Sharon says Israel willing to give up settlements for peace.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

That's mostly in the Muslim world, though. As far as I know, most of the EU supports Israel, right?

And, Durran, most Americans really don't care, but they'll usually side with Israel if pressed, or else they're accused of being anti-semites. I've seen it even in my own sister, who was surprised that I accused Israel of being a racist state, because her best friend happens to be Jewish. There's a mentality going around of "criticizing Israel = anti-semitism."

It's funny, I always have a moment of confusion in any I/P debate, because I don't make an unconscious connection between Jews and Israel, and when the guy I'm arguing with starts using them interchangibly, I get confused, until I remember that that's what the last guy did in the last I/P debate.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I think the UK has a far more secular government than the US (Blair doesn't mention god in every single speech, if in fact ever unlike Bush), the problem is not using FPTP like the UK instead they use proportional rep which leads to fringe groups getting seats.

Your inferiority complex with regards to the UK is sad Shep you should try to get over it, being from the USA is nothing to be ashamed of .

Whenever I travel overseas, I tell everyone I'm from Canada.

Hehe, I'm going to spend this next semester in Chile. Maybe I should be from Canada too

[Coyote]

Why is Sharon refusing to let Palestinians go home? I mean, it can't be that he LIKES having Palestinians around... What use does he have for them? Are they like POWs, without the W?

These are Palestinians that left the area of Israel itself in 1948, and later left the areas of the West Bank/Gaza Strip, when Israel invaded in 1967. Many of them live in other countries, in squalid refugee camps, and for the most part the Arab gov't's have done little or nothing to help them-- rather, they are kept in these disgusting conditions to keep hatred whipped up to a good froth.

The Palestinians feel that Israel should grant a "right of return" for these refugees, but Israel feels that such a huge influx of Palestinians would threaten their population demographics. It is the same reason why the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not openly annexed into Israel proper: the population would suddenly have a 30% or so Arab voting bloc.

The obvious solution to many is to give the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Pals; and while a few Palestinians would come back into Israel the majority would go to the new Palestinian state-- properly set up with housing and reparations payments from Israel.

Of course, this Palestinian State would have to be a real state entity, not 'Swiss-cheesed' by access roads, settlements, etc. All that crap has to go. And the state of Palestine would also have to respect Israel's territory and borders and security.

And both sides have to wean off of their respective patrons' financial aid, which many times goes to support questionable programs of both sides(settlements for Israel; terrorism for Palestinians).

[Darth Wong]

Why is Sharon refusing to let Palestinians go home? I mean, it can't be that he LIKES having Palestinians around... What use does he have for them? Are they like POWs, without the W?

These are Palestinians that left the area of Israel itself in 1948, and later left the areas of the West Bank/Gaza Strip, when Israel invaded in 1967. Many of them live in other countries, in squalid refugee camps, and for the most part the Arab gov't's have done little or nothing to help them-- rather, they are kept in these disgusting conditions to keep hatred whipped up to a good froth.

I wouldn't say that fomenting hate is their prime motive. I think their prime motive is simple self-interest and expansionism. Can you think of any nation that would honestly welcome an enormous tide of penniless refugees? Not mine and not yours, that's for sure. Historically, the "Arab states" wanted to invade and seize Palestinian land for themselves; I have not seen any evidence that they were ever genuinely interested in helping the Palestinians gain autonomy.

The Palestinians feel that Israel should grant a "right of return" for these refugees, but Israel feels that such a huge influx of Palestinians would threaten their population demographics. It is the same reason why the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not openly annexed into Israel proper: the population would suddenly have a 30% or so Arab voting bloc.

And we don't want to destabilize the controlled racial mix of this supposedly non-racist country

The obvious solution to many is to give the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Pals; and while a few Palestinians would come back into Israel the majority would go to the new Palestinian state-- properly set up with housing and reparations payments from Israel.

It would be rather difficult to conduct business in a country which is split into two pieces, however. America technically has to go around Canada to get to Alaska, but the Pacific Ocean is wide open; they don't have to go through checkpoints.

Of course, this Palestinian State would have to be a real state entity, not 'Swiss-cheesed' by access roads, settlements, etc. All that crap has to go. And the state of Palestine would also have to respect Israel's territory and borders and security.

Very true.

And both sides have to wean off of their respective patrons' financial aid, which many times goes to support questionable programs of both sides(settlements for Israel; terrorism for Palestinians).

I don't think any of us will ever know what a truly autonomous Palestine would be like, since it won't happen in our lifetimes.

[Steve]

I wouldn't say that fomenting hate is their prime motive. I think their prime motive is simple self-interest and expansionism. Can you think of any nation that would honestly welcome an enormous tide of penniless refugees? Not mine and not yours, that's for sure. Historically, the "Arab states" wanted to invade and seize Palestinian land for themselves; I have not seen any evidence that they were ever genuinely interested in helping the Palestinians gain autonomy.

Of course. The Palestinians are their cat's paws against the Israelis. Although Jordan really didn't like that attempted coup d'etat either....

And we don't want to destabilize the controlled racial mix of this supposedly non-racist country

Heh. I would also be concerned, legitimately, that a powerful Arab voting bloc might try to undermine Israeli national interests. This concern wouldn't be so sharp, though, if Israel no longer felt threatened, or if the Palestinians were made to be aware of just how much they've been duped by their Arab "brothers".

But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a sizable minority in Israel who don't want the Muslims in their holy land. The same kind that do things like forget about the Druzes and other Muslims that have proven themselves loyal citizens of Israel.

The worst worry I have for Israel is their lack of a constitution. Some people claim you don't need them, but I prefer constitutions as they provide a great and solid legal support for a government (monarchies can possibly do the same, but are rendered less-effective by the randomness of who occupies the throne). Although, from what I've studied, the reason Israel didn't promulgate a Constitution was because of Jewish secularists who feared that a Constitution would make Israel a theocracy (some might argue that Israel is a de facto theocracy anyway, and they do have problems with religious factions holding power in the Knesset and government, but they're still technically a secular state).

It would be rather difficult to conduct business in a country which is split into two pieces, however. America technically has to go around Canada to get to Alaska, but the Pacific Ocean is wide open; they don't have to go through checkpoints.

That's what sucks, really. But I am curious as to if it might be possible to grant air-space corridors to Palestinians and perhaps a highway or two that allows more unfettered access (make it a high bridge the entire way and then have no exit ramps in Israeli territory, perhaps allow military helicopters to patrol it).

I don't think any of us will ever know what a truly autonomous Palestine would be like, since it won't happen in our lifetimes.

No, instead it will become the focal point for my new Empire! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Steve]

BTW, Mike...

*lifts box of Cornflakes*

I stole 'em from ya!

*check other thread, you must've missed it, MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!*

[Stormbringer]

The Palestinians feel that Israel should grant a "right of return" for these refugees, but Israel feels that such a huge influx of Palestinians would threaten their population demographics. It is the same reason why the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not openly annexed into Israel proper: the population would suddenly have a 30% or so Arab voting bloc.

And we don't want to destabilize the controlled racial mix of this supposedly non-racist country

Who would be stupid enough to give power and indeed the government up to people that would like nothing better than to slaughter you and wipe you out to the last child?

[Darth Wong]

Who would be stupid enough to give power and indeed the government up to people that would like nothing better than to slaughter you and wipe you out to the last child?

Good point. Perhaps you should go back in time and explain that to the civil rights leaders during the 1960's. They, too, had this crazy idea that people should be treated the same regardless of race

[Darth Wong]

BTW, Mike...

*lifts box of Cornflakes*

I stole 'em from ya!

*check other thread, you must've missed it, MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!*

What?

*runs over to check cupboard*

CORNFLAKE JIHAAAAAAD!!

[Stormbringer]

Good point. Perhaps you should go back in time and explain that to the civil rights leaders during the 1960's. They, too, had this crazy idea that people should be treated the same regardless of race

I think it's a laudable goal. But would you have supported giving those rights if the blacks would have in turn used those rights to slaughter all of the white southerners they could?

[Darth Wong]

Good point. Perhaps you should go back in time and explain that to the civil rights leaders during the 1960's. They, too, had this crazy idea that people should be treated the same regardless of race

I think it's a laudable goal. But would you have supported giving those rights if the blacks would have in turn used those rights to slaughter all of the white southerners they could?

Would you have made the argument that this was inevitable, based on the behaviour of oppressed extremists? How can you know that they would immediately start slaughtering everyone if the reason for their hatred was lifted?

They're in a Catch-22; they are angry because of their conditions. Yet we dare not remove their conditions because they're angry. Does this not strike you as perverse?

[Montcalm]

BTW, Mike...

*lifts box of Cornflakes*

I stole 'em from ya!

*check other thread, you must've missed it, MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!*

What?

*runs over to check cupboard*

CORNFLAKE JIHAAAAAAD!!

I still have my box of Corn Flakes but i prefer Special K and Rice Crispies [SNAP CRACKLE POP] [/b]

[Montcalm]

I hate the lack of edit button.
Sharon can say what he want but the Jewish settlers will never give up the land they (stole),it will be an over their dead bodies game.

[Steve]

BTW, Mike...

*lifts box of Cornflakes*

I stole 'em from ya!

*check other thread, you must've missed it, MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!*

What?

*runs over to check cupboard*

CORNFLAKE JIHAAAAAAD!!

*Stitch high-pitched maniacal laugh*

[Steve]

Good point. Perhaps you should go back in time and explain that to the civil rights leaders during the 1960's. They, too, had this crazy idea that people should be treated the same regardless of race

I think it's a laudable goal. But would you have supported giving those rights if the blacks would have in turn used those rights to slaughter all of the white southerners they could?

Would you have made the argument that this was inevitable, based on the behaviour of oppressed extremists? How can you know that they would immediately start slaughtering everyone if the reason for their hatred was lifted?

They're in a Catch-22; they are angry because of their conditions. Yet we dare not remove their conditions because they're angry. Does this not strike you as perverse?

Perverse, yes, but true currently.

Hmm........ Maybe the Palestinians need an MLK?

[Stormbringer]

Would you have made the argument that this was inevitable, based on the behaviour of oppressed extremists? How can you know that they would immediately start slaughtering everyone if the reason for their hatred was lifted?

Because at this point the average Palestinian lauds those extremists as martyrs. There's quite a bit of support for those extremists even if the average citizen is not a terrorist.

Most of them have shown the only the slightest interest in allowing the Jewish population to live. Remember their constitution called for the destruction of Israel (meaning the Jews) only a number of years ago. That's not the behaviour of people willing to forgive and forget. And, sadly, because that's been the general pattern of oppressed people. They take revenge in proportion to their percieved oppression.

They're in a Catch-22; they are angry because of their conditions. Yet we dare not remove their conditions because they're angry. Does this not strike you as perverse?

It's incredibly perverse and as nearly a catch-22. The best thing the government of Israel could do is to, while not giving them full citizenship right away, make a concertated effort to improve their living conditions, give them a worth while secular education, and then begin bringing them into society at large eventually giving them full citizenship.

[Steve]

Of course, said secular education will then have the wackos screaming that the Israelis are really trying to convert their good Muslim children into infidels to undermine the Palestinian people, and your plan goes up in smoke because most kids are forbidden to attend.

[Stormbringer]

Of course, said secular education will then have the wackos screaming that the Israelis are really trying to convert their good Muslim children into infidels to undermine the Palestinian people, and your plan goes up in smoke because most kids are forbidden to attend.

If you assume that all of them are wackos, yes. The thing is I don't think all the parents over their are. A lot of them would probably jump at the chance to have their kid educated and given a real future.

And if they don't the Israeli government would still have made a good faith effort to improve conditions for the Palestinians. If they reject it and follow the wackos then the Israelis would be justified in saying these people are beyond hope and are in fact barbarians and can't be allowed in civilized society.

What Israel needs to do is make a good faith effort to improve the condition for the Palestinians. In turn that would require the Palestinians to make a a genuine effort stop the terror and be civilized.

[Steve]

When it comes to the Middle East, you'll find me to be a pessimist.

[Darth Wong]

When it comes to the Middle East, you'll find me to be a pessimist.

Cornflake-stealing bastard ...

Actually, I see some merit in Stormbringer's position, as it bridges the gap between anti-racist idealism and the various "realpolitik" (read: "reasons for throwing ideals in the garbage") arguments that I'm frankly a little tired of hearing. Make a genuine effort to improve their lot, and see where that leads. Unfortunately, I doubt we will even see that much happen in our lifetimes.

There is only one entity on this planet which can make that happen, and that is the USA. The USA, in my opinion, is in a unique position where it could potentially lean hard enough on Israel to make it pay more than lip-service to the notion of planning some kind of constructive future for the Palestinians under their control (as opposed to treating them as some kind of infestation to be controlled, confined, and managed). But I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

[Steve]

When it comes to the Middle East, you'll find me to be a pessimist.

Cornflake-stealing bastard ...

Hey, that's evil cornflake-stealing bastard to you!

Actually, I see some merit in Stormbringer's position, as it bridges the gap between anti-racist idealism and the various "realpolitik" (read: "reasons for throwing ideals in the garbage") arguments that I'm frankly a little tired of hearing. Make a genuine effort to improve their lot, and see where that leads. Unfortunately, I doubt we will even see that much happen in our lifetimes.

There is only one entity on this planet which can make that happen, and that is the USA. The USA, in my opinion, is in a unique position where it could potentially lean hard enough on Israel to make it pay more than lip-service to the notion of planning some kind of constructive future for the Palestinians under their control (as opposed to treating them as some kind of infestation to be controlled, confined, and managed). But I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

I wouldn't mind it, but right now, a lot of people view Israel as an ally against the terrorists who attacked the WTC and Pentagon, and it's just too easy for anyone critical of their government to be labeled an anti-Semite and a supporter of the Muslim extremists. It doesn't help that real anti-Semites or Muslim extremists tend to make up the lion's share of media attention to any critical opinions of Israel.

And, if I may say so, your apparent beef with realpolitik... where does it come from? Ultimately, realpolitik is a rationalist viewpoint on foreign relations, and you've always struck me as a rationalist. Well, unless it comes to anal sex, but that's an entirely different subject...

[Darth Wong]

Hey, that's evil cornflake-stealing bastard to you!

The cornflake jihad will eventually find you ...

I wouldn't mind it, but right now, a lot of people view Israel as an ally against the terrorists who attacked the WTC and Pentagon, and it's just too easy for anyone critical of their government to be labeled an anti-Semite and a supporter of the Muslim extremists. It doesn't help that real anti-Semites or Muslim extremists tend to make up the lion's share of media attention to any critical opinions of Israel.

We've seen that right here on this board. It's all too easy for people to shout "anti-Semite!" at anyone who says something bad about Israel.

And, if I may say so, your apparent beef with realpolitik... where does it come from? Ultimately, realpolitik is a rationalist viewpoint on foreign relations, and you've always struck me as a rationalist. Well, unless it comes to anal sex, but that's an entirely different subject...

No, realpolitik is no more rational than idealism. It is a popular misconception that idealism is somehow illogical; it is not. It is merely based on different premises. Idealism is based on the premise that individuals should be prepared to sacrifice for the greater good when the alternative is unconscionable. "Realpolitik" is based on the premise that morality is irrelevant and that each person should fuck over everybody else if it suits him, unless the repercussions from that behaviour are too expensive. Both systems of thought are rationally self-consistent, but they produce different outcomes.

[Coyote]

As far as a split state goes, the plans that have been floating in the works call for Gaza and the WB to be linked by a high-bridge highway, with no offramps in Israeli territory, to link the two.

I think a Palestinian state would be a viable entity; it has all the Christian tourist sites (Nazereth and Bethlehem are both in Palestinian territory) as well as part of the Dead Sea and its tourist and phospates value, access to trade with Jordan and the port of Gaza is in a good position relative to the Suez Canal. Off the coast of Gaza are huge natural gas deposits, waiting to be exploited. A responsible government could bring great advantage if not full prosperity to their people-- much more than any other micro-states.

One reason Israel does not have a Constitution yet is also for a very pedestrian pov: even if a Constitution is agreed upon and ratified, it would be suspended due to the ongoing 'state of emergency'. Israelis have been saying that until a Constitution is ratified they use many of th statements in the Declaration of Independence as a sort of quasi-Constitution. But here are some statements in the DoI that have some uber-right-wingers on edge:

“The State of Israel... will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice, and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure completre equality of social and political rights of all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race, or sex...

“We appeal-- in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for minths-- to the Arab inhabitnts of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanant institutions...

“We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and thei rpeoples, in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the soverign Jewish people established on its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East ”

You can see how folks like the Settlers can see that as threatening. David ben-Gurion, the founding father of the State of Israel, is a problematic figure for them. He was secular and not religious, and when asked advice (in his retirement) about what shoud be done with the 1967 lands captured from the Palestinians, he said "we should give them back".

A Constitution will be predicated on this document, which has been used in High Court cases before (I believe it was used to allow an Arab woman to serve as a stewardess on El Al after she had been turned down). The liberal elements push for this (Meretz and Shinui parties especially) but the right winger "Likud" won't have it.

[Steve]

Hey, that's evil cornflake-stealing bastard to you!

The cornflake jihad will eventually find you ...

"Eventually"'s the key word.

We've seen that right here on this board. It's all too easy for people to shout "anti-Semite!" at anyone who says something bad about Israel.

I do agree with that. I also, however, disagree with the view of some that Israel is some kind of theocratic maniac state. Israel hasn't exactly been an angel, of course, but they also have the slight problem of certain groups hijacking their government, and the rest are kept in support of the measures because they're scared shitless that the next Arab army to roll over the border won't be stopped and they'll end up getting shot in the streets, or that any letting up of security will cause them or their children to get blown up by some misguided fool tricked by cowards into believing that blowing himself/herself and a few Israelis up is a one-way ticket to Paradise.

No, realpolitik is no more rational than idealism. It is a popular misconception that idealism is somehow illogical; it is not. It is merely based on different premises. Idealism is based on the premise that individuals should be prepared to sacrifice for the greater good when the alternative is unconscionable. "Realpolitik" is based on the premise that morality is irrelevant and that each person should fuck over everybody else if it suits him, unless the repercussions from that behaviour are too expensive. Both systems of thought are rationally self-consistent, but they produce different outcomes.

But we have a problem in that States practicing realpolitik have an advantage over states practicing idealism, in that they're inherently more flexible: they can do whatever is needed for the interests of the State while States that let their idealism dictate to them have to follow certain courses or they betray their ideals and are reduced.

One must always be realistic in the realm of international diplomacy, which is inherently amoral because States simply do not sacrifice themselves for others as, say, you or I may jump in front of a bullet meant for a friend or a family member, and neither are they inclined to act in a virtuous manner unless there is gain for them to find in the action. This has been a truth of international diplomacy since ancient times. Reading The History of the Pelpponnesian War, I saw little difference from today in the way that Athens and Sparta, plus the other Greek cities like Argos and Mantinea or even the Persians, maneuvered themselves in foreign relations.

This is not necessarily a "get out of jail free card". A State should be responsible in it's dealings with other States. And that's the difference, really, between Canada, Australia, and even the US in comparison to North Korea, Iraq, and Syria.

In the Great Game of International diplomacy, one must act with regard to the realities of the situation. Otherwise, you are shackling yourself while other States are free to do as they deem necessary. Such an imbalance can be very dangerous indeed. For in this contest, idealism is a luxury that cannot always be afforded, and when it presents itself to a cause, then it must be savored for it's presence. That is why we can look back with pride on the Second World War but not the First, as the former has for us memories of our soldiers preventing great horror and avenging the suffering and murder of millions, and our memories of jubilant French, Dutch, Filipino, and Belgium towns greeting liberating soldiers from the US, UK, and Canada, while the latter was the result of amoral geopolitics.

It can also be argued that realpolitik and idealistic goals can be furthered at the same time. Surely Bush is accomplishing both American interests and an idealism of liberation from tyrants right now, in Iraq. Just as it was in the obvious interest of Lincoln's government to wage war to force the South back into the Union, an act that allowed him to free the slaves. And, of course, the American Republic of today being founded in part because French autocrats send us troops, money, and material to wage our war, as well as dispatching their Navy to aid us in fighting the British. It was in their political interests to break the American colonies from the British Crown, of course, but it did have a moral benefit as well. Over two millennia ago, after dealing a decisive blow to the Spartan military at Leuctra, the Theban leader Epaminondas marched an army of Boeotians, including his own Thebans, into Spartan Laconia, trashed the place, and then used that same army to march into Messenia and restore to the people there their freedom after over two centuries of degrading and inhumane enslavement at the hands of Sparta. Epaminondas fulfilled an idealistic goal here, but also one for Thebes and her interests, by destroying forever the basis of Spartan power (namely, the farmers that grew their food so their men could fight year-round and be trained to do so from an early age) and giving Thebes a (short-lived) position of superiority over the rest of the Hellenic world.

Even if you were to act in an idealistic manner, as you put it, "individuals should be prepared to sacrifice for the greater good when the alternative is unconscionable", others would not.

I'll also add that your statement itself could be used as a justification for realist foreign policy, as an individual leader should be prepared to sacrifice his or her own morality for the greater good, the maintainance of the Nation-State which he or she has been charged to protect and keep prosperous in the name of his or her people, with the alternative being the weakening and even the destruction of the Nation's power or even political independence, an unconscionable outcome.

And now, as it is one in the morning... I must be off to sleep. Good night.

[Coyote]

By the way....

There has been much talk about people who get really, really touchy about Israel and tend to see any criticism as "anti-Semitism". Usually I think that this is a foolish idea and I say so; as a Jew who has lived in Israel for four years (Aug 1998-Jun 2002) I love Israel but I must also be willing-- precisely because of that emotional tie I have-- to face the problems and shortcomings. I want Israel to be a good citizen of the world, and that means doing what I can to correct the wrongs-- even if that means debating them one at a time is private forums such as this. It is all I can do since I am not the Israeli or US governments.

That said, I have to balance my emotional tie (the instinctive desire to defend my second homeland) with reality. I sincerely hope that I have not unwittingly succumbed to the "Critique of Israel= Anti-Semitism" defense. I fear I may have, especially in debates with Arthur Tuxedo or Durandal, for example, or maybe even with Mike himself. Maybe others.

If so I am sorry. It is a defense of the desperate, a defense of people who have no real argument. An appeal to emotion, etc. I try to avoid it but I am only human. I have people over there that I love more than my own self, friends with whom I have strong emotional ties. Not abstract faces in a newspaper but real people with lives and stories and a few times when my own life was at risk. It is hard to maintain "perfect objectivity" in such circumstances.

I hope you understand that my sometime emotional and knee-jerk repsonse to Israeli topics comes from somewhere and is not some poser horseshit. I try to be rational but it is hard. Naturally, no one wants to see their loved ones shot down like dogs in the street. It is my worst fear.

But this in not an appeal for excuses. It is not a rationale nor is it spin. I do not seek 'wiggle room'. If I start irrationally posting that "Israel critique = Anti-Semitism" I expect to be given a good hard swat across the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of reality. Keep me honest.

Thanks for letting me rant a bit.

Shalom al'lekhem