DELIBERATELY TARGETTED by Palestinians/Arabs in suicide attacks on Israeli buses/market places/restaurants etc were guilty of a crime ?

If so, what was the little old lady on a shopping trip guilty of, & what was the primary aged child on his way to school guilty of -what crime did they commit which was so heinous it justified death or maiming

KEITH:

You keep harping on about democracy as if it were in any way relevant to the issue at hand. I don't dispute that the Hamas government was freely elected by the Palestinian people.

So what?

If anything, it merely reinforces my point the no peace is currently possible because the Palestinians have democratically endorsed a jihadi government that is dedicated to the proposition that Israel must be destroyed.

You can't talk peace with people who want to slit your throat

Nothing in the definition of democracy mandates that foreign governments have a legal or even moral obligation to fund and support a government whose agenda they find to be obnoxious. And Israel, the US and the EU quite understandably, find Hamas to be obnoxious in the extreme.

You have a real talent for honing in on irrelevancies. And the patronizing tone that you adopt while doing so makes you out to be an even bigger dill.

I have previously explained, ad nauseum, why the 4th Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the West Bank. These cannot be considered "territory of a High Contracting Party" because the unilateral Jordanian annexation in 1949 never received international recognition. Thus the 1967 capture of the West Bank by Israel can arguably be considered the restoration of the territorial unity of the former British Mandate of Palestine. No foreign conquest - no 4th Geneva Convention.

Yet despite all this, Israel demonstrated a willingness to cede 95%+ of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinians. But Yasir Arafat figuratively spat in the faces of Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak at Taba in January 2001 and chose the war option instead. An exact repeat of the imbecilic error the Palestinians made in 1937 and 1947 when they rejected the Peel and UN partition plans.

But the truly fascinating thing about all this is the selectivity of your indignation. You seem to find Israeli homebuilding to be more offensive than Palestinian suicide bombings of commuter buses, restaurants and shopping malls

KEITH:

I do not deny that Israel’s security barrier causes inconvenience to some Palestinians, and economic loss to others. But the barrier has been effective in obstructing the path of suicide bombers into Israel’s heartland, with such terrorism declining by more than 90% over the past 24 months.

And let’s not forget that the barrier was only constructed after years of suicide terrorism caused even moderate Israelis to despair of finding a genuine Palestinian partner for peace. And as previously stated, the election of the jihadi Hamas government only validates that Israeli scepticism.

So when it comes down to annoyance and lost income vs the saving human lives, I think most people would opt to protect lives. Most people except you, Keith. Once again you appear to value Israeli lives less than you value economic and nuisance factors.

And as for UNSC resolution 242, I’ll tell ya what – when the Palestinians finally agree to:

“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”

then we can talk about making peace. But as I have conclusively demonstrated, the majority of Palestinians are unwilling to recognise Israel’s borders and right to exist peacefully as a Jewish state.

The Israelis withdrew from Gaza (and no it didn’t become an “open air prison” because the border between Rafah and Egypt is controlled by Palestinians) and what did they get? 1,500 rockets fired into Israel by Palestinian terrorist groups, that’s what.

That’s not much of an incentive towards the implementation of a unilateral withdrawal from most of the West Bank – which is the election platform that brought victory to Ehud Olmert’s Kadima party in the latest Israel parliamentary ballot.

Olmert’s “convergence” plan to pull out of almost all the West Bank is dead on arrival, courtesy of Palestinian terrorist violence. But I’m sure Keith will figure out some way to blame that on Israel, as well.

Keith: “No-one decent is trying to deny a home for the Jews. No-one decent is trying to deny the Israeli state the right to exist.”

Correct. Indecent people are.

Keith: “I believe Israel should exist within the pre '67 borders. Equally I believe Palestine should be allowed to be unoccupied by the Israeli's and the soverignity of all illegal settlements should be returned to a Palestinian free state.”

Great. Your position is virtually identical to that of many Israelis, and quite similar to that of many more Israelis (including myself). Most of us don’t favor a return to the exact pre-1967 armistice lines, but if it could achieve real peace and an end to the conflict, we’d be willing to go back almost to those lines, and in some areas, perhaps give up even more. We don’t make the mistake of talking about “returning sovereignty” to a Palestinian state, because there never was a sovereign Palestinian state. But if the establishment of such a state would contribute significantly to peace and justice, so be it.

Keith: “Yet you say I believe in the destruction of Israel and therefore am anti semitic.”

That isn’t what I said. You deny being anti-Jewish, but are openly anti-Israeli. For example, you called us “stupid narrow-minded socialist racists” and compared us to supporters of Nazi Germany. And later, you claimed “the Israelis are nothing but a bunch of land thieves and causes of the disruption in the mid East. This is absolute proof…. Who can trust any of them?”

That, Keith, is bigotry and prejudice, or what is popularly called “racism”.

Keith: “They elect socialist Governments”.

Sometimes.

In Israel as everywhere, social democracy, the welfare state, labor unions, etc. have gone through major changes. For better or for worse, neither the Labor Party nor the Histadrut are what they used to be. You are entitled to your opinion about Left and Right, but the idea that either is “just plain stupid” is, well, just plain stupid.

Continued…

Keith: “They refuse and dismiss the peace overtures of the Arab League. (That long term is sheer stupidity)”

All sides have dismissed peace overtures. Non-Israeli, non-Jewish friends of mine who are very sympathetic to the Palestinians (actually to both sides) have called the Arab League “peace overture” empty, a bad joke, not serious.

Keith: “They continually claim, like yourself, Arabs only want to see the destruction of Israel…”

No, that is what you claim we claim; it is your prejudice about us. If you wish to know what we really think, ask us, don’t tell us.

Keith: “They have different laws for different racial groups within Israel.” Baloney.

Keith: “Now is my statement correct or not?” Not.

Keith: “Is it racist or not?”

Your statement? Yes. Israeli law? No.

Keith: “Is that an unfair comparison?” Yes, absolutely, unfair and obscene.

Logic: “sganot you have accused keith of being as being distasteful and offensive and insisted that you know his motives.”

I could not care less what his motives are. His views about Israelis are distasteful and offensive.

Keith: “Israel has one law for one and another for others in it's conscription requirements.”

The reason Israeli Muslim and Christian Arabs enjoy an exemption from army service is so that they will not be forced to choose between loyalty to their country and to their “brothers” -- Palestinians and other Arabs who are in conflict with Israel. The Arab community is not clamoring to end this “discrimination”, but insists on maintaining it. Logic, it is not exactly because “Israel does not expect others to risk their lives for the predominately Jewish state”. After all, throughout the world, minorities (including Jews) are often conscripted and asked to risk their lives for countries where they are not the predominant ethnic group. And by the way, the Druze community is conscripted into the IDF (again, this is the explicit preference of their community). And while Muslim and Christian Arabs are not drafted, they may volunteer. Many Bedouins (who are Muslim Arabs) do just that. And many Druze and Bedouin soldiers have died defending Israel.

sganot

I stand corrected.

sganot

Your expressed views, just like Ted, show are not for peace in the Middle East.

Here's a question for your conscience.

Are you a warmonger and why do you condone and attempt to justify land stealing?

Next couple of days Iain.

keith

I cannot see any where that sganot condoned land stealing or promoted war.

It seems to me that if you have no good evidence you just make it up. Perhaps you are just acting as Devil's Advocate, but jump off the broken record of land stealing and consider for a moment the different treatment of religious minorities in Muslim countries and Israel and the stealing from Christians and Jews in Arab lands,

When Muslims acknowledge their own faults we can make progress towards peace.

Keith,

Of course I am for peace in the Middle East. This is my home and the home of many friends and loved ones, including my wife, children, and hopefully some day lots of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. How could I not want to enjoy the benefits of peace?

Likewise, nothing that Ken wrote makes me think that he wants war.

Am I a warmonger? No. Why do I condone and attempt to justify land stealing? I don't. And for the record, I don’t favor poisoning wells or drinking the blood of Christian children, either. Oh, and I also don’t have horns.

I am a bit curious about why you think I don't want peace, am a warmonger, and condone land theft. I'm tempted to ask in response whether you have stopped beating your wife, and why you favor taking kids’ lunch money, torturing animals, and raping disabled orphans. But the truth is, I didn't come here to waste my 350 words x 2 posts a day on that kind of a discussion.

If you do wish to have a serious, in depth discussion, I invite you to contact me offline at "sganot at gmail.com", or better yet, to join the "Jewish Palestinian Encounter" (http://www.salam-shalom.net/salam-shalom/salamforum1.html ), an online forum of Palestinians, Jews, Arabs, Israelis, and others who wish to discuss issues of common concern. It was offline for many months, and was recently revived. The discussion there tends to be fairly high level and respectful; participants tend to be quite knowledgeable and to bring interesting perspectives (whether I agree with them or not); the moderators don't have a lot of patience for people on any side who are abusive or promote violence; and there's no word or message limit.

sganot,

Nowhere have I seen by you acceptance of the basic Palestinian desires. They are the establishment of the Palestinian state and a return to the ’67 borders. Peace cannot reign until those two very legitimate and justifiable aims are fulfilled. If they are not fulfilled then war must eventuate … again.

I suspect I could show where you have defended the occupation and the establishment and/or retention of the settlements. I will not accept your usual generalised and racist ‘yeah but look at the faults of the Arabs’ protestations. We are talking about you and your attitudes to securing peace.

Who is Ken? I think you meant Ted? Ted has defended the occupation, once on the basis of examples of past actions of dictatorial leftist regimes. Ted dismissed establishment of new settlements as the building of a few houses. Ted never accepts the settlements’ sovereignty need be Palestinian.

For peace to reign both sides must accept the others legitimate conditions and desires for peace.

I think Israel’s demand is for a secure state. ie. acceptance of its right to exist and for all physical attacks and verbal demands to cease. That’s reasonable. Most Palestinians show an acceptance of these demands as do, most other Arabs.

I think you and Israel need to accept not all Arabs and one or two other Arab states are not going to fully accept Israel’s conditions; just as the Arabs and the Palestinians will have to accept some Israelis, particularly the extremist and fundamentalist Jewish organisations and groups within Israel will never accept a truncated Israeli state.

Do you realise the justification you use for rejecting the Arab League peace proposal is silly. Because a bunch of your friends say it was an empty gesture is no justification.
I’m told the demand for return of refugees to Israel was the sticking point, and Israel preferred George Bush’s Road Map allowing for negotiated borders.

sganot, if you cannot accept the Palestinian’s two basic conditions, you’re not for peace.

ps How’d you feel if I was a widower and parent to an abused daughter? Thoughtless sganot.

Ted Larpkin

Res. 242 has nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called "Palestinians." It was merely a set of negotiating parameters to guide the states party to the 1967 War. Israel, Jordan, and Egypt have signed peace treaties. The only outstanding issue is between Syria and Israel, which is to be negotiated bilaterally per 338, which superseded 242 in 1973.

I do wish the terrorist-luvvies in the West would drop this tedious and irrelevant 242 nonsense.

Keith

"Equally I believe Palestine should be allowed to be unoccupied by the Israeli's and the soverignity of all illegal settlements should be returned to a Palestinian free state.”

Given that there is no such place as "Palestine" or a "Palestinian free state," nor has there have ever been, and nor given the current disgusting behaviour of these people - will there ever be, one wonders what your idea of "Israel" is!

Simple neocommie

Pre '67 borders. I'd have thought that obvious. I've said it enough.

Keith, you indicate that the demands of most Palestinians, and of their elected government, are limited to return to the 1967 lines and establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. I disagree.

You seem to think that if Israel does not return to the exact pre-1967 lines, peace is impossible. Again, I disagree. On the contrary, I believe the demand that the conflict be settled exactly along those lines is a formula for ongoing war. And I believe that Arabs who cling to this mantra do so to avoid making peace with Israel, because they believe (with some justification) that time is on their side, and that war serves the long-term interests of maximalists and extremists on their side.

That’s what I think. But more significantly, during the Oslo interim period, Palestinian negotiators showed a keen understanding that return to the 1949 armistice lines is not in the interests of moderates on either side, and is impossible. That’s why they discussed alternatives that would, for example, leave the large Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. Likewise, the Beilin-Abu Mazen Plan did not recreate the pre-1967 line. Likewise, the line between Israel and Palestine as conceived in the unofficial Geneva Agreement did not recreate that line.

There have been many peace proposals over the years -- some serious and others mere declarations intended to establish that their creators have “peaceful” intentions. Plans that have no chance of being implemented are public relations gimmicks. Interestingly, the more serious plans have a great deal in common. Thus, it is often said that “everyone knows” more or less what the final status settlement needs to look like. Really, the large outlines of an agreement have already been negotiated multiple times. But the devil is in the details, both sides need the right internal and external political conditions to reach the only agreement that everyone knows is possible, and in the meantime, conditions on the ground won’t stand still for anyone.

Continued…

Since the mid-1980s, when Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank, all serious proposals have a few things in common, for example they include the establishment of a Palestinian state in the approximate borders of the West Bank and Gaza; they don’t exactly recreate the old Green Line, though the variation from it is quite small; and they reject any mass “return” to Israel for the descendents of Palestinian refugees.

Keith, if the 1967 border is not holy to either the Israelis or the Palestinians, why is holy to you?

Keith: “I will not accept your usual generalised and racist ‘yeah but look at the faults of the Arabs’ protestations. We are talking about you and your attitudes to securing peace.”

1) I say what I say, without regard to whether you “accept” it.

2) It is not my practice to deflect arguments as you describe.

3) Some of our discussion has been about me and my attitudes, and some about you and your attitudes. But the primary topic here ought to be Ted’s article, which was indeed about the need for Arabs to take responsibility for their own faults and problems. And there is nothing racist about it.

Keith: “Who is Ken? I think you meant Ted?”

Yes, sorry about that. Ted.

OK, I have more or less reached my 350-word limit. Rather than waiting another day to complete my response, and because we’re hardly discussing Ted’s article at all, but are dealing with many interesting issues far more related to the Palestinian-Israeli relationship, I will write the rest of my response on the Jewish-Palestinian Encounter website (http://www.salam-shalom.net/salam-shalom/salamforum1.html ) that I mentioned earlier. Keith, I urge you and other OnlineOpinion readers to go there to see the rest of my response (which I’ll write under my full name – Steve Ganot) and to continue the discussion. If you go to that site in a few days and cannot find my response on the main page, it will have been moved to the archives and will be available there (linked from the main page).

I can't resist this.....

JEWISH LOBBY IN AMERICA ? has often been denied by various (usually Jewish) posters.

If there is one, I personally don't have a problem with it as I support Israels right to exist and be sovereign over all Biblical Israels lands.

But for Keith and others who might say there is one, you might like this :)

QUOTE
["A record number of Jewish members will enter (USA) Congress Thursday, but more remarkable are the unparalleled positions of power they will hold on committees related to Israel, many local Jewish activists say.

Six new Jewish legislators will be joining 37 familiar faces as the 110th Congress convenes, making the total the highest-ever, according to Doug Bloomfield, a former legislative director for AIPAC.

"It's unprecedented that there have been so many [Jews] in so many positions of leadership in both houses," Bloomfield said, using a Jewish simile for how that fact will affect support for Israel: Like chicken soup, it won't hurt.]

SOURCE ? of course its that ultra left, loony, and always hateful to Israel....THE JERUSALEM POST :)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467657033&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I'd be interested in Steves, Teds and Celeste's comments on this.

Keith..stop drooling please :)

David

I've never suggested there is a Jewish loddy anywhere nor have I criticised people for supporting Jewish people.

You shouldn't try to assign racist values to me in this way. It is underhanded and deceitful.

I have criticised people, like yourself for supporting the actions of Israel. Actions that clearly are in breach of world standards and which go against world opinion and our liberal democratic traditions.

If indeed Jewish people are over represented in the US congress and their actions go against the very traditions of the US and lead to a weakening of the US, as is the probable result of such behaviour, then the US people will eventually discover the treachery and take steps to rectify the matter. As they usually do. Israel has more to fear from the US than it and it's supporters imagine. And Israel will need a true and strong friend once Iran has enriched it's uranium.

You should stick to talking about your racist 'final solution'.

‘…nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave…’

Which American said this? Hint his first name was George.

Dear Keith
I didn’t mean to misrepresent you, and stone the crows how do you get ‘racist’ out of reporting simple political facts ?
You are always ‘on’ about pre-67borders why?.. but what are the barriers ? Could it just remotely possibly be.... the influence of Jewish folk in the US congress? I don’t consider this a bad thing, its been going on since various old Testament periods.

-Joseph_in_Pharaohs court
-Daniel_in_Babylon
-Esther_in_Persia
-Nehemiah_in_Persia

The British crown often had a Jewish presence in the court.

I contend, even pre67borders would not end the war.(refer Islam)

When you suggest that this or that should be done in the interests of your version of justice, you need to do your SWOT analysis.. ‘ where the “W’ of course means ‘Weakness’. In your case, a weakness in achieving a US backed political result that you desire.

Clearly to the open minded person who considers all the facts, a strong Jewish lobby in the US congress is a formidable threat to your desired outcome right ?.

It may also be described as an ‘S’ strength for the current Israeli position.
You already said “Israel has more to fear from the US than it and it's supporters imagine.” So, how is reporting as I did ‘racist’ ? come come ...let’s reason together, considering ALL the facts.

Whether you accept it or not, a war is going on. Your peaceful vision of Arabs is just a dream mate. I urge you to read some of the factual information in some my more recent posts for some insights into the true nature of what drives the Arabs. Its there in black and white from their own sources.

I think you are clinging to some kind of sentimental idealism, so maybe growling at me makes you feel better ?

Oh.. Washington ?- yes.. he said that on the graves of a few million slaughtered Indians. Wake up mate. Winners are always prone to lofty words.

Forget 67, history has passed it by. Or.. equally speak about AD70 the only difference is a bit of time. Please don’t discriminate on_history