Darth Wong's Israel bashing

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Falcon, your "logic" rests on the premise that if some Palestinians do bad things, it's OK to brutalize all of them. Shoot their kids for throwing rocks, treat them like animals, humiliate them daily at checkpoints, bulldoze their homes with no compensation, even limit the amount of fresh water they get to drink.

Does it occur to you that this premise could be just as easily applied to the opposite parties? A Palestinian could just as easily say that because some Israelis shoot unarmed kids in the street, destroy peoples' homes, shoot people at checkpoints and generally terrorize them by shoving guns in their faces with little or no provocation, and deny them the necessities of life such as an adequate fresh water supply, it's OK to brutalize all of them.

So where does this end?

Personally, I think it ends at the beginning:

1820 and earlier: Jewish - Arabian relations were pretty good. Compared to Jewish - European realtions. Of course, that's like vasectamies are pretty fun compared to a brutal ass raping. Also, it's important to note that there were very few Jews in the Middle East at the time.

1820: Jews first attempt mass immigration into the area. They first bought unoccupied land and then legally bought land from Arabs. At the turn of the century, Mark Twain noted that the area was still, 'in desperate need of population'. So it's hardly fair to saw the Jews were displacing the Arabs.

1917: First international attempt to create a Jewish homeland. Arabs look at this as an oppurtunity to strengthen their cultural and religious bond with the Jews. Just kidding, they killed hundreds in riots over the next decade. It's important to note at this time the Arabs controlled the area. No Jewish oppression, no western aid, nothing. Nonetheless, an area of land under British control was set aside for the creation of two independent states. 77% was to became Transjordan, for the Arabs. 23% was to become Palestine, for the Jews. And Palestine was not the lush green space it is now,

1929-1938: More Jewish immagration, more Anti-Jewish riots.

1939-1945: WWII. More than 10,000 Jews fought in the Middle East for the Allies. Once even tried to fly the Star of David as a their flag. The British quickly disbanded them and spread the Jewish Soldiers throughout the area. On the other hand, the countries like Saudi Arabia has arms deal with the Axis and only declared war in early 1945, when the Nazi defeat was clear.

May 14, 1948: Israel is formed. Several Arab Nations decided it would be a good plan to attack immediately to destroy it. The plan backfired and Israel increased it's size by 50% by the time the cease fire was signed in Jan. 7, 1949. Note: I'm not going to discuss the division of land or the refugee issue at this time. I feel it is outside the scope of this essay.

Now, up to this point there has been no Israel, and therefore, no Israeli oppression. Yet there were attacks against Jews. So logically, you can't blame these attacks on Jewish oppression, like some people are doing today.

1949-1967: The Palestinan population is divided into two section

Those Living under Israeli Rule: They live with greater freedoms and standard of living than any other Arab population in the Middle-East. Granted, they don't have all the rights of Jews, but their rights are comparible to Blacks living in the US at the same time. No significant attacks comes from this population.

Those Living under Arab Rule in the Gaza Strip and West Bank: Treated like crap by the other Arabs, and live like dogs. In response, they kill Jews.

Again, Jewish actions can not be the direct cause of Jewish deaths. They aren't the ones oppression the Palestinians.

1967 and on: My ride just showed up so I have to cut this short. Jewish action are being blamed as the direct cause of Jewish deaths. Even though, similar deaths previously were not caused by Jewish actions. It is more logical to say that the Islamic religion's hatred of non-muslims is more like the direct cause and Jewish actions are a convienent excuse.

[Durandal]

2. On checkpoints, WTF? Did ANYBODY complain about Americans being humiliated at checkpoints when they were going after the DC snipers? The fact of the matter is checkpoints are needed because Israel faces numerous killers like the DC sniper every bloody week. The goal of the checkpoints is to find and prevent MASS MURDERERS. If your dignity needs to be sacrificied to find the asshole with a bomb ... I don't frikking care. Lives are worth more than dignity.

Ah yes. Assume that everyone is guilty whenever a few people get shot. Just what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote "innocent until proven guilty." <sniff> God bless America!

[Darth Wong]

Hey CSS, in your Coles Notes version of the history of 20th century Israel, you forgot the part about the Israelis using terrorism to "convince" people to give them statehood. This appears to be why the irony of the Palestinians doing the same thing today escapes you.

As long as people continue to insist that either:

1) "He started it!" therefore it's OK to do whatever I want, or
2) "They're bad people!" therefore it's OK to do whatever I want,

the killing will continue. And sadly, the mentality that perpetuates the killing is alive and well here too.

[Falcon]

That is right, it takes two to make peace, both sides need to realize that what they're fighting over isn't worth it and that mutual respect and compromise can restore peace\prosperity to the Palestinians and the Israelis both. If the people on both sides decide to stop it they can, the power is in their hands to end it.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

That is right, it takes two to make peace, both sides need to realize that what they're fighting over isn't worth it and that mutual respect and compromise can restore peace\prosperity to the Palestinians and the Israelis both. If the people on both sides decide to stop it they can, the power is in their hands to end it.

Like that's ever going to happen.

Is there anything, other than the sheer size of such an emigarion, preventing the Palestinians from moving elsewhere in the Middle East?

[The_Nice_Guy]

Unfortunately, the palestinians are sick of Arafat and his goons, and the only reason why they put up with him is because there is no other representative who even has their minimal interests in mind. And as long as Arafat remains in power, all negotiations have to go through him.

As for the Israeli side, they are equally scarred by recent events, and they won't be lowering barriers anytime soon to let in more suicide bombers.

It's a messed up place. Still, a second holocaust would probably be the result if Israel is ever destroyed by the Arabs.

The Nice Guy

[Durandal]

The sad part is that there's no clear way to win. The Palenstinians are just as bad as the Israelies in their mentality; they just have less power, not to mention that the US gives Israel billions of dollars in equipment each year. Whichever side wins, you're going to have a fundamentalist, religiously-bigoted government set up.

[tharkûn]

The sad part is that there's no clear way to win. The Palenstinians are just as bad as the Israelies in their mentality; they just have less power, not to mention that the US gives Israel billions of dollars in equipment each year. Whichever side wins, you're going to have a fundamentalist, religiously-bigoted government set up.
Now this one is stupid. Let me break down Israeli politics for you:

Labor - generally centre-left, secular. Labor is inherently secular and "commited" to backing religious pluralism and religious freedom (i.e. no shabbot laws). Participated for years with Likud in a national unity government that was secular in nature. Most of the time it only votes with the religious parties when it needs to hold/break the government.

Likud - right centre, secular. Likud is a nationalistic party, committed to a strong, defensable Israel. They vote with the religious parties, but only because they don't have enough MK's to do without them. Likud uses religious parties because they try to extort less from the government than some of the other parties.

Meretz - Left, secular. Meretz was the leading opposition party until recently, they are not beholden to the religious parties and are active peace advocates. They are very consistent about voting against the religious fundies.

Shas - Religious. Shas is the general bedding partner of many coalitions. Give their schools money, pass a few token laws, they jump into bed. Generally speaking nobody in their right minds suggests a Shas lead coalition, normally they are just used to get a functional government through mass political bribery.

Israel Beitenu - Right wing, secular. Expansionists who don't give a frik about religion. Their general policy on religion is don't rock the boat. They advocate complete annexation of all territories and emigration of the Palestinians.

Shinui - Liberal, ardent secular party. Hates the religious establishment with a passion, actively calls for the government to purge itself of all fundementalist influence. They are a security for peace party.


All of the other minor parties or individual MK's don't have a chance of being the dominant power. Shas is the only religious fundementalist party and time and again they have shown themselves to be oppurtunists willing to get into bed if the price is right. The chances that Israel will actually be lead by a fundementalist party are damn close to nil. Certain religious parties will extort promises from the reigning government, but it is FAR from being run by fundementalists. The pluralists easily outweigh the fundies. Contrary to popular beleif most Israeli political parties are not bigoted nor are they even religious (most spout something about not rocking the boat, but being flexiable).

Ah yes. Assume that everyone is guilty whenever a few people get shot.
Yep it's called prudent security. You assume there is a threat until it is proven otherwise ... Or should the world remove security gaurds from airports? A few terrorists take over planes/blow them up and you assume everyone is guilty ... right

The fact of the matter is security checks are little more than a hassle, they are instituted only because searching everyone is a damn good way to stop murderers.

For the record:
Is saving the "dignity" of people by not having checkpoints worth dozens of lives?

Yes or no.

[Darth Wong]

For the record:

Is saving the "dignity" of people by not having checkpoints worth dozens of lives?

Yes or no.

For the record: this is a strawman. Checkpoints in Israel are about terrorizing people and occasionally shooting them without any kind of due process, not just "dignity". As always, it is impossible to mention Israel without people performing rhetorical distortions. And the way the Israeli-apologists have seized upon this "dignity" thing is typical ... why are they so quiet about the bulldozing of thousands of homes, the shooting of kids for throwing rocks at tanks, the planting of a fucking BOMB in a Palestinian neighbourhood (it went off when some kids walked by, instead of the "terrorists" that it was supposedly sent to kill), etc.

[tharkûn]

Checkpoints in Israel are about terrorizing people and occasionally shooting them without any kind of due process, not just "dignity".
Right there is a systematic plan to use checkpoints to kill and terrorize people, how in HELL does that help the Israelis? What logical motive would the Israeli government have to systematically terrorize the Palestinians with checkpoints.

The fact of the matter is there ARE large numbers of people who carry around bombs and weapons with the explicit purpose of mass murder. Normally it is considered a good thing to place checkpoints at places likely to catch them.

The fact that certain troops have screwed up how a checkpoint should be run (and done so royally) does not mean that the checkpoints themselves are fundementally flawed. The VAST majority of checkpoints function without any serious ill effects.

why are they so quiet about the bulldozing of thousands of homes, the shooting of kids for throwing rocks at tanks
Bulldozing homes? Because I don't have enough information to know if it is legit or not. Some I KNOW are used as shooting platforms. Now I disagree with the way reperations and resettlement (or more accurately the lack thereof) are handled, but I am not party to all the intelligence that comes through to the IDF as to why house should or not be demolished. It could be that these are legit ... or that they aren't.

I don't know, hence I don't talk one way or the other.

the shooting of kids for throwing rocks at tanks
The shooting of kids is a breach of discipline, rioters should always be dealt with using nonlethal means. It is the inherent problem of using soldiers for police. Soldiers are trained to break things and kill people, they do a piss poor job at policing and are FAR too quick to pull the trigger. Time and again the world has seen that soldiers suck at non-lethal riot control (I.e. Kent State), unfortunately civillian police don't work too well when the bad guys have automatic weapons, rockets, and grenades.

planting of a fucking BOMB in a Palestinian neighbourhood (it went off when some kids walked by, instead of the "terrorists" that it was supposedly sent to kill)
Collateral damage. When enemy combatants esconce themselves in the civillian population, civillian deaths are going to happen. At best you have negligence, which while reprehensible is categorically different than premeditated murder. Should you kill terrorists even if there is a chance of collataral damage? Both Geneva and the United States say yes.

What it comes down to is what MOTIVE does the IDF have to "terrorize" the Palestinians? The Palestinians can't leave (no Arab country will allow them to immigrate, many first world countries have restrictions even if it isn't cost prohibitive). What motive to you ascribe to the Israelis for WHY they'd even bother with "terrorizing" the Palestinians?

[Darth Wong]

Right there is a systematic plan to use checkpoints to kill and terrorize people, how in HELL does that help the Israelis?

They believe that terrorizing the Palestinians by shoving guns in their faces at every turn, over-using lethal force, and generally grinding them into the dirt will suppress violence rather than inciting it. You try explaining it to them.

What logical motive would the Israeli government have to systematically terrorize the Palestinians with checkpoints.

Why do you assume their motives must be logical?

The fact of the matter is there ARE large numbers of people who carry around bombs and weapons with the explicit purpose of mass murder.

You mean the IDF?

Normally it is considered a good thing to place checkpoints at places likely to catch them.

Yes, unfortunately, the Palestinians lack the power to set up checkpoints to keep the IDF from entering their territory.

The fact that certain troops have screwed up how a checkpoint should be run (and done so royally) does not mean that the checkpoints themselves are fundementally flawed.

Ah, yet again the "every single Palestinian death is a mistake" argument rears its mottled head. How many mistakes does one permit before a trend becomes apparent?

Bulldozing homes? Because I don't have enough information to know if it is legit or not. Some I KNOW are used as shooting platforms.

I love this. You admit you don't know, but just in case, you lob a generalization. No, these homes are being bulldozed for the purpose of Israeli settlement. Bulldozed by the thousands. And whenever someone says this, the US simply denigrates them as Palestinian supporters and denies their credibility. Even when their own reps in the UN say it, they simply dismiss them and get new ones.

The shooting of kids is a breach of discipline, rioters should always be dealt with using nonlethal means.

Yes, that's what the IDF tells everyone. Interestingly enough, none of the shooters are ever disciplined for this "breach of discipline".

planting of a fucking BOMB in a Palestinian neighbourhood (it went off when some kids walked by, instead of the "terrorists" that it was supposedly sent to kill)

Collateral damage. When enemy combatants esconce themselves in the civillian population, civillian deaths are going to happen.

You just justified terrorism. A bomb, with no intelligent directives, detonated on a timer in a residential neighbourhood with no target recognition whatsoever, becomes acceptable in your eyes. How is a car bomb in an Israeli neighbourhood any different?

At best you have negligence, which while reprehensible is categorically different than premeditated murder.

You don't believe that a planted bomb is murder? Interesting; you must be legal counsel for the mob.

Should you kill terrorists even if there is a chance of collataral damage? Both Geneva and the United States say yes.

Should you kill people randomly on the off chance that they might be terrorists? The laws say no.

What motive to you ascribe to the Israelis for WHY they'd even bother with "terrorizing" the Palestinians?

See above. The status quo works well for them, so they will take any means necessary to maintain it. Their politicians sell them boogeyman stories about how they will all be promptly destroyed if the Palestinians are let out of their cage, so they agree to keep them in the cage. For security, of course.

[Sea Skimmer]

For the record:

Is saving the "dignity" of people by not having checkpoints worth dozens of lives?

Yes or no.

For the record: this is a strawman. Checkpoints in Israel are about terrorizing people and occasionally shooting them without any kind of due process, not just "dignity". As always, it is impossible to mention Israel without people performing rhetorical distortions. And the way the Israeli-apologists have seized upon this "dignity" thing is typical ... why are they so quiet about the bulldozing of thousands of homes, the shooting of kids for throwing rocks at tanks, the planting of a fucking BOMB in a Palestinian neighbourhood (it went off when some kids walked by, instead of the "terrorists" that it was supposedly sent to kill), etc.

And yet these evil terror checkpoints keep catching car bomb after car bomb.

I wasn't aware a rocky field was now considered a neighbourhood.

[Darth Wong]

And yet these evil terror checkpoints keep catching car bomb after car bomb.

And if the Palestinians could stop the IDF from moving into their territory, they would find all manner of weapons too. What's your point?

I wasn't aware a rocky field was now considered a neighbourhood.

I wasn't aware that the use of indiscriminate-weapons such as timer-bombs in occupied territories was permitted by the Geneva Convention. And this bomb was left on a roadside, not a rocky field.

[Sea Skimmer]

And yet these evil terror checkpoints keep catching car bomb after car bomb.

And if the Palestinians could stop the IDF from moving into their territory, they would find all manner of weapons too. What's your point?

That they serve a perpose beyound terror.

I wasn't aware that the use of indiscriminate-weapons such as timer-bombs in occupied territories was permitted by the Geneva Convention. And this bomb was left on a roadside, not a rocky field.

I've never see a ban on landmines anywhere in any one of the Geneva conventions. If you can find such text let me know, I have not read the latest text in quite a while. In any case both sides have not ratified the most recent or any of them, making there laws void in this conflict.



If Israel were in this to rack up a body count they'd actually use artillery when they went into cities and not use Hellfire's on targets a pair of one hundredth the cost Hydra rockets could kill.

Hell that's half the problem, this conflict is far to low an intensity to where down either side in a timely fashion. The result is it would easily drag out another two or three years. A more brutal conflict from the start would end much sooner.

[tharkûn]

They believe that terrorizing the Palestinians by shoving guns in their faces at every turn, over-using lethal force, and generally grinding them into the dirt will suppress violence rather than inciting it. You try explaining it to them.
That is bull, you honestly beleive that they buy that crock? I defy you to name a single IDF general who honestly beleives that. Now many think killing all the terrorists is good, but standard policy is to pull out and let the PLO run the show ... up until the next terror attack.

Why do you assume their motives must be logical?
Because illogical militaries get their asses handed to them.

You mean the IDF?
Oh please. Read up on "unlawful combatants", Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. all meet this definition. Do you know what rights unlawful combatants have? None. Carrying guns to kill Islamic Jihad and Hamas is a GOOD thing. If the IDF was intent on murder causualties would be in the millions by nightfall.

Yes, unfortunately, the Palestinians lack the power to set up checkpoints to keep the IDF from entering their territory.
Oh get off it. You and I both know if the IDF wants to become blood thirsty killers the Pal body count is going to hit six digits in the first hour. How many countries have Canadians gone to, carried arms, and set up checkpoints, even if the locals at the site of the checkpoint don't want it?

Ohh that's right Canadians are allowed to have checkpoints to stop murderers, Israelis aren't.

Ah, yet again the "every single Palestinian death is a mistake" argument rears its mottled head. How many mistakes does one permit before a trend becomes apparent?
Mistake? I don't know about that. Many times soldiers crack, panic, or otherwise disobey orders. Yes mistakes happen, yes trigger happy soldiers kill people. Just because some people have done a half-assed job at implementing it doesn't mean the idea itself is without merit.

love this. You admit you don't know, but just in case, you lob a generalization.
Some I know are legit because I have friends who have been frikking fired on from there. Are you seriously saying that NONE of the bulldozed homes were used as firing platforms?

Yes, that's what the IDF tells everyone. Interestingly enough, none of the shooters are ever disciplined for this "breach of discipline".
And did I say that was right? Nope. I strongly support better review (and charges when the situation warrents it) by the IDF. Quit playing this all or nothing fallacy, one can hold the entirely rational point of view that checkpoints in and of themselves are a good idea whilst simultaneously saying the implementation of them is flawed.

You just justified terrorism. A bomb, with no intelligent directives, detonated on a timer in a residential neighbourhood with no target recognition whatsoever, becomes acceptable in your eyes. How is a car bomb in an Israeli neighbourhood any different?
Targetting. The IDF is targetting a terrorist, you are allowed to use imprecise weapons in war. Given that the following are legal:
Cluster bombs
Land mines
Artillerly deployed mines

This is not any different. Car bombs are HIGHLY illeagal as the ONLY people allowed to engage in military operations in a war zone are lawful combatants. To this day neither Hamas, IJ, or Al Asqa have met the requirements for moving themselves from unlawful combatants to lawful combatants.

You don't believe that a planted bomb is murder? Interesting; you must be legal counsel for the mob.
No more than dropping precision guided munitions on tanks. Straight up murder is "unlawful killing", it is perfectly legal to kill unlawful combatants. It is perfectly legal to ambush them, to use bombs, and to airstrike their asses into the ground.

Do you think it is lawful for the US to lob missiles at Al Queada members?

Ethically a responsible military (and I am not convinced the IDF is) should try to minimize potential collataral damage.

Should you kill people randomly on the off chance that they might be terrorists? The laws say no.
No the laws say that killing civillians is allowable if it is in the process of taking out military targets. If you have a legit military target (i.e. unlawful combatants, a weapons depot, etc.) then yes collataral damage is legal.

Every single civillian protection in Geneva is predicated upon their not being a legit military target in the vicinity.

See above. The status quo works well for them, so they will take any means necessary to maintain it. Their politicians sell them boogeyman stories about how they will all be promptly destroyed if the Palestinians are let out of their cage, so they agree to keep them in the cage. For security, of course.
Bull. The status quo royally sucks since the Infantada started. Israeli GDP has contracted, the reserves have to be called up, and everytime the IDF pulls out, a new crop of terrorist attacks occur. Nobody in Israel wants to maintain the present hell, contrary to popular beleif most Israelis preferred pre-Intifada policy ... because they then had a workable economy. If the terrorist attacks would actually stop the IDF would pull back out. If the IDF pulls out the terrorists WILL NOT stop. The vast majority of Israelis would love to get back to a more peaceful (and prosperous) time, unfortunately the hold ups have are always the same culprits ... IJ, Hamas, Al Asqa, and to a lesser extent the PA itself.

BTW-do you have a link for your bomb story?

[Darth Wong]

And if the Palestinians could stop the IDF from moving into their territory, they would find all manner of weapons too. What's your point?

That they serve a perpose beyound terror.

Yes. They terrorize Palestinians instead of Israelis. You seem to believe there's some great distinction between the conduct of the two sides. The number of Palestinians to die over the past 10 years greatly exceeds the number of Israelis; I suppose you'll say they were all terrorists? Properly identified as such?

I wasn't aware that the use of indiscriminate-weapons such as timer-bombs in occupied territories was permitted by the Geneva Convention. And this bomb was left on a roadside, not a rocky field.

I've never see a ban on landmines anywhere in any one of the Geneva conventions. If you can find such text let me know, I have not read the latest text in quite a while.

The use of indiscriminate weapons in occupied territories is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, which expressly stipulates that the occupying party is responsible for the safety of the population under occupation. Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too; behave by the rules of war against a foreign state, but simultaneously possess the supposedly foreign state as an occupied territory.

In any case both sides have not ratified the most recent or any of them, making there laws void in this conflict.

Yes, of course. International law is only cited when it helps Israel's side of the argument.

If Israel were in this to rack up a body count they'd actually use artillery when they went into cities and not use Hellfire's on targets a pair of one hundredth the cost Hydra rockets could kill.

That would be much more difficult to explain away to even the most gullible press.

Hell that's half the problem, this conflict is far to low an intensity to where down either side in a timely fashion. The result is it would easily drag out another two or three years. A more brutal conflict from the start would end much sooner.

How would it end? Palestinian surrender? They're already occupied! You're still treating this as a war rather than an uprising.

[Coyote]

Although Israel is not the perfect country for individual liberty and freedom, it is a far better at upholding liberty than their surrounding Arab neighbors.

Unless you happen to be an Arab living in Israel. Besides two wrongs don't make a right.

The Arabs living in the state of Israel that have Israeli identity cards have more freedom and higher standards of living than any Arabs (except certain Royal Families) in any Arab state, They are allowed to vote, they are allowed to form political parties and have fielded candidates for Prime Minister without retribution.

Greek, Germany, Italy, France and Japane do not actively oppress their minorities, nor do they uphold apartheid policies. Isreal does both.

Of course, in Israel the minorities are trying as hard as they can to wipe out as many civilians as possible. When Israelis retaliate against terrorists and kill Arab civilians, why do you not also bear in mind that the terrorist used his own family and neighbors as humans shields? Is that acceptable behavior?

The Israelis are supposed to do nothing while Palestinians break into their houses at night (houses, not military bases-- civilian homes) and kill the occupants? And then you wonder why Israel 'oppresses' these people? These people are not engaged in protest marches and singing "we will overcome". They are butchering civilians on purpose.

Isreal oppresses all Palestinians, not just the terrorists.

You know nothng of the state of Israel. There is a sizable Palestinian population in Israel that lives in peace and enjoy a greta many freedoms. Would you be surprised ot find that there are a number of Palestinians that do not support the creation of a Palestinian state? They do not like the prospect of living under Arafat's corrupt autarchy of gunmen, thugs, and embezzlers.

The Palestinians that live in places like Jenin, Gaza, and Ramallah-- where the Terrorists come from-- do suffer for their support and shielding of terrorists. If you want to talk about the unfairness and racism of the Israeli Settler's Movement I'm with you-- the Settlements are wrong and should be removed-- but it sounds to me like you are demonizing the entire nation and people of Israel for the crime of wanting to live.

Israel does not grant full liberties to terrorist infested Palestinian territories.

So your a racist as well. Nice to know your true colours...I do blame them.

So the Jews should allow the terrorists to do as they please and grant them free reign? Should the Jews just lie down and die like good little dogs? I say this because your comments could be construed that way, no where do you mention the right of Israelis to also live peacefully within secure borders.

I wonder if you are aware of the actions that Israel has taken to try to reach peace. The Camp David meetings with Barak and Clinton and Arafat broke down, but even though Israel came ot the bargaining table with a flawed plan they did at least come up with something. Do you know what the Palestinians proposed as a peace plan? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They promised only to continue the intifada and made 0 attempts at counter-proposals or modification of the Israeli proposal.

That was why Clinton put the blame for the failures of the talks on Arafat and the Palestinians refusal to negotiate at all. Barak made a last ditach attempt to negotiate at Taba, again the Palestinians stonewalled with no counter-proposals. The Arab nation of Saudi Arabia came up with a multi-point peace pan and withdrawls plan that promised recognition of Palestinian and Israeli borders: the Israeli government liked it and said they's be willing ot negotiate the deal-- the Palestinians refused!

So how 'bout them apples?

[Coyote]

I agree with Israel's expansion, but how about the colonates (typo?), the palestinian houses bulldozed to make way for Jewish "strongholds"?

The Settlements, and yes, they are a major stumbling block to peace and many of the settlers are indeed the racist fanatics that many fear. The stories of how Jewish settlers in Hebron treat Palestinians is sickening. I just want to make sure that people realize that this is not every Israeli.

And when was the last time there were sincere offers of peace, and Israel did give the land back?

1994, with the peace treaty with Jordan. And then 1999, when Israel pulled completely out of Lebanon and obeyed the UN border to the millimeter and the UN observers there agreed that this was the case. And Israel did not even get any peace treaty or even a promise of cessation of hostilities; they just withdrew basically on blind faith.

[Coyote]

Nice article Nixon.

Unfortunatly, Darth Wong knows his logic is absolutely correct and cannot be flawed, so arguing against him is quite futile. You can concede now, or you can be given a degrading custom title and/or run off the forum.

Not true, while Lord Wong has very strong opinions on this matter I have argued with him from time to time on this exact subject and though we disagree on some items (and actually agree on others) I've never been subject to any discourtesy.

[Coyote]

And which came first, the terrorism or Israeli apartheid?

Palestinian terrorism. In 1927 and 1929, as points of particularly high anti-Jewish activity, when Arab rioters killed hundreds of Jews to protest their living in the land.

They sure as hell weren't protesting the 1967 war...

And yes, the Mufti of Jerusalem was a fervent Hitler supporter and spent much of the War as a special guest in Berlin.

[Coyote]

Actually the Isralei's murdered the Roman Garrison... due to... their monotheistic fascism. They brought the Imperium Romanum Smackdown on themselves.

They were Hebrews back then, "Israel" did not exist. And the Bar-Kockhba Rebellion occurred because the Romans were going to forcibly put a idol to a Roman god in the Jerusalem Temple.

You sir are unable to recognise the difference between the "Jewish race" (though I might add it is a religion, If I convert {perish the thought} to Judaism do I become a member of said race?

In a way, you do. I know it makes no sense and cannot be physically possible, but you attain the ethnicity. No, we don't believe that you change skin color or something like that, it's just the custom.

I see, Arafat is a despot?

Oh, dear fucking God on stilts, surely you don't believe that Yasser Arafat is a kind and benevolent leader who selflessly guides his people on a quest for freedom and peace. He rose through the ranks of Fatah by being a good gunman, thug, and political manipulator.

The Palestinians have a very good case and have rights that are not being addressed, but lets keep it within the bounds of reality and remember that the Palestinians (and Arafat) have their factor of morbidly corrupt assholes.

[Coyote]

I would feel greater symathy for the Israeli side if they were not pursuing a policy of building what I can only regard as illegal settlements on the occupied territories. Do you truly believe that Israel intends to ever relinquish these territories?

On average about 65% or so of Israelis want to pull out of the territories unilateraly, the number goes up higher if the question on the poll includes that there would also be a peace treaty with the Palestinians as well.

But like the US gov't and some business interests, the Israeli govt is full of people that have strong ties to the Settler's movement-- far, far out of proportion to their population. A lot of radical Orthodox streams believe that there is, indeed, a "Manifest Destiny" that is to be fulfilled and they frequently propose "Transfer" of the population to otherArab states ot fulfill this.

The lead ringleader of this is a over-the-top religious nut called Effie Eitam; he is fanaticaly devoted to this philosophy and is able to convince other conservative groups to go along with his ideas for other, unrelated domestic agendas.

[Coyote]

Wasn't there an agreement hammered out by Bill Clinton sometime in the nineties that allowed the Palestinians to get 95% of what they were fighting for? Statehood, territory, a government of their own, and all that?

It was 97%. It also would have patchworked the entire West Bank with dozens of Israel-controlled "access roads" that would require authorization (essentially an internal passport) to cross. The Palestinians would have had a small coastal strip on the Dead Sea but no borer with Jordan (again, requiring passports through the Israeli zone to cary out trade or visit families).

Israel also would have controlled the Gaza/Egypt border and controlled the airspace over the two sections (West Bank & Gaza) as well as sea lanes, and I believe also had veto power over diplomatic ties with other nations.

In other words, a pale shadow of a state. Its generaosity was in land rights and peace-- in all other things it wasn't worth much. I think the Palestinians should have started negotiating more for themselves from that platform (browbeating the UN and US with the rediculousness of the plan) but they refused it flat out, and that led to Clinton;s statement that the Pals refused to negotiate at all and were to blame for the failures of the Camp David talks.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, a pale shadow of a state. Its generaosity was in land rights and peace-- in all other things it wasn't worth much. I think the Palestinians should have started negotiating more for themselves from that platform (browbeating the UN and US with the rediculousness of the plan) but they refused it flat out, and that led to Clinton;s statement that the Pals refused to negotiate at all and were to blame for the failures of the Camp David talks.

The Pals have never been too good at political spin-doctoring. To be blamed for the failure of peace talks is rather unfair. Picture sitting down with someone who's offering to buy your car, and his opening bid is 3 dollars. Do you attempt to negotiate, or do you say "this is a joke" and leave? To promise to negotiate statehood and then present that was the 3-dollar bid, and I don't see it as being unreasonable at all to reject it out of hand.

[Coyote]

2. On checkpoints, WTF? ... The fact of the matter is checkpoints are needed because Israel faces numerous killers like the DC sniper every bloody week. The goal of the checkpoints is to find and prevent MASS MURDERERS. If your dignity needs to be sacrificied to find the asshole with a bomb ... I don't frikking care. Lives are worth more than dignity.

While I agreed with much of your post there is a lot of over-reaction by troops on the checkpoints. It goes beyond indignity like being searched or having to lay on the ground while someone frisks you.

Pregnant women have been detailed in labor and miscarriages have resulted, people have been denied access to dialysis and other medical needs; in one case a soldier smashed all of a farmer's watermelons that represented an entire season's income for him and his family.

The checkpoints may have had a legitimate purpose once but they really have become magnets for abuse and harrassment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- I love Israel and I stand by the right of the Israeli people to exist. But we cannot become animals to do it.

The people that love Israel must be fair and unflinching with their criticsms and question the things that happen there-- and the people who feel sympathy for the Palestinian people have also got ot face reality and criticise & reign in the radicals that give Israel's uber-hawks all the fiat they need to continue their policies.