Loren Pechtel

He wants to see Israel gone. I have a hard time picturing that ending up as anything other than another holocaust. The terrorists would run rampant killing the Jews they could get their hands on.
The PA admits that even now trying to do anything about the terrorists would mean civil war. After a major success like that, would they have a chance of stopping the ethnic cleansing?

Loren Pechtel

Well, I also consider Israel's legal basis shaky. However, we have to live with the real world--it exists. It would probably be better if it had never been created. That doesn't mean it should be destroyed, though.

Jat

Then you have a very narrow view of things.

Ethnic cleansing? You have any more trigger phrases to throw out?

Sauron

No, he doesn't. If you think he does, then point out where Jat ever said that.

You have a "hard time picturing" any other outcome? Not surprising. You can only see a "holocaust", because you need to see a holocaust.

As usual, you are deliberately limiting your imagination to only those choices that support your original false dichotomy. And those choices that keep the false sense of crisis at full alert. You refuse to see other possibilities here, because to do so would force you to admit that you've vastly overstated the dangers and mischaracterized what Jat said.

Questioning the legal basis of Israel does not mean that someone wants the Israeli state gone. Period.

Well since no one is talking about dismantling the Jewish state, your doomsday scenario is just further nonsense.

They do? Cite that statement with a verifiable source.

And then go back and do it again, factoring in what I said earlier: a solution that was 90% satisfactory to both Jews and Palestinians would marginalize the radicals and make it easier to hunt them down - on both sides.

You've stacked three ad hoc assumptions on top of each other, like uneven bricks. None of them are valid - hence, your last question is moot.

Sauron

Indeed. Considering:

1. the Israeli policy of "no return" for the Palestinians; and
2. the destruction and re-settlement of Arab villages to make way for Jewish towns;


well; it appears that Israel is trying to do some "ethnic cleansing" of its own. So I find it highly amusing that Loren is worried about ethnic cleansing - when he obviously ignores that same crime, when done by his zionist friends.

Gurdur

Not quite concrete, but definitely an indicator.

Gurdur

Let's get a few facts straight:

1) Zionism is merely a name for Jewish nationalism.

2) Like any other cultural group, they have the right to self-determination.
Zionism is just as justifiable as Palestinian nationalism.

3) Zionism is not a monolithic entity, and includes many very different strands.

4) Zionism does not equate the wish for ethnic cleansing.

5) Insulting Loren Pechtel for merely stating his opinion, as well as tarring a whole people therewith, is not rational nor conducive to any sensible debate.

Gurdur

An odd claim, since Orpheous99 /Jat does little except deny Israel's right to exist, and therefore would seem to be strongly implying he's all in favour of dismantling it.

But I could be wrong; the impression given to me by half a thousand threads could be off-base.

Sauron

OK.

No it isn't.

It's a name for a particular kind of Jewish nationalism. It has mythic and religious overtones, and originally got its start within a communal/socialist/utopian framework.

It does not equate to Jewish nationalism, per se. There are Jews who are nationalistic about being Israeli, yet are not zionist. The religious facet of zionism -- one of its defining characteristics -- isn't even present in their thinking, because such people favor an entirely secular Israeli state.


That depends on *how* they do it, under *what* circumstances, and what the secondary impacts of their "self-determination" are, on other people around them.

By your definition, Afrikaners have a right to self-determination as well. Does that mean that their acts in South Africa were justified?

That's a matter of opinion. As indicated above, the "justifiability" of any particlar nationalism cannot be separated from the discussion of *how* it is done, the circumstances, and the secondary impacts.

You've just partially re-stated my rebuttal to your first claim, above.

It requires the establishment of a country in a land that was not empty of people and towns. And it requires the establishment of a new society, on top of people who already existed and had their own society.

What would you call that?

Fortunately, that's not what I'm doing.

I'm insulting Loren for deliberately overstating his case, and for not being impartial when examining the facts.

Loren Pechtel

Page 5 of this thread.

Whether it happens by mere threats (as "disband" would imply) or actual shooting makes little difference in the outcome.

You have a "hard time picturing" any other outcome? Not surprising. You can only see a "holocaust", because you need to see a holocaust.

The terrorists have indicated an intent to kill every Jew in Palestine--with Palestine defined to include all of Israel. Why shouldn't we believe that they will try to carry it out??

Well since no one is talking about dismantling the Jewish state, your doomsday scenario is just further nonsense.

First you ask where Jat said that, then later in the same message you assume that I'm not going to find what I found in less than a minute--and without the search function.

They do? Cite that statement with a verifiable source.

Unfortunately, it was in the local paper--and I've never succeeded in locating an on-line copy of their national news (since it's from AP and not their own they can't put it on the web). I find what looks like it might be it on the AP site but as usual that site doesn't want to cooperate--it should be within the 14 day free period but it
won't let me search that!

P.S.: Will Al-Jazeerah do?

And then go back and do it again, factoring in what I said earlier: a solution that was 90% satisfactory to both Jews and Palestinians would marginalize the radicals and make it easier to hunt them down - on both sides.

The problem is that any solution 90% satisfactory to the Palestinians would preclude any searching for the radicals.