We will never recognize Israel, says Mashaal

TEHRAN (Press TV) -- Hamas Political Chief Khalid Mashaal says that the Palestinian nation will neither submit to nor recognize the illegal Israeli regime.

“We will never recognize Israel or cease to fight for our land. Our battle against Israel is one of resistance to occupation,” said Khalid Mashaal in an address to 'The Decline of the Zionist Regime' conference at Tehran University, Press TV correspondent Saman Kojouri reported.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=169604

When you steal people's land and force them out of their homes into refugee camps (or reservations), I guess you can't expect compliance to be easy

The Palestinians certainly learned that lesson the hard way.

I also recall something of a constitution written by a group known as the Blackfoot Confederacy which renounced their allegiance to the U.S. government - unfortunately a Google search did not turn up the specific doctrine I was looking for. But there are other groups out there, if not entire tribes (note that not all Lakotah agreed to the above withdrawal). I'm sure a bit more Googling will yield results I'm just not too inclined at the moment for searching around.

they were refusing to acknowledge their own citizenship of the USA; essentially a unilateral declaration of independence. They were not saying that the USA doesn't or shouldn't exist at all. The equivalent would be Gaza, or the Occupied Territories as a whole, announcing unilaterally that they are no longer part of Israel, and regard themselves as an independent Palestinian state. (On thinking of it, I'm surprised they haven't done so yet!)

Are you making a case for unique mistreatment of non-recognition by conquered native people?

I am making a case against declaring that another country has no right to exist. Which is very different from declaring that YOUR country DOES have a right to exist, and therefore the other country has no right to occupy it.

Actually, what's important is not abstract recognition of another country's 'right to exist'; it is refraining from seeking its destruction.

Those who fought British imperial rule did not say that Britain had no right to exist as a country, and should be destroyed.

Both Israel and Palestine need to recognize each other's right to exist as independent states. There will need to be compromise on both sides.

(take a guess where I am going with this)

If a foreign army came, forced you and your family out into a refugee camp, then proceeded to declare statehood right there on your native homeland - building neighborhoods and homes in the very spot where your own home once existed. Would you object if some group in Britain declared that the new state had no right to exist?

It is really high time the Palestinians realized this.

Their whining and crying and threats aren't helping them improve their lives one bit.

Israel exists.

It's time they learned to deal with it.

If the choice is ongoing terrorism, the result will be ongoing misery for the Palestinian people.

That's called cause and effect.

One side kills innocent people, so the other side kills innocent people.

Over and over. The leaders from both sides could be said to be enjoying it...

remember, the Palestinians have vowed to continue killing, no matter what the Israelis do.

So, the Israelis could stop trying to get the militants (and yes, some innocents who are in the crossfire), and the Palestinians would only have greater success in killing more Israelis.

It doesn't matter to the Palesitnian religious and political leadership whether israel tries to kill them or does nothing. They have said as much.

So, one side will continue to kill innocent people, no matter what Israel does.

That's the difference, which you fail to see.

No, both sides are killing innocent people.

I have not failed to see that -- have you?

innocent people, the big difference is, Hamas does it on purpose and Israel does not.

would be if NEITHER Britain nor the foreign group yet existed as a state; we were fighting over the same territory, and they won. I am sure I would resent it, but it would not be the same as taking over an existing state.

RW Israelis who think there should be no state of Palestine are wrong, and so are Palestinians who think there should be no state of Israel. Or actually that's not quite true: both have the right to think what they want to think; but trying to prevent either side from having an independent state will just prevent the problems from ever being solved.

But in any case: let's even suppose that Israel should not exist; that America should not exist (its establishment included genocide of native people); that Britain shouldn't exist (we *were* taken over by a foreign invading power in 1066; not to mention subsequent events with the English conquering the Irish, Scots and Welsh). The point is that all these states do exist. They are not going anywhere without a lot more bloodshed than there's been already. You can't undo wars and injustice with yet more wars and injustice. So we all have to look for the fairest solutions to the problems between and concerning the various states, with an acceptance that you can't just abolish them at this stage.

I think you know that isn't exactly what happened. As if two sides suddenly started this massive fight over the land. We both know that the Zionist agenda first got heated up, dedicated to taking over the land, which they did so, and Palestinians got forced out - to make room for Israel and the new Israeli population. There is no twisting the historical record to escape from that, although I'll concede your first point that no foreign group yet existed as a state making my own analogy imperfect. But even that point still doesn't take away from my first question to you -- state or no state, if you were living in your home when one day a new state is declared, and you are suddenly forced into a refugee camp while neighborhoods are built over the very spot where your home once was - would you object to some groups not recognizing the new state?

Actually forget about any existence of states - would you object if someone came along and destroyed your home to make room for their own new home? Would you quite possibly find yourself saying "that home has no right to exist"?

(of Palestinians, not Jews) took place prior to November 1947 - when the Palestinian population atacked the Jewish one?

There's no magical date after which it was deemed acceptable...

But as subsuelo presents it, Palestinian violence was a reaction to Jewish land theft. Given that the former occurred well before the latter, I'm curious as to his reasoning.

And I think the violence from both Palestinians and Jews came from a mix of things like not being willing or able to understand the others culture and way of doing things as well as the displacement of tenant farmers many of who didn't really grasp the whole concept of officially buying and selling land, and the development of a separate economy and employment which excluded Palestinians, which would of course have threatened them...

Israel isn't exceptional. And this isn't the best of all possible worlds. I live in reality. Perhaps you don't, but dealing with what is, is vital to change.

One of my all time favorite excuses

whether you like it or not.

The reality is that land has been conquered and people expelled throughout history.

Time to deal with facts and not fantasy.

The reality is that women have always been treated as mere property throughout history. The reality is that while that used to be acceptable it no longer is. Same goes for acquiring territory through war. Just because it was a done thing in past centuries is not an argument for why it would be that way now...

It's really one of the more elementary of moral positions.

Maybe I assume too much

I will expect to see a post from you excusing those actions because it happens to others. That it's just the simple reality of the world today.

by taking your own life too.

My point was that what is done is done, with regard to the present state of Israel.

You may disagree with the formation of Israel (and you would have plenty of company), but the state, and its six million people, exists.

It isn't going away, not unless you want to bomb it to oblivion.

I know that is what the suicide bombers are trying to do, but it is a pretty stupid goal.

In fact I've stated several times here exactly the contrary - that neither side has moral high ground for killing innocent people, and neither side should continue to make excuses for doing so.

It's an ongoing cycle. There is no "they started it therefore we have to respond". That is an excuse both sides employ to try and legitimize their aggression.

I refuse to accept that from either side.

but the next question is "So what does one do about it?"

My preferred answer has always been for peace negotiations and a two-state solution. Israel is not always right; in fact, like most countries, it is often wrong. But that doesn't mean that it can or should cease to exist, any more than any other country.

It's quite simple really.

Israel recognizes the Palestinian Right of Return and attempts to make some reparations for it. That would be up for negotiation. No I'm not talking about letting every Palestinian and every Palestinian descendant return to where there homes once were inside Israel. But it does mean at least make the recognition of the right and make some kind of serious gesture that attempts to make amends.

On the flip side, Palestinians recognize Israel and Israel's right to exist as well as removing any references in official government documents that talk about destroying Israel or anything of the sort. Just the very act alone of both sides making these recognitions will go a long way towards establishing a peaceful agreement.

In addition, Israel ceases all settlement activity and expansion beyond '67 borders. Palestinians cease all rocket attacks. Israel stops the incursions and roadblocks and all the manifestations of collective punishment that currently exist.

Of course the question of Jerusalem must be settled. Several other issues must be dealt with but these are the major stumbling blocks.

Now here's the real problem, LeftishBrit - at least in my mind. None of these things are going to happen. I've posted this before, but I'll say it again: we have utter gridlock right now in the process. Both sides barely budge on these issues... just the other day there's the report that Palestinian side would not accept 91% of the West Bank. And of course only the serious lefties in Israel even dare to talk about recognizing Right of Return. Both sides seem to settle for the easier road of continued conflict and violence and what ends up happening is the people on both sides get caught in the crossfire.

So what's the point I'm getting to? Yes, everyone's favorite topic for discussion: One State.

Face it - it's the only solution left right now. We are too late for a Two state solution to happen -- unless we get some Palestinian puppet some day agreeing to a ridiculously low percentage of the west bank with which to claim statehood on so all the important people can hand out awards to themselves. That situation however I strongly believe will be much worse than a single state solution. Besides, the reality is that what we have currently existing is in fact a single state in the region. It is one single state, with two large reservation camps. My argument is, that it's time to acknowledge that reality and move forward with how best to handle the situation, that would be benefit everyone as much as possible, rather than pretending that we're still slowly progressing towards some kind of two-state solution. Sorry, but the dream of two state is now dead. Who's to blame? It doesn't matter now because it is just too late for that to happen. I think we crossed the boundary into 'too late' territory at some point in the last 4-5 years or so. But again, the question for me is, what to do with the existing reality?

what on earth makes you think that two warring people can live together in one state?

There really isn't any way.

It may be your existing reality, but I guarantee it isn't the existing reality of the Israelis.

They really are not that suicidal.

One state=a bloodbath.

Now, you may still support a single state, but I do guarantee to you that if these two people cannot even make any sort of negotiations (and Hamas refuses anyway) for two states, one state is impossible.

Besides which, the only "one state' Hamas etc will accept is one state, without Jews. Another Muslim theocracy.

Is that what you would support?

Great. Why don't you tell us how you really feel...

the world does not need another autocratic, repressive military regime, where women have no civil rights, are stoned or beaten, where people of other religions (if they are even allowed to live there) are disciminated against, or worse.

Israel is a liberal democracy, and there are over a million Arabs living and working there.

Most would choose to stay in Israel, with its safety, democracy and better economy, than ANY Arab state, or any future Palestinian state.

The current Muslim theocracies treat their people like shit, killing those who do not follow their type of religious law.

They do not even allow Jews to visit, much less live there.

We need fewer such repressive regimes, not more.

Do you think that there are no Muslim theocracies; or that Muslim theocracy is a good thing?

Now you know that I am completely against the view that all or most Muslims are theocrats or terrorists or are united in some sort of conspiracy to take over the world and defeat the West. I also don't think that Muslim theocracy is intrinsically worse than any other form of theocracy. All theocracies are bad.

But is it not the case that many Middle Eastern states ARE Muslim theocracies? That does not mean that they should be invaded or bombed or placed under colonialism; but they cannot be regarded as progressive ideals either. They are VERY right-wing regimes. If Israel becomes a state under similar rule, it will be a shift to the right, not to the left.

Or is it that you don't think that a 'one-state solution' would mean Muslim theocracy? That is quite possibly correct. It might not become a Muslim theocracy, but a totally unstable state where different factions are constantly at each others' throats in a prolonged civil war.

In an ideal world, I would be happy if the entire world became a sort of 'one-state solution' with no borders or with very flexible borders, and everyone getting on happily together. But that isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future - and certainly not with Israel/Palestine at this stage.

What the outcry might be were someone to post about the awfulness of the "Jewish nation".

Supposed I commented somewhere that "the Jewish nation treats people like shit".

Would that sit well with you?

theocracy.

For example, Turkey is a Muslim nation, in that a majority of citizens are Muslim, and Islam contributes to its identity. But it is not a Muslim theocracy - whereas Saudi Arabia and Iran are.

The Republic of Ireland is a Catholic nation, in that a majority of citizens are Catholic, and Catholicism contributes to its identity. But it is not a Catholic theocracy - whereas Spain under the Inquisition was.

Israel is a Jewish nation, in the sense that Turkey is a Muslim nation and Ireland is a Catholic nation. But it is not a Jewish theocracy. If it were to become a theocracy, I would think that a very bad thing.

Again, the question - do you want to start seeing people post messages about the evils of the "Jewish nation"?

however, if someone posted, for example, "We must make sure that Feiglin never becomes PM of Israel, as we don't need a Jewish theocracy", I would not object at all.

People sometimes do post that Israel is a Jewish theocracy *now* and that is totally factually wrong, but I don't consider even that as equivalent to speaking of the 'evils of the Jewish nation'.

For the rest, I probably *am* failing to see your point. Is it

(1) that it is unfair to equate Muslims with their Religious Right, and thus to assume that a single majority-Muslim state would become a Muslim theocracy?

I certainly agree with this on principle. However, we are not talking about all Muslim-majority states, but about a specific situation in the Middle East. Many of the dominant parties in the Middle East *do* currently favour Muslim theocracy, and therefore the establishment of a Muslim theocracy in a contemporary Arab-majority single state, which would likely have strong influence and support from Muslim religious parties elsewhere, is certainly a significant possibility. It is not IMO the only or worst possibility: the most likely and worst possibility is civil war and a major bloodbath.

(2) that there is nothing wrong with Muslim theocracies?

I agree that Muslim theocracies aren't worse than any other sort of theocracy; but surely theocracy is in itself undesirable and un-progressive? This would include Jewish, Christian, or any other form of theocracy.

Would you object to someone posting the following:



What part of the I/P guidelines that says do not discuss the truthfulness and/or stupidity of various religions are you and Vegasaurus missing?

The point is -- how about we avoid the negative portrayals and broad generalizations of Islamic/Jewish/Christian "law" around here?

How about not characterizing the atrocious actions of any particular nation or regime based on a religious affiliation?

I'm rather against the Bush/Cheney regime, but I don't go around commenting "see what Christian nations do". I'm also opposed to the way Palestinians are treated, but I don't make comments like "the Jewish nation is at it again".

Make sense?

There is another forum for religion if you want to talk about what you like or don't like about "Islamic law". I suspect there may be a good reason for that.

you were asked about theocracys.....

a muslim nation is not necessary a bad thing, nor is a jewish nation necessary a bad thing, nor is a christian nation necessary a bad thing.

the question you were asked and avoided (as you seem to do so many simple direct questions) was that, is a muslim theocracy a bad thing? ..this is one of those yes and no type questions.

can you answer?

And the point is, that your effort to pidgeonhole the Palestinians and Israelis into a single state is, in fact, an endorsement for a Muslim theocracy.

The Palestinians leadership has made it clear that its goals are to rid the ME of Israel (or that "Zionist entity") and Jews.

What would remain, if the Palestinian leadership met its goals, is another Muslim theocracy.

Is that what you are advocating?

Before the mob descends on me demanding answers to 'questions' within the next ten minutes, I'll put a prominent disclaimer here. I'm totally opposed to any theocracy and it doesn't matter what religion it is, and I believe that church and state must be kept separate. So (and this isn't aimed at you, Leftishbrit) I don't want to see anyone popping up with something along the lines of 'so do you support the stoning of women, the gutting of cute little puppies, and forcing people to walk around with a stack of holy books on their heads, or do you believe that the stoning of women etc doesn't happen???' When it comes to one binational state vs a two-state solution, I agree with what you've said in this thread about it, and I'd add that another reason I pragmatically support a two-state solution is because that's what the majority of Palestinians and Israelis want...

So here's the problem I saw with Vegasaurus' comments. She made the assumption that territory where there's a majority of Muslims must have no other outcome but becoming a theocracy, and not only that, but an extreme one, and then goes on to make the jump to thinking that anyone who does support a binational state must support an extremist theocracy thing along the lines of Saudi Arabia. It'd be the same as someone making the assumption that any territory with a majority of Christians must become a theocracy where the Ten Commandments are the law along the lines of what Joseph Kony wants for Uganda. When it comes to predicting what would happen if one binational state came into being, I don't think it's possible to predict anything apart from not very many Israelis or Palestinians would be happy about it...

Women are covered up from head to toe, and this isn't so in picutres from years ago, when it was more secular.

There are more honor killings and stonings.

These are the realities.

I don't support a binational state because it isn't a possibility at this time with two warring people.

The fact that I don't want to see Israel turn into yet another Muslim theocracy is beside the point.

a place where people, particularly women, or those of different political/religious views, are denied basic civil and human rights.

Are you in favor of stoning, honor killing, women being kept hostage to men, unable to get educated or hold a job or own property?

Do you want Israel to fall under Islamic law?

The whole question of one state is academic, because Jews can't even go for a hike in the west bank without threat of being murdered.

Jews have to risk their lives to deliver the very food and fuel that militants will blow up.

There is no one state solution, now or in the future, unless you are advocating wide spread war, with deaths in the millions.

Do you deny it existing in places where women are required to be covered from head to toe with only their eyes showing?

Where they are stoned, flogged, beaten or killed for being seen with a man other than their husband, or even an accusation (with no proof) of adultery?

Or for theft or drinking alcohol?

Do you think that stoning women or treating them like property is a good thing, or do you deny the existence of these laws, or forms of them, in many Muslim countries?

you up for that?

in Jewish law?

Yes, tell me all the evils of Jewish law.

You may not like the dietary laws, for example, but they don't result in the loss of human rights or death of individuals, mainly women.

I dare you to find any Jewish laws that are in any way comparable to stoning, honor killing, or other elements of law in a Muslim theocracy.

Go for it.

That you find it offensive or somehow "unprogressive" to bring up all the offensive elements of Islamic law or a Muslim theocracy, even though these facts are well known?

Do you agree with flogging or stoning women for being seen with a man other than her husband?

Tbat instead you would like to equate Jewish religious law (which does include such things as whether or not you can eat pork or drive on Saturdays) with religious Islamic law?

Where are you going with this?

Would you like to see Israel as a place where women are stoned and killed because it is yet another of the many Muslim theocracies?

It's pro human rights.

Being a proponent for human rights should not be against board rules.

It is not anti-Muslim to say "Muslim theocracy is a bad thing".

It is not anti-Semitic, or even against the Jewish religion, to say "Jewish religious parties have a pernicious influence on Israel".

Would you consider it anti-Christian to say, "The Christian Right are a danger in American politics, and their attempts to influence the laws should be resisted"?

but the level of fundamentalism in their interpretation and application to state law.

The Old Testament does recommend savage punishments for disobeying religious laws. Deuteronomy recommends the death penalty for adultery, cursing one's mother or father, or working on the Sabbath. Leviticus recommends the same for blasphemy and orders people to stone relatives to death if they try to induce them to follow other gods.

The ancient texts of any religion tend to include violent punishments for disobedience to religious law.

The difference is that Israel is not run on the basis of religious fundamentalism, whereas Muslim theocracies are. Some (not all) Muslim theocracies are prepared to go back to the most violent laws and punishments of hundreds of years ago; whereas even the most fundie religious parties in Israel would not go to those sorts of extremes.

So the difference is not between different religions, but between fundamentalism - especially extreme fundamentalism - and secularism.

It's what you've done in multiple posts in this thread, and that's after sub has told you that they're opposed to theocracies you fire off a torrent of loaded questions like 'Do you agree with flogging or stoning women for being seen with a man other than her husband? etc etc.

Why don't you concentrate hard on reading and comprehending what other DUers say and addressing that for a change?

I think that it would be a very bad thing if Israel, or any other state, were run according to Jewish religious law; and if people could be punished as criminals for e.g. eating ham or pork, or breaking one of the 'Ten Commandments' against for instance adultery or failing to honour their parents.

Israel is not run according to Jewish law, with a few exceptions kept in place by the religious parties, such as the lack of opportunity for civil marriage within Israel (though civil marriages contracted elsewhere are recognized). I think that even these small 'pockets' of religious law are regrettable, and that their abolition would be a good and progressive thing. I also think that the proportional-representation system in Israel gives too much power to the religious parties in proportion to their numbers, and if I were an Israeli citizen, I would be campaigning to have the system modified to give them less power.

I think that the Jewish religious parties have a pernicious influence on Israeli politics, laws and life in general. But they have infinitely *less* power in Israel than the Muslim religious parties do in certain other states.

I do not think this is the appropriate forum for discussion of the evils of either "Jewish law" or "Islamic law". We're already dealing with an extremely sensitive topic for discussion. Mixing that crap in with I/P discussion is too volatile a mix. Please see my post above for further clarification of my view on that. It comes down to not characterizing the bad behavior of any particular nation or regime based on their religious affiliation.

because the goal of Hamas is to rid the ME of Israel and Jews, and replace it with a Muslim theocracy.

You advocate a single state, which would be exactly that, a Muslim theocracy.

The discussion of I/P issues cannot be separated from the religious affiliation, and you know it.

That is what the discussion will devolve to once we start mixing things up with discussion of the evils of "Jewish law" and of "Islamic law"

What Muslims do to Jews or Jews do to Muslims has nothing here to do with human rights abuses that are prevalent in Islamic law.

It is the oppression of Muslims towards Muslims.

Is is Muslim women being stoned, flogged and killed, BY OTHER MUSLIMS.

As a progressive, I would think you would be concerned about these human rights abuses, that would be rampant in yet another Muslim theocracy, were Israel disbanded into a single state.

Why do you think the following rules here exist:

Do not discuss the truthfulness and/or stupidity of various religions.

Do not make over-sweeping or stereotypical generalizations of any group or individual. This includes making statements, either overtly or subtly, which are Anti-Semitic or Anti-Muslim.

?

and it is not a stereotypical generalization in the slightest.

The fact is, theocracies, particularly those that kill, stone or flog women, should be censured by progressives.

I don't want to see Israel turn into that kind of theocracy.

If the mods have a problem with my point of view on that, I am sure I will hear from them.

to mention the homosexuals.

The problem is when the fundamental religion becomes the law of the land.

in a perpetual state of denial.

if 'the Palestinian side would not accept 91% of the West Bank' and 'only the serious Lefties in Israel even dare to talk about recognizing right of return', how can you even expect either side to tolerate a one-state solution without a bloodbath? A one-state solution is not a last resort if other solutions fail; it is the most difficult solution of all to administer fairly. In fact, so difficult that it would only IMO be possible through some form of close international control and supervision of the state - and that would be just another form of old-fashioned colonialism.

I think that a two-state solution, with most if not all of the actions that you mention in the first part of your reply, is the only possible way to go. A very difficult way, but the one-state solution is impossible.

1) It already is one state.
2) Two states can no longer be considered viable because it's too late.

Factor number one isn't even debatable really. You have one region with one internationally recognized state occupying that region. You also have 2 large areas of land that the native population got pushed into. What you call those 2 large regions doesn't matter too much to me - that is a matter of opinion. I view them as something amounting to reservation camps. Call it what you will, the related point here is that only one recognized state exists in the region, and that state is Israel. I don't deny the right to exist and I don't question it. It is a state and that is that.

Factor number two I realize takes a bit more argument. I could go into detail and I'm sure others would take issue here and there but for me I jumped off the two state idea I would say roughly 2-3 years ago because I really do not see it as a viable option any longer. It's too late for two state, in my opinion (nice slogan eh). Israel isn't going back to 67 borders and Palestinians aren't going to meet in the middle. The only way two state is going to happen is if the Palestinians get sold out completely, and that will not fare well for the region at all imo. As I said above, I think it will be immeasurably worse.

Taking those 2 things into consideration, the solution for me is to deal with what is rather than cling to a dream of the past. And that is exactly what two state is - a dream in the past. It's simply time to deal with the reality as it is now.

One state already is. It isn't even offered by me as some kind of 'solution' in the future. What I'm saying is - we're already there. We have arrived at the destination, like it or not, and there is no going back. The plane dropped us off and left and isn't coming back to take us somewhere else. Get it?

(in one state thnking), but the people that matter (Israelis) aren't.

Since they are the one affected by the certain bloodbath of a single state, I'd say their opinion matters more than yours.

Even the most liberal Israelis are opposed to a single state.

So, you can talk into your echo chamber, but unless you are advocating a massive war, there will be no single state that the Israelis willingly give into.

There is one state in the region.

Sorry you have such a problem accepting that, but there is no difficult stretch of the imagination going on here or anything. It's just stating what currently is.

As I've said earlier, I do not see how settlement expansion in the last few years changes the nature of a solution. Because the settlements can be disbanded - and this is easier to do with recently-established ones than older ones. Anyone who moved into a settlement in the last 15 years *knew at the time* that a two-state solution was being discussed, which would mean the disbandment and evacuation of many settlements. They may not like it - but they went in with their eyes open. If both groups wish for a two-state solution, and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, they can achieve it.

Now: you have proposed the one-state solution, so how do you propose making it feasible? Is it OK for you if the Arabs and Jews kill each other on a far wider scale than has been happening so far? If not (and I believe not), how do you propose preventing it? Do you think that groups who, in your view, are too intransigent to achieve a two-state solution, can be persuaded to live peacefully together in one state? If so, how, and who will do the persuading, and - even if this could be achieved - how would it differ from any other form of colonialist coercion?

the answers are that the aspirations of Jews to live in their own state are unimportant to "progressives" who would disband the country and send six million people into refugee status to "undo the wrong" of the formation of Israel.

There is far too much intransigence for a single state, now or any time in the near future.

These two groups of people can't be anywhere near each other,much less in a single state.

Anyone who thinks this does not understand the conflict at all.

No progressive I have conversed with has ever indicated any sort of belief that the "aspirations of Jews to live in their own state are unimportant".

Please keep the false characterizations of "progressives" to yourself, thanks

because you endorse a single state, where Arabs and Jews all live together happily ever after (after the bloodbath, maybe, if anyone to see it).

You don't want to allow Jews their own state, because a single state removes national self determination for Jews.

You claim that progressives (such as yourself, I presume) do not want to deny Jews their own state.

And yet you are a proponent of a single state (which denies Jews that right of self determination).

Why are you so offended by people asking for clarification of this oxymoron?

Again, please read my posts rather than interpreting for everyone what you think it is I mean.

You didn't ask for clarification of any meaning from me, instead you posted very specifically:

"You don't want to allow Jews their own state" and "that the aspirations of Jews to live in their own state are unimportant to progressives"

Both claims which were not made by myself or anyone else here.

This is why I am in favor of two states, with self determination for each group, who cannot seem to live together no matter how much you would like to believe that they could.

(copied from a post below)

It is, and will be in the future, a single state. My proposal is to face that reality honestly and ask what to do about it.

or that they should have their own state.

How could you have been offended in another post when I questioned you about this?

Obviously you are having difficulty understanding. Please don't tell me what I do or don't believe in, particularly when I have clearly stated what my view on the matter is.

You can't advocate a single state, AND self determination for Jews in their own state.

Those two viewpoints are mutually exclusive, unless you are one of those people advocating that Jewish Israelis are relocated elsewhere for their self determination, say Montana, or outer Mongolia?

Israel keeps stealing the Palestinian land designated for a second state. Now it's too late for two states.

That's just the way it is no matter what any of us here advocates

You claim you support a two-state solution, but have the opinion that any state with a majority of Muslims will become a theocracy. So why would you support a two-state solution knowing that one of those states would become a theocracy? And could you please answer my question this time?

I have already stated my opinion on why I believe in a two state solution, in this thread in fact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=213368&mesg_id=213782

If you are unable to read and understand that, it isn't my problem.

Now, stop following me around and asking the same dumb question.

and your wishing it so doesn't make it so.

It may be "your" reality, but it isn't the reality of the people that matter.

So, it would be better to get on board with the people that matter,because if you think Jews are giving up their state, you are deluded.

Or, are you proposing a massive bloody war?

Because those are the only alternatives.

How many current states do you count in the region?

One.

That number isn't going to change. My proposal is to start facing that reality honestly and think about what do to with it, whether we like it or not, rather than wasting our time dreaming about something else.

One state; and the occupied territories. Which are not a state but should be.

'That number isn't going to change'

Why not?

Thank you for being the first person here to observe honestly that there is just one state. I am not sure why others have resisted so much making that obvious assessment. It's the only argument I've tried to make previously...

Anyway, yes one state and the reservation areas. (Or occupied territories, or whatever one wishes to call them)

Why isn't the number going to change? Because the process towards achieving a two-state solution is in utter gridlock now. Nobody is budging on any of the main obstacles. It's just not going anywhere. In my view, it's now too late. Palestinians want a return to 67 borders, and Israel keeps on expanding beyond those borders. Israel won't recognize Right of Return, and the current governing body in Gaza is not even recognizing Israel's right to exist. No agreement will be achieved at this point.

It is, and will be in the future, a single state. My proposal is to face that reality honestly and ask what to do about it.

easy for you to claim that it is now "a single state", but I am afraid that the people for whom you are making such proclamations, ie. the Israelis, don't happen to agree with you.

The "face reality" is the fact that Israel, as a Jewish state is here, and will be here, until such times as a massive war with millions killed, removes it.

Is that what you are advocating?

The whole point of those who support a two-state solution is that there *aren't* currently two states, but *should* be. Not that there already are two states. If there were, then a lot of the problem would have been solved already.

but isn't the whole point of being left-wing/progressive to try to change the status quo a bit more in the direction of how things should be?

And such things do change. In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was a single state, and this looked like remaining that way forever. Now it is Russia and a number of independent states. On the other hand, at that time Germany was two states. Now it is one state.

The question is: what would be more possible to achieve: A two-state solution, in which the occupation ends and what are now the Occupied Territories become a separate independent state? Or a single state, where Jews and Arabs live harmoniously together? I have no doubt that, while neither would be easy (and neither is the case right now!), the first would be possible and the second wouldn't.

I no longer see two-state as being in the realm of possibility. So my point is to now look at what is and deal with the reality from there - of course from a left-wing/progressive view of trying to change the status quo and find some workable solutions that somehow benefit as many people involved as possible.

But I have to say, I find fault with your question "what is more possible to achieve". We have already achieved one state. That's my whole case. There is no difficulty in arriving at a single state - we are already there. And there is no looking back. That's my view.

Israel has achieved one state - plus the Occupied Territories at the moment, which are not a real part of Israel. Palestine has not achieved a state yet.

So what you're saying is - yes, for the purpose I'll use the same word that you'd use - the ONLY POSSIBLE solution is an apartheid state; and the only thing that can be varied is who is on the winning side of the apartheid? Is that what you're saying? N.b. I do not think that 'apartheid' is the right word for what's really an occupation. But but if it were not an occupation but a single state; then apartheid - on one side or the other - would become a much more suitable term. I don't see any even remotely fair solution for both groups *but* a two-state one.

Because I don't see that there is any possible satisfactory solution for 'one state'. The status quo isn't satisfactory and cannot continue. And one state that abolishes Israel cannot occur without a major and long-term bloodbath.

You say that we need to 'find some workable solutions that somehow benefit as many people involved as possible.' I fully agree. But what would these solutions consist of in your view?

But that single state is not the same state that would exist should a single-state-solution be implemented. That state would be a combination of Israel and the OPT, it would entail creating a new single state that does not yet exist. Right now the territory consists of one official state, land that is not under any existing state's sovereignty, two nations and three governments. So while there is a single state, it isn't THE single state. And it doesn't include both nations.

I don't see why you think that it would be impossible to have two states, especially since we have recently been closer than ever to achieving that goal. It is actually less of a single state right now than at any point in the past few thousand years. Palestinians have autonomy over whole areas of the OPT. Never before. And if it is really so impossible, then what were the offers for statehood during Camp David 2000 and Taba about? What exactly would be so impossible about solving the final 6% of land being argued over via land exchanges?

If the issue is that you believe no compromise point could possibly be reached due to the intransigence of the two nationalities then isn't that an even more compelling argument against a single state? I mean, if two nations are unable to even live next to each other as neighbors then how will combining the states improve matters? I can think of many reasons it would never work yet can't think of any benefits for either side. The reason a peace treaty is so hard to achieve is because neither side trusts each other. While that's OK for neighbor states it would render a single state non-functional. It is a recipe for disaster.

You seem to have arrived at this solution by process of elimination without considering whether it is realistic or describing why either side would even want it. For such a solution to work it would have to offer more benefits to both sides than problems. What benefit would possibly be enticing enough for Israel to willingly enter such an agreement? They built Israel into a first world technological powerhouse of a state from scratch... why would they want to share that with the Palestinians? And why would the Palestinians want to join an already fully-functional state where they would form the lowest socio-economic class, unable to compete with the Jews on nearly every level, forever playing catch-up while being economically, educationally and politically disenfranchised? They are poor, far less educated and completely lacking the skills they would need to compete and succeed in a pre-existing Israeli system. Agreeing to a single state would basically be an invitation for the wealthier Jews to legally purchase the real estate under their feet.

I just don't see how a single state would benefit either side. Yes, international peace can be difficult to achieve between enemies. But somehow I doubt that the best solution is to copy the models used in states like Lebanon and Iraq.

If you only answer one of my questions, make it this one... why do you think that a single state formed now would be more successful than the last attempt at creating one during the British Mandate, (an attempt which violently self-destructed almost immediately)?

The present reality is not two states.

The future reality may in fact, be one state, but I doubt the two people can live together, now or in the future.

100 years of terrorism and distrust has destroyed that option, unless it happens demographically, which it may, and then things might change.

But it is not now, nor in the hearts and minds of the people that matter, a single state currently.

Deal in the here and now, and the reality is, Israel isn't suicidal, and giving up its state to a terrorist government that wants to annihilate it.

You start off saying "the present reality is not two states"

But then you write "it is not now... a single state currently"

Which is it? There is no in-between one state and two. If it is not two states, then it is one state. And vice versa: if it is not now a single state, then it is two states.

You ask me to deal in the here and now - that's exactly what I'm doing. The reality is that it is one single state, whether any of us here like that fact or not.

It is one Jewish democratic state right now (with over a million Arabs too).

Allowing in 4.5 million Arab Palestinians in,, plus the Arabs already in Israel will make Israel as a Jewish country, null and void.

So, in order to maintain Israel has a predominantly Jewish country, there need to be two states: a state for Arab Palestinians, and a state for Jewish Israelis.

Not one state with a bloodbath of dead Jews.

Remember, Jews didn't fight back before when they were nearly annihilated, but aren't so stupid anymore.

So two states for two people.

One state for Jews.

One state for Palestinians.

Why do they continue to steal Palestinian land?

It's ruined any chance for two state.

Now it's too late. That is the reality to deal with.

The settlement expansion, bad as it is, is reversible. Especially the recent settlement expansion.

One could also say: if the Palestinians want their own state, why do they keep firing the rockets, which merely escalate the violence?

I sometimes say - sort-of sarcastically: instead of building new settlements, the Israeli government could just invest the same amount in donations to Hamas. And instead of spending money on buiding preparing and firing rockets, Hamas could just donate the same amount to Netanyahu's re-election campaign. Exactly the same result - an escalating move to the right on both sides - would be achieved in this way, and with less violence. I am sure neither side actually wants to achieve this effect - but that's what they are doing.

But the two sides *can* change. It is never too late, *if people really want a solution*. And if they don't - how can they deal with one state, without a bloodbath?

To get back to basics: you propose a one-state solution. OK, I don't think it's possible, but you do. So try to convince me: *how can* such a solution be administered without a bloodbath?

the Palestinians could have had a prosperous state a number of times now, and they have chosen perpetual war.

They have ruined the chance for two states by denying that Israel exists and refusing to negotiate.

To this day.

And in fact, what reality are you discussing?

The one where Hamas plans to annihilate Israel and take back all of the land?

What planet are you living on that makes you think in any way that Jewish Israelis and Palestinians can live together?

Israel can't even open the crossings to Gaza without getting blown up. And you think they can live together?

There was violence towards Jews before Israel was ever a state.

There will not be a single bi-national state.

Or, are you advocating the bloodbath and war that most of us envision?

Remember, Jews didn't fight back before when they were nearly annihilated, but aren't so stupid anymore.

That's the problem with pulling out the Holocaust card every five seconds and applying it to situations that aren't comparable. People are prone to start making ugly and totally wrong statements in their haste to play the victim card...

Disgusting...

While I dont support the degree of settlements that Israel has done, it is by no means past any point of no return. The major settlements are pretty much concentrated together and as we saw with the Camp David and Taba negotiations they can easily arrange it so that the Palestinians get 91% or more of the WB and Gaza. The Palestinians are not going to get all of the pre 67 WB and Gaza and under Res 242 Israel is not required to give it all back. If the Palestinians are not willing to meet in the middle which is along the lines of Camp David and Taba then Israel can impose a unilateral solution which I imagine will be even less favorable. Israel at that point will unilaterally set borders and other issues, they will pull out of the area and the Palestinians will be left to fend for themselves. If there are attacks that eminate from there by either the government or one of the terror groups then it will be an act of war if it is by the Government or if the government fails to stop any group from attacking and Israel will be within its rights to respond harshly to protect its citizens from a hostile country attacking it. Israel will have no responsibility to provide gas, electricity basic supplies or anything for that matter.


That is the coming reality if the Palestinians dont capitulate. The plane is not going to drop the Palestinians off because they cut the fuel lines to try to kill the Israelis. Now while the Palestinians were figuring out how to cut the fuel lines to kill the Israelis, the Israelis were figuring out how to sew parachutes together and already bailed out, leaving the Palestinians on a plane about to crash because of their own hate driven actions. Even though the Palestinians tried to kill the Israelis it would not be unlike the Israelis to have made some extra parachutes and in time take another plane trip with the Palestinians.

despite the fact that you may really believe it. That's a huge part of the problem. The truth is that the Jews did not take a dunum of Arab land until after the Arabs of Palestine started the war against them after the Partition Resolution was passed. I know you think that the Arabs were justified, but before you go there, at least admit that they attacked first.

:crazy:

What I said is that no land was taken until after the Arabs started the war against the Jews. If you have eveidence of Jews forcing Arabs off of their land prior to November 30, 1947, then please post it. If I am correct, and the Arabs of Palestine started a war to drive the Jews off their land, then there was no stealing. There was a war started by the Arabs which the Jews won.

I've adjusted my notes accordingly, thanks

:eyes:

to your claim that the Arabs refuse to recognize Israel because they claim that Israel "stole" their land? If that was true, then why did they make war on the Jews before any Arab land was taken?

It's more than some are willing to admit

just to try and score a cheap point. It's unfair and beneath you. I did not concede that land was stolen. I only admitted that Israel took land during a war, which is obvious. That doesn't mean that I am admitting that Israel "stole" anything. And you still haven't answered my challenge on either point. To repeat:

1. The Arabs fired the first shot in the war.
2. They started the war before Israel took a dunum of land by force.

If you've got proof to the contrary, I'd like to see it. If you have some rational argument that those two facts don't matter, then post it.

Thanks for clarifying it

Was it a surprise attack, did the Israelis, Zionists, whatever depending on whether your speaking of 1947 or 1948 and please be specific about too, but did they not know that the Arabs or Palestinians were going to attack?

The war that is so mentioned as giving Israel the "right" to take and to continue taking land happened 60 ago, so what your are saying is that this "right" extends past the original conquest and continues to this day, and for how long in to the future?

In 1967 who fired the first shot?

Q: Was it a surprise attack, did the Israelis, Zionists, whatever depending on whether your speaking of 1947 or 1948 and please be specific about too, but did they not know that the Arabs or Palestinians were going to attack?

A: Certainly the Zionists in 1947 believed that the Arabs were going to attack them, because the Arabs had made no secret of it. So what? They also believed that the neighboring Arab states would join the war against them as soon as the British left. Again, so what?

Q: The war that is so mentioned as giving Israel the "right" to take and to continue taking land happened 60 ago, so what your are saying is that this "right" extends past the original conquest and continues to this day, and for how long in to the future?

A: The war may have started 60 years ago, but the Arabs have continued it to this day. Egypt and Israel were in a state of war continuously from 1948 until 1982. Israel and Jordan from 1948 until even later. Israel and the Palestinians from November 30, 1947, until today. So it has nothing to do with the date of conquest, and everything to do with the Palestinians' continued belligerency.


Q: In 1967 who fired the first shot?

A: It depends on when in 1967, where, and what you mean by "who?" If by "who" you mean which side generally (counting the entire Arab world as one side), then the Arabs fired the first shots in 1967 because the Syrians were shooting at the Israelis from the Golan Heights, and the Palestinians were launching guerrilla attacks against them (all with the intent of starting a general war, which is what they got). If you mean each country separately, they vis a vis Egypt, Israel fired the first shot, and vis a vis every other Arab country, the individual Arab country shot first.

the Egyptians closed off the israeli port of Eilat. (by closing off the straits)....closing a countries port is considered an act of war...hence egypt actually started the war...

Jordans army was under Egyptian command....they were a "single army"

syria pre june 6th shelled israeli farms, sniped etc....

however, the question wasn't "who started the war?" It was, "who fired the first shot?" As between Israel and Egypt alone, the Egyptians certainly committed the first act of war when they closed the straits of Tiran. However, they did that without firing a shot.

Israel is here to stay.

The Palestinians can continue to resist and fight and use violence, thinking they will eventually take back their "historic Palestine", but Israel isn't leaving.

So, the Palestinians could have had a state and peace, and still could, but choose resistance instead.

Their choice, but it's no wonder they have so much misery.

somebody was trying to kill your children would you sit by and let them do it, or would you do something to try and stop it?

Hamas tries their damnedest to kill Israeli children every day.

Hamas claims that they make war on Israel because they want to liberate all of Palestine. Israel simply responds to Hamas attacks.

There have been plenty of statements by Hamas saying they will not sit by and let their people be attacked. That is the same excuse as posted above.

since they have the power to stop Israeli attacks by simply stopping their war to destroy Israel. As it is, Hamas' statements are like Hitler saying he won't tolerate Allied bombing of Germany.

have the capability to destroy Israel, yes or no?

when "they want to destroy us" is the most common excuse, if they can not do it, then Israel is acting as thought police or punishing them for writing?

It doesn't matter that Hamas rocket attacks can't destroy Israel. What matters is that they are an act of war to which Israel has a right to respond. If the Arabs stop attacking Israel then Israel stops shooting back. If Israel stops shooting back, then the Arabs will just launch more attacks until Israel does have to shoot back.

It's that simple. If Hamas were really only interested in defending itself against Israeli attacks then it would stop attacking the Israelis. So no, Hamas is not simply defending itself. It is advancing its agenda of violently attacking Israel.

Hamas has made clear that it does not intend to stop ever, until there is not an inch of "historic Palestine" controlled by the "Zionist entity".

Hamas wants eternal war.

Very sad that their people must suffer so for such a violent, malevolent goal.

The terrorists on both sides have to stop.

Not just one side.

Both.

what happens if the IDF stops shooting at gaza?...will hamas stop (please check the history before answering)

if hamas stops shooting.....what has been the IDF reaction?....or what is the expected reaction?

Collectively punish millions of people? Continue extrajudicial killings? Drop cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods whenever they feel like it?

and simply try to answer it directly. I noticed that in your posts you tend to avoid answering any question that deals with the conflict on the ground so to speak. and you prefer not to get involved in the specifics. I understand that, since it will mean leaving your "everyone is guilty" and getting your hands dirty and actually applying your moral principles.

still lets see if you can: i repeat a very simple straightforward question that deals with the day to day: the goal is to provide a statement and not a question:


if israel does not react to the kassams, will in your opinion hamas and company stop shooting them?

Hamas keeps attacking no matter what Israel does.

And in fact, their leaders contend that they will continue their violent resistance no matter what Israel does.

So if Israel doesn't fire back, Hamas and the militants will keep attacking.

Sorry for not visiting DU every hour, but come on. What do you think you are proving exactly?

I've just finished reading through the rest of this thread and here's as good a place to say it as any. All of you who are hitting one poster with a barrage of 'questions', do you realise that this mob mentality is ugly and there's not much in the way of constructive discussion going on at all? Ferdogssake, other people have lives and aren't there 24/7 to reply to yr posts on demand. And when it's many on one as this thread has turned into, it can be a bit fucking overwhelming to return to a flood of 'questions' by a bunch of people. Not to mention that some of the posts of the Inquisition brigade are just downright nasty and antagonistic....

Sorry that you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and copped my vent about this thread. There's two in this thread who I should have aimed it at, not you...

back them up and explain them. Its not an inquisition to request that especially when the person is making unsupported vague accusations, moralizing statements and equvications that all ignore facts.

He claimed that Israel killed 10x as many people but Hamas is blamed for the ongoing war. He wont show where he got the 10x figure when even the HR NGO's dont claim 10x. He ingnores all facts as if the numbers alone is the way to show blame. He ignores all requests for an explanation.

He did the same thing with claiming Israel Massacred 100 Gazans. He ignores that the majority were militants, that they hid behind civilians, they were responding to rocket fire and various other facts. He wont explain or support his statement

Will Israel keep stealing land? Collectively punish millions of people? Continue extra-judicial killings? Drop cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods whenever they feel like it?

What do you think?

whats the difficulty in answering the question...i dont believe the sky will fall if you do?

if you want to elaborate, be my guest...but do try to answer.

____

i always find this part rather amusing...after one is done with the "its everybodys fault, both sides are equally guilty, but the zionists started it....then some questions start....and the answers usually dont seem to come so fast, in fact i've noticed a inability to answer many of them...or more interesting is the tendancy to manipulate the answers to make israel the guilty party.

simple question, try to answer directly:

if israel stops shoooting , raiding gaza will hamas and friends stop trying to kill israelis in the gaza area...feel free to answer with any elaboration or conditions..... but leave out the questions

which basically comes down to the following:

as long as israel doesnt do the "right thing" (definitions may vary depending upon ones view of justice, etc) hamas and friends have every right to terrorize and kill israelis whereever they are in israel.

that is the way i understand your indirect answer....if i understood it wrong please feel free to correct me.

What was the answer to that question of pelsar's? I saw that you replied in question form, but none of them seemed to relate.

Will Israel keep stealing land? Collectively punish millions of people? Continue extra-judicial killings? Drop cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods whenever they feel like it?

Are you asking for clarification before answering? I don't understand... aside from these not making any sense as answers, they aren't very sensible questions to begin with. For instance, "will Israel keep stealing land?" implies that Israel is currently stealing land, which I don't believe it is. What land have they been stealing? Who has it been stolen from?

"Drop cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods whenever they feel like it?" Who are "they" anyway? And when have "they" dropped cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods? You make it sound as though it is a common occurrence that happens merely on a whim to amuse an IDF general or something. But I'm not too sure that "they" have ever dropped cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods in Gaza, ever. Have they?

For instance, "will Israel keep stealing land?" implies that Israel is currently stealing land, which I don't believe it is. What land have they been stealing? Who has it been stolen from?

Here's a recent article from Ha'aretz on land theft in the West Bank. In this case it's very clear who's doing the stealing and who it's been stolen from...

Court case reveals how settlers illegally grab West Bank lands


West Bank settlements have expanded their jurisdictions by taking control of private Palestinian land and allocating it to settlers. The land takeover - which the Civil Administration calls "theft" - has occured in an orderly manner, without any official authorization.

The method of taking over land is being publicized for the first time, based on testimony from a hearing on an appeal filed by a Kedumim resident, Michael Lesence, against a Civil Administration order to vacate 35 dunams (almost 9 acres) near the Mitzpe Yishai neighborhood of the settlement. Official records show the land as belonging to Palestinians from Kafr Qaddum.

Lesence's lawyer, Doron Nir Zvi, admitted at the hearing that the land in question was private Palestinian property. However, Lesence claims ownership on the grounds that he has been working the land for more than a decade, after he received it in an orderly procedure, complete with a signed agreement, from the heads of the Kedumim local council.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/964843.html

Who are "they" anyway? And when have "they" dropped cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods?

From reading the post "they" would be the IDF, which is a real easy guess seeing as how the IDF would be the only organisation with cluster bombs in its possession. When have they dropped them on civilian neigbourhoods would be during the second Lebanon war. Again from Ha'aretz:

IDF admits targeting civilian areas in Lebanon with cluster bombs

The Israel Defense Forces discovered that there had been "irregularities" in the use of cluster munitions, even before the end of the recent Lebanon war, sources in the defense minister's office said Monday. As a result of this information, Defense Minister Amir Peretz ordered an "extensive inquiry" into the use of these munitions before the war's end.

Meanwhile, for the first time Monday, the IDF admitted targeting populated areas with cluster munitions. In a statement released by the IDF Spokesman's Office, "the use of cluster munitions against built-up areas was done only against military targets where rocket launches against Israel were identified and after taking steps to warn the civilian population."

The statements released by the minister's office contradict Israel Defense Forces' claims - made both during and after the war - regarding the use of cluster munitions.

One IDF version, which remained unchanged until earlier this week, held that the firing of cluster munitions was done in accordance with international law.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789876.html

Shakti's question was "when have they ever dropped cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods in Gaza?"

I've read of one French NGO that suspects they have been used in Gaza, but I'm sceptical as if they had been the bomblets would have been causing lots of injuries and deaths and there'd be some proof of the bomblets existing...

was defensive.

Blowing up Pizza parlors and various other civilian places with suicide bombers is defensive

Shooting up a school is defensive.

your preference is that if hamas is shooting rockets at israel, the IDF in fact should do nothing (i'm taking into account human error of the soldiers, that bombs are inexact in their explosions etc)

that is your preference isnt it?

or do you have a real suggestion for the IDF to use tomorrow to reduce or eliminate the missiles being shot over the border?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so please elaborate.....

what i think you are saying is that the IDF should pack up and leave the gaza border......and not bother hamas, islamic jihad etc.

Side A did something to Side B which necessitates a response from Side B against Side A. The Side A says hey Side B did this to us, now we have to respond against Side B. And on and on and on and on it goes. It doesn't even matter who started it at this point. Innocent people are caught in the middle of the cycle and are either dying or are living in fear of being killed because of it.

My argument is to see beyond the tunnel vision of thinking that one side is victim and the other side the aggressor. Both sides hold legitimate grievances against the other. Both sides are victims and both sides are aggressors.

So every time you ask "What should Israel do? Sit back and do nothing?" well guess what - the same argument is being made on the other side. "What should Hamas do? Sit back and do nothing?"

The problem for me is when either side attempts to argue "yes but my side is justified and the other side isn't." That, in my view, is completely wrong. It's like little children crying well she took my toy so I took hers. Then the other says well he took my toy so I punched him in the nose. Then he says well she punched me in the nose so I pulled her hair. It gets to the point where you just say cut it out - BOTH of you. Instead we have both sides pulling each others hair out screaming about the other side is still doing it. Except in this case we're not talking about pulled hair; rather, it's much more serious. People are being killed because the babies and idiots in power continue with their criminality, all the while giving the same excuse: "what should we do, sit back and do nothing?"

no matter how many times you try to convince yourself that they do.

Hamas has stated that they will continue their violent resistance, no matter what Israel does.

They will continue until they have "reclaimed all of greater Palestine".

Israel has made peace with neighbors, returned land, provided aid and food.

If you cannot see the difference between the two sides, you are blind.

In most cases the meaning is identical, it's just the wording and phrasing that differs slightly.

But how about we take a quick quiz.

Question:

An official from which side made the following statement:

"We cannot sit back and allow this to happen to our people"

Take a guess as to the answer?

lets look at gaza as that is the clearest....

your saying as i understand...some one has to stop the cycle:

israel did that, pulled out of gaza, uprooted the settlements, provided infrastructure for a working economy, set up control points for importing....anything wrong with that?

so perhaps explain to my why did they start trying to kill israelis across the border the very night the israelis left and have been doing so almost daily no matter what israel does?
_____

ami missing something here? it wasnt enough? and if its not enough they get to keep on trying to kill israelis....and you see those actions as one and the same?



israel pullouts of gaza, gives them self govt and that is morally equal in your eyes to hamas trying to kill israelis daily?---cause that is what your "moral equality sounds like"

Israel says "they attacked us from Gaza, so we'll attack them in order to prevent further attacks".

Hamas (et al) says "they attacked us, so we'll strike back at them".

Hamas has not even made the pretense that their attacks against Israel are for the prupose of preventing IDF attacks - their justifications are framed in the terms of revenge.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In other words, it's not legitimate when one side says it.

But it is legitimate for the other side to say it.

Only in the whacky world of Israel/Palestine....

There is a difference. If the Arabs would stop attacking Israel, then Israel would not attack the Arabs. If Israel stopped attacking the Arabs, then the Arabs would still attack Israel. That makes Israel's statement a reason, and Hamas' just an excuse.

While the other side doing so is an excuse.

Thanks so much for the insight.

it an excuse by Israel, just a fact.

However Hamas has no excuse when they intentionally target Israeli children.
Hell, they even fire rockets from their own childrens' schoolyards.

Hamas has total control over whether the resistance continues, and whether their people suffer.

They could end this tomorrow, but they choose to continue the path towards greater misery.

But they choose the path of war.

Just like their counterparts.

because the militants keep up their violence no matter what Israel does.

And in fact, their religious and political leadership has declared that it makes no difference what Israel does, they will continue this way until they "liberate all of historic Palestine".

So, in fact, the Palestininans have the choice to have a state or a state of war.

They have chosen the state of war.

But it's the other side (Hamas militants) held to blame for ongoing war ....

:crazy:

excuses excuses

excuses excuses

these are facts.

No matter what Israel does, militant Palestinians try to kill Jews.

There are incursions only AFTER suicide bombings and other bombings.

If the Palestinians stopped, there would be peace, guaranteed.

But the Palestinians have stated that their goal is to eliminate Israel and take the land back.

Therefore, they continue, and make their lives hell.

Israel kills innocent people. Hamas kills innocent people.

When you start defending either side for doing so, you're making excuses in my book.

It really is that simple.

What you're saying is that the outcome is the only thing that matters; that intent has nothing to do with anything. But realistically there is a tremendous difference between collateral damage and terrorism. Every legal system on the planet takes intent into account when determining whether a death constitutes an accident or a murder. In war, innocent people are often killed. But where the responsibility for those deaths falls depends greatly upon the details. The rules of war draw distinctions between different circumstances in order to reduce suffering. They matter.

If Hamas' actions could be considered self-defensive in any way, shape or form, then there might be a stronger argument for moral equivalency. Same thing if Israel's actions lacked a clear defensive purpose. Or if Israel had never given the Palestinians opportunities to resolve the conflict diplomatically. But none of these happen to be the case. It is not Israel's responsibility to ensure that this conflict never touches civilians. There are guidelines which Israel follows. (Alone I might add.)

an example...

Both FDR and George W Bush involved their country in an overseas war. Soldiers died in both cases... many more during WWII than are dying now. Does that mean that WWII was the moral equivalent of Gulf War II? Was FDR actually less moral in fighting WWII than Bush is in fighting GWII because so many more Americans died then compared to now? Is it really that simple?

Or does context matter too?

Not to mention the semantic games and hyperbole to avoid the truth and twist Israel defending itself from those who launch rockets at civilians and blow up places like pizza joints for max civilian casualties as equivilent.


How does what aranthus said equal an excuse, try explaining it with legitimate debate rather than trotting the usual hyperbole and semantic games

It is a skewed moral compass trying to equivocate Israel defending itself and its unintentional un targeted killing civilians(many due to the terrorists hiding behind its civilians) and those launching the suicide, rocket and other attacks intentionally targeting Israeli civilians and hiding behind its civilians that Israel is defending against.



Using your logic we were the same as the Japanese in WW2 and worse if we throw in your logic about which side has more dead. The same goes for the US and Germany in WW2.

It seems only Israel has no right to defend itself.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That even though Israel pulled out of Gaza Hamas and co. have a right to attack by any means as long as Israel exists or that they feel they need to attack Israel and that Israel has no right to defend themselves? Furthermore,since Israel has no right to defend themselves they are to blame for all civilian deaths even if Hamas and Co. uses them as shields?

I think I may be begining to understand now.

Can you please show us where you got this 10x number?



How does the fact that because more Palestinians have been killed mean that Israel is more to blame especially with just raw numbers?

How does raw numbers assign blame?

In WW2 more Japanese died than Americans so does that mean that the US is to blame?


I know you wont respond as you have not done so in the past but lets try again.



Your statement makes no sense at all and is just another baseless way to blame Israel

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just sayin'. I mean, I was going to pop in and reply to one and ask you why you go on and on and on about pizza parlours but then figured I'd already wasted a few minutes I'll never recover reading the post in the first place, so why add more wasted time to my life?

What yr doing in this thread, imo, is hounding another poster. If someone doesn't answer you, then try asking again politely instead of yelling and throwing insults at them...

pulled out of Gaza and then there was peace, right?

I 'learned' from the other participant here that only one side has dibs on using the excuse.

and declare statehood, and that would be the end of the military killings and land theft.

Palestinians don't want their own state though.

They want the state of Israel, and that isn't happening.

Why don't you say how you really feel about the native people

who are held hostage by murderous militants who don't give a shit about them,

who are held hostage by their murderous militants/governments who don't give a shit about them.

But Israelis have learned to live with hideous terrorism.

It isn't their choice.

They would much prefer a stable, prosperous state, living next to them at peace.

They have signed peace agreements, withdrawn from territory, given aid, money, weapons, etc. to many countries in the area, in an effort to live in peace.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians have determined that eternal war is preferable to a state, because they only want the state of Israel, not their own state.

And so, there will be ongoing war, which is worse for the Palestinian population than for the israeli.

Until we call on both sides to stop their terrorism against the other, it will continue.

Not just one side.

Both.

Do you not believe Hamas and the militants' and the religious leaders' goals?

Do you not believe them when they say that there will never be peace with Israel, that it doesn't matter what Israel does, that they will fight and resist until every square inch of former Palestine is back in the hands of Muslims?

Why do you think you know more than the very people who are setting political policy in Palestine?

They have claimed they have no interest in peace.

Why don't you believe them, and why do you believe that if Israel did anything (short of packing up and leaving) that the Palestinian violence would stop?

I ask with all due respect.

I'm just calling on both sides to stop murdering people

the other side has chosen war and terrorism for the next millenium, or until they take back Israel (which isn't happening).

You don't seem to understand what the Hamas leadership is telling you loud and clear.

They WILL NOT STOP MURDERING ISRAELIS, until there are no more Israelis.

Hope that is clear now.

That much is clear.

Israel has made peace, given back land, provided aid etc. to countries who will stop trying to bomb it out of existence.

The Palestinians could also have a peaceful existence, but they choose not to.

Israel's actions with regard to Egypt and Jordan, for example, show their peaceful intentions.

Giving up the occupation of Gaza has provided nothing but much more misery for the Palestinans.

It is the Palestinians who choose war and terror.

And it is because they do not want any state of their own, unless it is all of Israel, without Jews.

Palestine-Net: Chronology of Palestinian History


I. B.C.600,000 - 10,000
Paleolithic and Mesolithic period. Earliest human remains in the area (found south of the Lake of Tabariyya), date back to ca. 600,000 BC.
10,000 - 5,000
Neolithic period. Establishment of settled agricultural communities.
5,000 - 3,000
Chalcolithic period. Copper and stone tools and artifacts from this period found near Jericho, Bi'r As-Sabi' and the Dead Sea.
3,000 - 2,000
Early Bronze Age.Arrival and settlement of the Canaanites (3,000 - 2,500 BC)
ca. 1,250
Israelite conquest of Canaan.
965 - 928
King Solomon (Sulayman), construction of the temple in Jerusalem.
928
Division of the Israelite state into the kingdom of Israel and Judah.
721
Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.
586
Judah defeated by Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, deportation of its population to Babylon and destruction of the temple.
539
Persians conquer Babylonia, allowance of deportees to return and construction of a new temple.
333
Alexander the Great conquers Persia and Palestine comes under the Greek rule.
323
Alexander the Great dies, alternate rule by Ptolemies of Egypt and Seleucids of Syria.
165
Maccabees revolt against the Seleucid ruler (Antiochus Epiphanes) and establish an independent state.
63
Incorporation of Palestine into the Roman Empire.

http://www.palestine-net.com/history/bhist.html

:shrug:

That definition isn't exactly a stretched one by any means.