Sauron

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Page 5 of this thread.

Let's just settle this: Jat: - what is your position? When you talk about disbanding Israel, how do you define that?

Sauron

Already answered this before - you missed it. There are so many militant groups in operation, and not all of them share this goal.

So your attempt to paint them all with the same motives is a waste of time. They aren't monolithic, remember?

Oh, that's right - the last time I brought that up, you agreed that they weren't monolithic. And then proceeded to paint them all with the same brush, in your very next breath.

It's contradictory and partisan behavior such as that episode which makes it hard to take your positions seriously, Loren.


Never mind. I've also found the quote myself - I'm satisfied that you're being accurate here.


No, it wouldn't. If a Palestinian state existed -- and I mean as a real state and not just a temporary, "probational state" (such as Israel has suggested), then it would quickly absorb itself in the affairs of setting up civil government, water and electrical services, road building, schools, naming ambassadors, etc. All the trappings of a real country.

With that kind of example of real nation-building going on, that would be a fatal blow to the appeal that radicals have. There would be no more Israeli injustices to enflame the population, no more West Bank settlers, and a renewed sense of dignity and self-worth. Moreover, the economies of the two countries would start to put out "feelers", and build mutual dependencies (labor, services, etc.)

After a short while, the overwhelming bulk of Arab opinion and world opinion would be that the Palestinians had finally received their just due in the long Mideast process, and that a troublesome chapter has finally been closed. So the radicals on the Palestinian side would have precious little common support at home or abroad, especially when it became clear that there was nothing left for Israel to give up. Moreover, after 50 years of waiting for Palestinian state, the average common Palestinian isn't going to wager all that on a radical's extremist idea to "kill every Jew". They've waited for the Palestinian state too long, and worked too hard, to let some nutcase ruing it all. THey would also realize that any attempts to expand the Palestinian state into Israeli territory would put the Israelis up against a wall: they could expect Israel to declare war against another country - their new Palestinian country - and they would almost certainly lose that war. And if so, then the post-war rules would be far different under the new Israeli occupation.

And the Jewish radicals would have little sympathy, especially when it became clear that the Palestinians now had a state, which the world watched come into creation and had all the trappings of a real country - and they weren't going to give it up just to satisfy ultra-orthodox zionists. At that point, the bar is much, much higher. The ultra-orthodox zionists would have to convince the Israeli government to invade an outside, sovreign country in order to fulfill their dream of "Judea and Samaria" being part of Israel. And do all that, with the US, Europe, and the Arab world watching.

This is a viable solution.

Jat

Originally posted by Sauron

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

Well, actually I did say that it should be disbanded, but what he is thinking that the only way is to kill all of the Jews. Gandhi managed to get millions of people to move when he had the nation of Pakistan created with very little bloodshed at first.

We wouldn't have had most of the current trouble if Israel had stuck with the original borders granted to them. The other nations in the area would have eventually accepted their existence, even if they still didn't like it. But Israel had to possess the entirity of the PROMISED LAND at all costs. Their greed brought much of this down on them.

Jat

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sauron

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel Page 5 of this thread. Let's just settle this: Jat: - what is your position? When you talk about disbanding Israel, how do you define that?

In a legal and orderly manner. This wouldn't have been an issue if they had stayed within their originally granted borders. We made Saddam give back what he took when he annexed Kuwaite. Why should Israeli be any different? Maybe because Palestine doesn't have any large reserves of oil?

I'm not for use of force on anyone. Force solves nothing and only makes things far worse. The Israelis have proven this many times with their policy of bulldozing the homes of "suspected" terrorists or anyone who dared speak up and was labelled a terrorist anyways. And also, their policy of assassinating again "suspected" terrorist leaders without benefit of a real trial. If anyother nation did any of these things the USA would be all over them and force them to retreat or give back what they took.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Sauron
Already answered this before - you missed it. There are so many militant groups in operation, and not all of them share this goal.

Irrelevant. The radical ones want to kill all the Jews. While the mild ones probably wouldn't aid them, nobody would actually stop them.

So your attempt to paint them all with the same motives is a waste of time. They aren't monolithic, remember?

I'm *NOT* painting them with the same brush. I'm saying the result would be what the most radical ones want.

No, it wouldn't. If a Palestinian state existed -- and I mean as a real state and not just a temporary, "probational state" (such as Israel has suggested), then it would quickly absorb itself in the affairs of setting up civil government, water and electrical services, road building, schools, naming ambassadors, etc. All the trappings of a real country.

With that kind of example of real nation-building going on, that would be a fatal blow to the appeal that radicals have. There would be no more Israeli injustices to enflame the population, no more West Bank settlers, and a renewed sense of dignity and self-worth. Moreover, the economies of the two countries would start to put out "feelers", and build mutual dependencies (labor, services, etc.)

Israel wouldn't be dead--the terrorists would not permit things to calm down. Note how they step up the violence to derail peace any time it's talked about.

After a short while, the overwhelming bulk of Arab opinion and world opinion would be that the Palestinians had finally received their just due in the long Mideast process, and that a troublesome chapter has finally been closed.

You're assuming this is about justice. It never has been about justice!

And the Jewish radicals would have little sympathy, especially when it became clear that the Palestinians now had a state, which the world watched come into creation and had all the trappings of a real country - and they weren't going to give it up just to satisfy ultra-orthodox zionists. At that point, the bar is much, much higher. The ultra-orthodox zionists would have to convince the Israeli government to invade an outside, sovreign country in order to fulfill their dream of "Judea and Samaria" being part of Israel. And do all that, with the US, Europe, and the Arab world watching.

When the terrorists kept killing Israelis the Israeli moderates would eventually decide to shoot back.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Jat
Well, actually I did say that it should be disbanded, but what he is thinking that the only way is to kill all of the Jews. Gandhi managed to get millions of people to move when he had the nation of Pakistan created with very little bloodshed at first.

Big difference with India/Pakistan: There was an *EXCHANGE* of people there. Hindus went to India, Muslims went to Pakistan. There was a place for them to go that would welcome them and foul play on either side would endanger their own people.

The Jews have long since fled the Arab areas, there's no exchange. There's also no place for them to go.

We wouldn't have had most of the current trouble if Israel had stuck with the original borders granted to them. The other nations in the area would have eventually accepted their existence, even if they still didn't like it. But Israel had to possess the entirity of the PROMISED LAND at all costs. Their greed brought much of this down on them.

Oh, the Arabs have a time machine??

The occupied territories happened in 67. The attacks on Israel started in 48.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Jat
In a legal and orderly manner. This wouldn't have been an issue if they had stayed within their originally granted borders. We made Saddam give back what he took when he annexed Kuwaite. Why should Israeli be any different? Maybe because Palestine doesn't have any large reserves of oil?

Go back where? Most of them have no place to go back to.

I'm not for use of force on anyone. Force solves nothing and only makes things far worse. The Israelis have proven this many times with their policy of bulldozing the homes of "suspected" terrorists or anyone who dared speak up and was labelled a terrorist anyways. And also, their policy of assassinating again "suspected" terrorist leaders without benefit of a real trial. If anyother nation did any of these things the USA would be all over them and force them to retreat or give back what they took.

And how should they give them a real trial?? The only way they can catch them is with a missile. I haven't heard of a missile that can handcuff someone and haul them off to jail.

Sauron

It is not irrelevant. It is simply inconvenient for your position. The fact is that not all the militants have the same goal. Period.

And you continue to try and say that they do, and I continue to point out your mistake.

No. Some of them just want their own state. know you are aware of this fact, so I can only attribute your comment to deliberate dishonesty.

And for those who *do* want to kill Jews, they are dependent upon popular support for their reach and ability. When the average Palestinian is living in a real country called Palestine, and they understand that the radicals threatens to tear it all down again and put them BACK under the Israeli boot of oppression; well, let's just say that hte radical's welcome will be very short.

Since your "what-if" scenario bears no resemblance to reality, it doesn't matter.

Besides, I wonder how many west bank Jews acted to stop ultra-orthodox settlers from assassinating Palestinian children and mothers......I doubt many, if any at all. So I'm not really sure what point you think you have made here.

Of course you are. "All the militants want to kill Jews", etc. You've done that at least twice in this thread.

Hint: the statements that you have made that begin with the word "all" are the same statements where you are painting them with the same brush. Go back and try again.

1. "All" changes to "most". Finally getting my point across, I see.

2. And I'm saying that you haven't even problem that the "result" you speak of is plausible in the least. See, that's the big problem. You want to talk about the result? There's no evidence that your gross overstatement would even be the result. So it doesn't matter if "most radical ones want" the result, if the result isn't going to happen in the first place.


How selective you are. What I *note*, Loren, is that BOTH sides step up such violence - the Israelis do it with their military, just as they did recently. They were rushing to finish off several attacks and assassinations, before Powell arrived and before several international observers arrived.

The truth here is that there are elements on both sides that DO NOT WANT THE PEACE because it gets in the way of their political agendas. On the Israeli side, it happens to be the right-wing parties, Ariel Sharon, and the ultra-orthodox bloc of voters that he depends upon.

So don't play stupid - I know better.

And don't pretend that Israel is innocent - the whole world knows better than that.

Of course it is. Justice for past wrongdoings, and restitution for losses.


And when the Israeli snipers and pissed-off former WB settlers kept killing Arabs, the moderate Arabs would eventually shoot back. So what?

Under my scenario both Israel and Palestine would have an incentive to marginalize the radical elements. Both countries would have things (statehood, peace) that are too important to lose merely because of the actions of a few nutcases on both sides.

You are like the ultra-orthodox settlers, Loren. You're so attached to your political agenda that you would be dysfunctional if the focus of your hate were removed. You require that special adrenaline rush you get, when you picture a mythical battle of tiny Israel pitted against hordes of Arabs.

Like the military-industrial complex at the end of the Cold War, you don't want peace - it upsets your tidy view of the world too much.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Sauron
It is not irrelevant. It is simply inconvenient for your position. The fact is that not all the militants have the same goal. Period.

The moderate ones will not act against the radical ones, though.

And you continue to try and say that they do, and I continue to point out your mistake.

I'm not saying they are of a like mind. I'm saying they will not stop the radicals.

No. Some of them just want their own state. know you are aware of this fact, so I can only attribute your comment to deliberate dishonesty.

I know some would be happy with that and would lay down arms. I'm saying that's irrelevant to the outcome.

And for those who *do* want to kill Jews, they are dependent upon popular support for their reach and ability. When the average Palestinian is living in a real country called Palestine, and they understand that the radicals threatens to tear it all down again and put them BACK under the Israeli boot of oppression; well, let's just say that hte radical's welcome will be very short.

Jat wants Israel gone. There would be no Israeli boot of oppression to fear.

Besides, I wonder how many west bank Jews acted to stop ultra-orthodox settlers from assassinating Palestinian children and mothers......I doubt many, if any at all. So I'm not really sure what point you think you have made here.

I do see the Israeli police arresting them when they find them. I don't see the PA even trying. Look at that Al-Jazeerah article I linked to--they know they can't oppose the terrorists.

How selective you are. What I *note*, Loren, is that BOTH sides step up such violence - the Israelis do it with their military, just as they did recently. They were rushing to finish off several attacks and assassinations, before Powell arrived and before several international observers arrived.

Look at the time frame: There's a rash of bombings, then Israel starts shooting at Hamas people, then everyone blames Israel for breaking the peace.

The truth here is that there are elements on both sides that DO NOT WANT THE PEACE because it gets in the way of their political agendas. On the Israeli side, it happens to be the right-wing parties, Ariel Sharon, and the ultra-orthodox bloc of voters that he depends upon.

I"m sure there are Israelis that don't want peace. However, they don't go shooting on their own.

Under my scenario both Israel and Palestine would have an incentive to marginalize the radical elements. Both countries would have things (statehood, peace) that are too important to lose merely because of the actions of a few nutcases on both sides.

But Palestine would have no abilitty to act. Your proposal isn't the disaster that Jat's is but it wouldn't work.

The terrorism will not end until the money ends. Very little is being done in that regard.

Sauron

You don't know that - it depends on if the moderates have anything to lose by failing to act. If they have a country to lose, that makes a big difference.

Of course you were saying they were all of like mind. You used the word "all" when describing them, their goals and their attitudes toward Jews. What do you think "all" means, Loren?


1. No, it isn't irrelevant.

2. Furthermore, even if every last moderate sat on their hands and did nothing, that does not automatically equate to your outrageous horror scenario of another "holocaust".

So what? Big deal. Who cares what Jat thinks? That is just an irrelevant attempt at sidetracking the discussion. I am not talking about Jat in the paragraph above, am I? Go back and re-read what I said. If you can't answer it, just be honest and say that. But don't try to derail the discussion with an irrelevant side-trip about Jat.

Of course there would. Because the threat of being re-invaded would still exist.


That's funny; I don't see that happening at all. Perhaps you can back up your claim here?

What I see are investigations that get hushed up, or swept under the rug. And that's providing that the victims can even get the Israelis to do anything - which is the exception, rather than the rule. Take recently, when Sharon was supposed to be dismantling settlements. Oh, he did dismantle eight of them - while 11 new ones went up.

1. Bogus charge. You don't see the PA doing anything, because the PA *can't* do anything -- they aren't allowed to operate any longer. They've been disbanded by the Israelis, and are no longer the military authority in that area. During the time when they did operate, they had successes in rounding up radicals.

2. The Al-Jazeera article is interesting. However, I am not sure that I take Abbas' word on face value. I don't think he actually fears that conftronting the radicals would create a civil war. I think he is more afraid of losing his personal power base and career. Call me a cynic if you want, but I think that Abbas' comment only reflects a desire to stay in power - and not a true fear of a civil war.

Yes, look at the time frame. There's an assassination by Israel, which *sparks* the rash of bombings you describe.

Of course they do, you dolt.

* That's how Yitzhak Rabin died.
* That's also how Baruch Goldstein entered the Temple Mount and shot 29 worshippers.
* There are dozens of such incidents where Jews have gone out to shoot Arabs, under the same circumstances.

"They don't go shooting on their own" - sheesh; that has to be the stupidest thing you've said during this entire thread.


Of course they would. The govt would have the support of the population and a police force to back whatever decisions the govt made. Your comment is nonsense.

Yes, it would. If it couldn't work, then the country of Jordan wouldn't exist. They had a similar situation to the Palestinians - a large majority that wanted peace, and a small minority that didn't. Finally, the govt dealt with the minority. But that required the mechanisms of a full country, with all the powers of a state.

Actually, the terrorism won't end until the injustice ends. But you're right - very little is being done in that regard. Israel has no interest in ending the terrorism - without the terrorism, there would be no "bogeyman", no common enemy to cement the Israelis together and convince them that it is OK to overlook violations of ethics and human rights.

The people of Israel, when given a moment to catch their breath and think things through, are fairly reasonable. The govt and the right-wing parties know and fear that fact - so they make sure that the Israelis never get that chance to slow down and reflect. If Israel were not on a self-inflicted, caffeinated, hyped-up war footing, the people would NEVER put up with the bullshit that the government and the ultra-orthodox parties are pulling.

It's the same thing that is happening here under Bush - he and Ashcroft would never get away with the constitutional violations under normal circumstances. So they have to create this ongoing bogus sense of crisis. Why? In order to stampede reasonable people into accepting the unethical and unconstitutional changes that these two men want.