News Stories

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

the overall goal (as i see it) is establishing something close to what we now have with Syria and Lebanon.
I.E, a situation where the hostility is present, but the enemy understand the consequences of attacking us, and hence prefer not to do so beyond the occasional token gestures to keep up the pretense of "War against the Zionists".

The problem is that that particular approach requires maintain some kind of "strong man" in those countries, who knows not to mess with Israel or his own rule is jeopardized. That can work with a state like Syria, and is a reasonable approach. That said, if the government is brought down by a popular revolt, suddenly that approach may not work anymore. For instance what if a government with islamist tendencies arises in Egypt, that simply pours men and resources into terrorist organisations. What can Israel do then? Egypt is too big a fish to fight a prolonged battle against(unlike the 6 day war).

Likewise with something like Lebanon or the PA it doesn't work at all, as the "enemy" you're dealing with is not a regular armed force, but a mob. A mob is not dismayed by a larger force like that, because they simply switch to irregular fighting. They have nothing to lose, so they keep fighting, forever.

To have security you either need to be strong enough to repel them from attacking you, and for the enemies who aren't repelled by your greater strength, you have to eliminate their resource base. In the case of a regular opponent that's easy, you destroy their industry etc.

With a guerilla force, you need to eliminate their popular support. When their popular support is destroyed, the organisation can no longer draw new recruits, or secure the funding required for it's operations. Israel can cut the support of palestinians with direct economic measures. With the aid coming from other countries it's far more difficult, but it requires a certain amount of diplomacy.

secondly, the U.S lost against an enemy that was fighting on their home soil while U.S troops were fighting thousands of miles way from the "most powerful country on earth".
we don't have that problem.
we live right next door to the bastards.
hence, we don't have the option of running away like the U.S did, because the problems just follow us back to OUR homes. (Gaza and Lebanon both proved that).

There's an element of that, sure. But it still comes down to Israel fighitng a guerilla enemy with endless reserves.

EDIT: I agree that the settlers and palestinians deserve one another.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

there is no peace between Jordan and Syria (who once tried to invade).
no peace treaty between Iraq and Iran (8 years of war).
the whole "peace process" in the middle east only seems to apply when people talk regarding Israel.
why ?

I don't recall Jordan and Syria or Iraq and Iran still being at war with each other so I fail to see what a peace treaty will achieve at this point. Though it should be noted that the other arab nations are currently trying to bring about peace in Syria as best they can. If it would prevent further conflict then I'm all for it but I don't think that's an immediate threat.

Also the term "peace process" was generally introduced sometime in the mid 70's to describe the American led efforts in bringing about a negotiated peace between Israel and its neighbors, so I guess that's why it generally refers to only to Israel. It's the type of "peace process" that Americans only really cared about. I think it's just idiomatic, like anti-semitism.

If it makes you feel any better, I have personally never used that term and I suppose if I had to I'd also apply it to the other Arab countries at odds with each other if it seems appropriate.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The problem is that that particular approach requires maintain some kind of "strong man" in those countries, who knows not to mess with Israel or his own rule is jeopardized. That can work with a state like Syria, and is a reasonable approach. That said, if the government is brought down by a popular revolt, suddenly that approach may not work anymore. For instance what if a government with islamist tendencies arises in Egypt, that simply pours men and resources into terrorist organisations. What can Israel do then? Egypt is too big a fish to fight a prolonged battle against(unlike the 6 day war).

Likewise with something like Lebanon or the PA it doesn't work at all, as the "enemy" you're dealing with is not a regular armed force, but a mob. A mob is not dismayed by a larger force like that, because they simply switch to irregular fighting. They have nothing to lose, so they keep fighting, forever.

To have security you either need to be strong enough to repel them from attacking you, and for the enemies who aren't repelled by your greater strength, you have to eliminate their resource base. In the case of a regular opponent that's easy, you destroy their industry etc.

With a guerilla force, you need to eliminate their popular support. When their popular support is destroyed, the organisation can no longer draw new recruits, or secure the funding required for it's operations. Israel can cut the support of palestinians with direct economic measures. With the aid coming from other countries it's far more difficult, but it requires a certain amount of diplomacy.

two flaws in your argument.

your first flawed assumption is that the people fighting us actually fight us because they want to fight us.
they fight us because it gets them to power, and once they're IN power, they want to maintain it, which is something they'll risk losing by ACTUALLY fighting us, and hence limit themselves to words and smaller actions rather then continued war.
neither Hizballah nor Hamas are organized government bodies, and yet they both understand that attacking Israel brings more problems then its worth (albiet, it required us "explaining it" to them).
our border with Lebanon is mostly silent (with Hizballah enforcing that silence against smaller groups), and Hamas knows better then to try the kind of crap they pulled before cast lead and are limiting themselves to small attacks carried out by smaller groups within the strip (sometimes, without Hamas's approval).
these people are our enemies, but they are our enemies in charge, and they wish to remain in charge, and so they endeavor to be loud about being our enemies while in practice trying to avoid ACTUAL conflict.
and when (not if) the Muslim brotherhood comes to power in Egypt, you'll have the same situation.

talking about fighting Israel, thats useful.
ACTUALLY fighting Israel, is harmful.

your second flawed assumption is that there will ever be a situation where there ISN'T a strong man.
Assad is a strong man, sure, but so is Nassralla (from Hizballah) and that Haniya fellow from Hamas.
there will always be someone in charge, and that someone will ALWAYS seek to maintain that position.

There's an element of that, sure. But it still comes down to Israel fighitng a guerilla enemy with endless reserves.

its not an element.
it is the thing, and the whole of the thing.
guerilla isn't about winning the war, its about attrition, and you can't attrition someone out of their home.
THAT requires force.

EDIT: I agree that the settlers and palestinians deserve one another.

so we agree about something,
who'd have guessed.

Originally Posted by Haak

If it makes you feel any better, I have personally never used that term and I suppose if I had to I'd also apply it to the other Arab countries at odds with each other if it seems appropriate.

my point was that everybody seems so determined to SOLVE our conflict, rather then simply manage it.
this is the middle east, nothing is ever resolved, nothing is ever truly solved.
we signed a peace treaty with Egypt decades ago, and yet i can't be sure said treaty would still exist a couple of months from now.
we're at war with Syria, but there hasn't been open hostilities between our countries for a while now.

conflict management is more effective them conflict resolution, because conflict management is actually practical.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

my point was that everybody seems so determined to SOLVE our conflict, rather then simply manage it.
this is the middle east, nothing is ever resolved, nothing is ever truly solved.
we signed a peace treaty with Egypt decades ago, and yet i can't be sure said treaty would still exist a couple of months from now.
we're at war with Syria, but there hasn't been open hostilities between our countries for a while now.

conflict management is more effective them conflict resolution, because conflict management is actually practical.

That's because conflict resolution is means less pain and suffering usually. The peace treaty with Egypt is not a good example of conflict resolution because it was never seen as conflict resolution on the Egyptian side due to the palestenian question still not being resolved and the fact their dictator still promoted a lot of anti-Israel propaganda. That shouldn't really apply to the palestinian case, if they actually reach a proper conflict resolution.

About Syria, in 1974 Israel and Syria reached a disengagement agreement and the tense relations thereafter mean that Syria, unless I'm mistaken, has been supplying arms to Hezbollah, thereby waging a sort of proxy-war.

I think the reason nothing is ever truly resolved is because there are too many people in power with that mindset.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

your first flawed assumption is that the people fighting us actually fight us because they want to fight us.
they fight us because it gets them to power, and once they're IN power, they want to maintain it, which is something they'll risk losing by ACTUALLY fighting us, and hence limit themselves to words and smaller actions rather then continued war.
neither Hizballah nor Hamas are organized government bodies, and yet they both understand that attacking Israel brings more problems then its worth (albiet, it required us "explaining it" to them).
our border with Lebanon is mostly silent (with Hizballah enforcing that silence against smaller groups), and Hamas knows better then to try the kind of crap they pulled before cast lead and are limiting themselves to small attacks carried out by smaller groups within the strip (sometimes, without Hamas's approval).
these people are our enemies, but they are our enemies in charge, and they wish to remain in charge, and so they endeavor to be loud about being our enemies while in practice trying to avoid ACTUAL conflict.
and when (not if) the Muslim brotherhood comes to power in Egypt, you'll have the same situation.

talking about fighting Israel, thats useful.
ACTUALLY fighting Israel, is harmful.

That certainly can apply on the level of nation states, but not the individual level. If Hamas stops attacking Israel, there are 5 other organisations willing to step into the breech, it's not suicide bombing requires vast levels of organisation (unlike rocket attacks, but I digress). Hamas itself is the result of Israel managing to "domesticate" Fatah, but then Hamas sprung up.

secondly that assumes that Israel can maintain it's position as regional hegemon indefinitely. It can certainly beat any of it's neighbours individually, and has beaten them all at once in the past, but all those countries were much weaker, and Israel had allies in Europe, the US and Turkey.

Turkey already has frayed relations with Israel, Europe likewise, and who knows how long America will stick around if Israel keeps ignoring their requests (like to halt settlement construction etc.) No country can exist on it's own without allies. On it's current course, Israel will isolate itself from it's neighbours, and potential allies in the west, afterwhich when shit really hits the fan, no one will be around to help them.

What you describe can work, but it's an extremely unstable equilibrium, and can seldom last very long.

your second flawed assumption is that there will ever be a situation where there ISN'T a strong man.
Assad is a strong man, sure, but so is Nassralla (from Hizballah) and that Haniya fellow from Hamas.
there will always be someone in charge, and that someone will ALWAYS seek to maintain that position.

Perhaps so, but those strong men have a disturbing tendency to end out dead or deposed. It's a continuous balancing act. Much better to have easy relations.

its not an element.
it is the thing, and the whole of the thing.
guerilla isn't about winning the war, its about attrition, and you can't attrition someone out of their home.
THAT requires force.

True, I doubt the Palestinians can currently boot the Israelis out, but they can make Israel's life a living misery, and drag it down to their level.

my point was that everybody seems so determined to SOLVE our conflict, rather then simply manage it.
this is the middle east, nothing is ever resolved, nothing is ever truly solved.
we signed a peace treaty with Egypt decades ago, and yet i can't be sure said treaty would still exist a couple of months from now.
we're at war with Syria, but there hasn't been open hostilities between our countries for a while now.

conflict management is more effective them conflict resolution, because conflict management is actually practical.

I would agree there when it comes to dealing with Dictators (like the syrians), but I think it's a pretty dangerous road to go down with whole groups of people. There has to be a road available for Palestinians to gain prosperity and peace, and Israel has the power to make or break it.

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I disagree, they're both driven by Nationalism, on both sides. And both consist of a state trying to supress a paramiliatary force. There are of course differences, but the core issue is similiar. Likewise ETA in Spain, or Chechens in Russia etc. etc.

No they aren't. Take a look at the Hamas and Fatah charters some time. They call for the dismantling of the state of Israel. This has nothing to do with nationalism at all. If it did, why has even Abbas stated that his palestinian state will be Judenrein?

I was referring to Palestine, not Israel, IE the territories. However, the Arabs living in Israel aren't too big on Israel either, all the Arabic parties in Israel are quite anti-Israeli, and Arabs living in Israel experience routine discrimination (google it).

Most arabs don't vote for arab parties. Did you not know that? They tend to vote for Kadima and the like. Some vote for United Torah Judaism and Shas for religious reasons.

Terrorism can be eliminated, at the source. Also, look at the lopsided nature of the number of casualties. In any given Palestinian Arab/Israeli Fracas the number of Arab casualties is in the thousands or even tens of thousands. Israel seldom has more then a few hundred casualties. Far more "innocent palestinians" are dying to Israeli army attacks then Israeli civilians, and that's a fact.

Number of casualties means nothing in conflict, however you can't say the figures are "innocent palestinians" at all. Never mind the figure-fiddling Hamas et al are involved in and never mind terrorist use of human shields.

Well they can stop using disproportionate force to fight off Palestinian Militants, for starters. Rather then rolling in with tanks, airstrikes and Artillery bombardments, that kill indiscriminately, they could hold back and focus on killing militants more ... precisely. That would entail more casualties on their part though so...

How would you kill terrorists more precisely?

Sure, they get "aid" from Israel, but half of people living in Gaza are unemployed, and the west bank is better at 17%.

That isn't Israel's problem. How about the PA forcing thousands of it's own people to lose their jobs because they were building homes for Jews, or trading with Jews, or advertising things sold by Jews?

I don't think Israel should negotiate with the terrorists, but I do think they should be focussed on directly improving the lives of Arabs. They should focus on building up a faction within the Palestinian community that is more friendly with them. Fighting them with fire is only playing into the viewpoint that the terrorist organisations espouse.

Improving the lives of the moderates doesn't stop the extremists from wanting to kill Jews.

Not only that, but within Israel there's a lot of social unrest due to the conflict, for instance there's a growing rift between the Ultra Orthodox and secular Israelis over the exemption of Orthodox Jews to conscription.

The social unrest is just that, over social issues. While Israel is economically in good condition, it's an expensive place to live and just like Occupy Wall St, it has it's own 99%.

I haven't seen a growing rift between Hareidim and Secular Israelis. If anything it seems to be improving.

As for Gaza, they need to loosed the blockade, and build back up the Gazan economy.

I'm not particularly fussed about the blockade, as Gazan terrorists are able to get GRADs and Iranian bunker buster missiles even with it. That said, doing the above won't HELP defeat extremism.

Finally, they need to halt the building of all settlements, and remove any recently built settlements within the West Bank.

There are no recently built settlements.

People who live in settlements are entitled to the same right to life as anyone, so natural growth is mandatory.

They should halt all moves to define Israel as being a state "purely for Jews".

Nobody says this. Israel is defined as a Jewish State, not state "purely for Jews". The character of the state is democratic and Jewish.

The problem is not primarily a religious one, it is a nationalist one. Two groups of "nations" believe that a particular piece of land is theirs. That it's by "divine right" only makes it worse. The Jews believe it God promised it for them, and their presence their 2000 years ago justified their reconquest.

Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years, including during those 2000 years.

I did not originally bring up the conflict, I was just commenting on the far right ... nature of the current parliament, and it's Jingoism I find personally abhorrent. I thought previous governments were far better. That is all I said. I did infer certain things, but you then took those statements as an excuse to personally attack me, though I don't particularly mind.

Glad you don't mind, shame you had to leave such a nasty comment as negative rep, eh? Still, nothing personal I'm sure.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

No they aren't. Take a look at the Hamas and Fatah charters some time. They call for the dismantling of the state of Israel. This has nothing to do with nationalism at all. If it did, why has even Abbas stated that his palestinian state will be Judenrein?

Which is a nationalistic goal. IE dismantly the Jewish state (the rival nation) and establish their own nation state (their state) in it's place. Cleaning the area of jews is a very nationalistic thing to do. It's expelling the "foreign elements". What do you think Nationalism is?

Likewise, Jews are driven by their own type of nationalism, commonly called Zionism.

Most arabs don't vote for arab parties. Did you not know that? They tend to vote for Kadima and the like. Some vote for United Torah Judaism and Shas for religious reasons.

Only a third.. Most in fact do vote for Arab parties, and the Zionist parties they do vote for tend to be left wing (eg Labour etc.)

Number of casualties means nothing in conflict, however you can't say the figures are "innocent palestinians" at all. Never mind the figure-fiddling Hamas et al are involved in and never mind terrorist use of human shields.

Casualty numbers are fairly important. And a large proportion of those casualties are "innocent civilians".

How would you kill terrorists more precisely?

Send in troops.

That isn't Israel's problem. How about the PA forcing thousands of it's own people to lose their jobs because they were building homes for Jews, or trading with Jews, or advertising things sold by Jews?

Most of the PA's economy is dependent on trading with israelis, so I don't really believe that. I can believe that a person doing business with Jews might experience discrimination from their neighbours, however...

Improving the lives of the moderates doesn't stop the extremists from wanting to kill Jews.

It does not, but it does lower the number of extremists, and brings the moderates onto your side, so they deal with the extremists for you.

The social unrest is just that, over social issues. While Israel is economically in good condition, it's an expensive place to live and just like Occupy Wall St, it has it's own 99%.

I haven't seen a growing rift between Hareidim and Secular Israelis. If anything it seems to be improving.

I thought you lived in Northern Ireland?

I'm not particularly fussed about the blockade, as Gazan terrorists are able to get GRADs and Iranian bunker buster missiles even with it. That said, doing the above won't HELP defeat extremism.

Why wouldn't it? Surely people with jobs are less likely to turn to extremism...

There are no recently built settlements.

No new settlements have been established, but existing settlements have been expanding, which is as good as the same thing.

People who live in settlements are entitled to the same right to life as anyone, so natural growth is mandatory.

You can say the same for Arab communities (including the non-palestinians like the Bedouin of the Negev), they also have the same rights, or should have the same rights.

Nobody says this. Israel is defined as a Jewish State, not state "purely for Jews". The character of the state is democratic and Jewish.

Then why does the Lieberman plan want to remove a 1/3 of Israel's Arabs? What of the land system that's slated towards transferring land to Jews from Arabs. They're not saying that Israel is a land "purely for Jews" but the right are implying that they'd prefer it if it was. You can read some good examples of legalistic discrimination on this wiki page. For instance, on average Hebrew schools receive $1100 per year per student, while Arabic Schools only receive $192 a year per student.

Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years, including during those 2000 years.

As a very small minority. They were also living throughout Europe.

Glad you don't mind, shame you had to leave such a nasty comment as negative rep, eh? Still, nothing personal I'm sure.

As a policy I only leave negreps for clear idiocy and/or trolling. I did not leave you any neg reps, as you did neither. As proof you can see a new positive rep with my name on it. Besides, I enjoy a good discussion.

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Which is a nationalistic goal. IE dismantly the Jewish state (the rival nation) and establish their own nation state (their state) in it's place. Cleaning the area of jews is a very nationalistic thing to do. It's expelling the "foreign elements". What do you think Nationalism is?

It depends. Making the palestinian territories free of Israelis would strike me as more nationalistic than making it free of Jews. Why the Jews? Why can everyone else live there but not the Jews? For the same reason, why can everyone else pray on the Muslim controlled Temple Mount but not the Jews?

Couple that with the venom spewed by extremist clerics against Jews and it seems to me that at least in the hearts and minds of many, the issue is religious not nationalistic.

Likewise, Jews are driven by their own type of nationalism, commonly called Zionism.

While I'm not a Zionist, I don't think you really want to draw a moral equivalency between extremist terrorist values and those who adhere to Zionism. Zionism has it's flaws, but it's not out to get anybody.

Only a third.. Most in fact do vote for Arab parties, and the Zionist parties they do vote for tend to be left wing (eg Labour etc.)

Most don't vote at all lol.

Arab voting for Kadima, Labour, Meretz etc is on the rise, though I doubt many would publicly admit to it. I have Israeli Arab friends who are the same.

Casualty numbers are fairly important. And a large proportion of those casualties are "innocent civilians".

They are important, but they are no indicator of right or wrong.

You can't say a large proportion are. You can't say they aren't either. You just don't know.

I can understand your point of course, but Israel currently does quite a bit to try and minimize civilian casualties. It took them years to respond to the rocket fire from Gaza.

Most of the PA's economy is dependent on trading with israelis, so I don't really believe that. I can believe that a person doing business with Jews might experience discrimination from their neighbours, however...

I posted links earlier in this thread showing several instances of this. 20 thousand Palestinians were made unemployed last year alone by Abbas. because they were employed by settlements for building.

It does not, but it does lower the number of extremists, and brings the moderates onto your side, so they deal with the extremists for you.

Pay the moderates to make them against terrorism. Somehow that just sounds wrong...

I thought you lived in Northern Ireland?

Ah sorry. I do. But I also study in Yeshiva in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem.

Why wouldn't it? Surely people with jobs are less likely to turn to extremism...

In an ideal world I guess...

Why not take Hamas at their word when they say they want to slaughter the Jews? It's a religious war for them. Complete with martyrdom. It's serious business.

No new settlements have been established, but existing settlements have been expanding, which is as good as the same thing.

And why shouldn't they? People get married, have children, extend their homes, live close to their parents and where their loved ones are buried. That's life.

You can say the same for Arab communities (including the non-palestinians like the Bedouin of the Negev), they also have the same rights, or should have the same rights.

Of course.

Bedouin are in the invidious position of running into Planning Laws with the High Court. Similar to the Travelling community here in the UK. That's another story, however.

Then why does the Lieberman plan want to remove a 1/3 of Israel's Arabs? What of the land system that's slated towards transferring land to Jews from Arabs. They're not saying that Israel is a land "purely for Jews" but the right are implying that they'd prefer it if it was.

Lieberman is in favor of a two state solution. He wants the Palestinian Authority to take in some arab villages/towns with land swaps. I don't agree with him.

He also doesn't speak for the right. He speaks for Yisrael Beiteinu voters who compromise a small minority of Israeli society.

As a very small minority. They were also living throughout Europe.

Actually this is a historical mistruth, for many times Jews were the majority in the Land of Israel.

But yes, the Jewish people lived all over. Take the 1 million Jews thrown out of Arab lands in 1948 for example.

What's your point?

I did not leave any neg reps. As proof you can see a new positive rep with my name on it.

My apologies, someone left one and signed your name to it. I've had a few (cussing me out) for pro-Israel posts and was quick to jump to conclusions. Again, sorry.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

It depends. Making the palestinian territories free of Israelis would strike me as more nationalistic than making it free of Jews. Why the Jews? Why can everyone else live there but not the Jews? For the same reason, why can everyone else pray on the Muslim controlled Temple Mount but not the Jews?

The reason that jews are particularly focused on is that Jews are the only significant group to be focused on. If there were substantial number of Irishmen moving in, I'm sure they'd start talking about Irish people being the spawn of Satan. In this case, it's a matter of religion being used to justify nationalism, but at it's core it's nationalism.

Likewise, regarding the temple mount, they allow christians(or whoever) to pray there largely because there isn't many of them. Jews aren't allowed there because they're the "national enemy". If it was Irish people flooding the Israel, I'm sure they'd promptly ban Catholics too.

Couple that with the venom spewed by extremist clerics against Jews and it seems to me that at least in the hearts and minds of many, the issue is religious not nationalistic.

There's certainly a religious element, but the way I view it is that the core of it is not religious, it's religion being used in the service of nationalism.

While I'm not a Zionist, I don't think you really want to draw a moral equivalency between extremist terrorist values and those who adhere to Zionism. Zionism has it's flaws, but it's not out to get anybody.

Nationalism does not inherently mean terrorism or "out to get someone" it simply means identifying yourself with a collective whole on ethno-political grounds. It usually entails the belief that your nation must be defended, or that if it does not exist, it must be established. Likewise it agitates that certain lands /other objects belong to the nation. So Arabs agitating for Israel to be destroyed and a state called Palestine be created in it's place are Palestinian nationalists. Likewise Jews agitating for the annexation of all the West Bank/Gaza could be described as Jewish Nationalists. Likewise, Zionism itself came about in the wake of other European nationalist movements that had established nation estates. EG The Italian "nation-state" was only established in the 1860s, and the german nation-state in 1871.

Often times Nations can exist on very tenuous grounds. Palestinians are little different from the Arabs in the countries surrounding them, and yet they label themselves a "nation". Likewise there's little major stuff differentiating the average Irishman from an Englishman, especially after the Irish language faded out of existence. If you look at the Balkans the nations there have an extremely tenuous basis. Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks all speak a similiar language, the only major difference between them is that Serbs are Orthodox, Croats Catholic and Bosniaks Muslim. Religion can often play a part in defining the "nation".

Nationalist movements have their place, but they're all based on the central conceipt that their nation exists in some meaningful way, and that they have some special place in history. In reality, a nation does not exist. So agitating that "this land must belong to this nation" is a rather strange thing. Zionism is neither the worst or most extreme example of nationalism, but it is an interesting one, given how dispersed Jews were.

I can understand your point of course, but Israel currently does quite a bit to try and minimize civilian casualties. It took them years to respond to the rocket fire from Gaza.

Israel could be a lot worse, but I get a sense from a lot of Israelis that they simply don't care. Might makes right. I know that many Israelis likely disagree, and Jews worldwide (heck I'm a jew myself through my mother).

I posted links earlier in this thread showing several instances of this. 20 thousand Palestinians were made unemployed last year alone by Abbas. because they were employed by settlements for building.

It was wrong for Abbas to do that, but that doesn't make what Israel does better. I have never claimed the Palestinian Authority is a good body.

Pay the moderates to make them against terrorism. Somehow that just sounds wrong...

It does sound a bit like bribery, but I think it's not so much bribery as "giving proper opportunity". If you create a space for Moderate Arabic culture to flourish, it will take root. There already is something of one within Israel. There's no reason there can't be one outside of Israel. However, Arabs living in Israel have grievances with the state already, in the form of preference usually being given to Jewish citizens in various forums.

In an ideal world I guess...

Why not take Hamas at their word when they say they want to slaughter the Jews? It's a religious war for them. Complete with martyrdom. It's serious business.

You can't deal with a group like Hamas, you have to ignore them and move on. But you have to deal with underlying societal issues that lead to the creation of Hamas. Don't forget that the first intifida was only in the 80s, prior to that Palestinian militants were not a major issue. The Palestinian problem did not come from no where. It's the result of decades of historical forces.

And why shouldn't they? People get married, have children, extend their homes, live close to their parents and where their loved ones are buried. That's life.

Hey, I can't build a house at the bottom of my garden just because I want to, I have to get permission from the local authority, and all the neighbors.

There's also the issue that these settlements are expanding into land that is not explicitly theres, and most of the surrounding Arab residents strongly object to it.

Of course.

Bedouin are in the invidious position of running into Planning Laws with the High Court. Similar to the Travelling community here in the UK. That's another story, however.

I found the treatment of the Bedouin to be particularly terrible, given how they've generally had good relations with the state in the past. They've lived there long before the state of Israel was formed.

Lieberman is in favor of a two state solution. He wants the Palestinian Authority to take in some arab villages/towns with land swaps. I don't agree with him.

He also doesn't speak for the right. He speaks for Yisrael Beiteinu voters who compromise a small minority of Israeli society.

Indeed, but Yisrael Beiteiny are the 3rd largest party in the Knesset, so they don't seem like such a small group to me, and several other parties have very similiar aims.

Actually this is a historical mistruth, for many times Jews were the majority in the Land of Israel.

But yes, the Jewish people lived all over. Take the 1 million Jews thrown out of Arab lands in 1948 for example.

What's your point?

I see no reason why the Jews have any kind of historical right to the lands of the Levant in preference to the Arabs. In 1900 92% of the world Jews were Ashkenazis originating in Europe, and hadn't been in the middle east for centuries. I don't see why that 80% (after the holocaust...) had any right to establish a state in Israel. Now I'm aware of the historical circumstances surrounding anti-semetism and the aforementioned Holocaust (which does not need to be discussed, as we all know what happened), but 2 wrongs don't make a right. It's not right to dispossess the Arabs living there of their lands and homes to make way for Jews to take over, just because the Jews were fleeing persecution. The arabs did not volunteer for the "privilege". As it is, I feel as much brotherhood for Yemeni Jews or Mizrahi Jews as I do for Palestinian Arabs. Fundamentally, I object to the idea of a state being explicitly created for any group of people. Particularly ethnicity. I am cosmopolitan and anti-nationalist. I believe in seperation of Church and state, and ethnicity/nation and state, because regardless of ethnicity or religion, all people are fundamentally the same. Due to this sameness, I think laws or ideology based on artificial difference based on ethnicity(or race, which is in the end a fairly similiar idea) only serve to divide people, rather then to unify them together.

So just because one group of Jews were living in Israel, and may even at some point been a majority, though I disagree on that point, it does not justify all the other Jews to have a right to live there. Just as all the Irish Americans in the US don't have some kind of right to live in Ireland, or live in Northern Ireland and crowd out the Ulster Scots.

A lot of Irish people live in Boston, and form a majority there. That does not mean that all the Irish people have the fundamental right to immigrate there and take political control. The large minority of Americans would have greater precedence.

However Israel exists, and that is a fact. However I disapprove that it is an explicitly Jewish State. It should be a state that is multi-ethnic and multi-religous, reflecting the multi-ethnic character of it's formation and native population. The Holy land was a melting pot of many cultures, and should have been established as such. Jews should not have received preference, nor should have Palestinians, as substantial number of native Jews, Druze etc. were already living there.

My apologies, someone left one and signed your name to it. I've had a few (cussing me out) for pro-Israel posts and was quick to jump to conclusions. Again, sorry.

No problem

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Hamas itself is the result of Israel managing to "domesticate" Fatah, but then Hamas sprung up.

While I agree with what you're saying, Hamas is arguably a proxy of Iran. If Iran weren't there to egg on and support further conflict, how likely is it that a powerful, organized group would arise? Not overly likely, I'd imagine.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

secondly that assumes that Israel can maintain it's position as regional hegemon indefinitely. It can certainly beat any of it's neighbours individually, and has beaten them all at once in the past, but all those countries were much weaker, and Israel had allies in Europe, the US and Turkey.

You're referring to the Six Day War, correct? The only support that Israel had from western allies was in terms of equipment, and even then it was supplying many of its own arms for infantry. Similarly, the Arab nations were relying on the Soviet Union for their equipment. What makes you say that the countries that Israel fought with were weaker then than they are now?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

True, I doubt the Palestinians can currently boot the Israelis out, but they can make Israel's life a living misery, and drag it down to their level.

I'm fairly certain that Israel's retaliation would ratchet up if the Palestinians became more aggressive, and Israel certainly has the greater capability to make people miserable if they wanted to. Hence there's a sort of uneasy balance - the militants have to keep proving that they can back up their words, but if they push Israel too far then they may find themselves in a situation that they can't handle. They are ultimately powerless against Israel because of fighting capability; Israel is only limited by the support that its population and allies give for retaliation.

[DonQuigleone]

[QUOTE=Ledgem;3887544]While I agree with what you're saying, Hamas is arguably a proxy of Iran. If Iran weren't there to egg on and support further conflict, how likely is it that a powerful, organized group would arise? Not overly likely, I'd imagine.
[quote]
To be fair, there's a lot of other Jihadist groups throughout Palestine, Hamas is just the most prominent. Even if it does receive funding from Iran, there's a long history of militant groups receiving funding from wealthy backers. The IRA could not have existed but for wealthy Irish-Americans who donated to it. But both movements were acting on sentiments that were already existing within the populace.

You're referring to the Six Day War, correct? The only support that Israel had from western allies was in terms of equipment, and even then it was supplying many of its own arms for infantry. Similarly, the Arab nations were relying on the Soviet Union for their equipment. What makes you say that the countries that Israel fought with were weaker then than they are now?

Turkey is a fair amount stronger (and Israel did not fight them in the 6 day war). Otherwise the Arab countries are not particularly stronger, but that could easily change. For one thing, there's a lot more oil money flowing around now then there was back then. It's a changing battlefield, and there's no reason to assume things will stay the same. Generally speaking however, I doubt Israel would be able to withstand the combined forces of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Egypt, and Turkey all put together. It the past it managed to keep a few alliances, particularly with Jordan (which they're still maintaining, kinda...), Turkey, and Egypt.

Furthermore, if Europe and America removed the guarantee from Israel, there'd be no reason for other countries to start interfering, say Russia could start dipping it's fingers back into the region, or European powers could align with Arab powers against Israeli interests. For instance, if I was France, and Egypt offered me exclusive economic rights of some kind in return for backing up Egypt in a treaty negotiation with Israel, well I might take them up on it if I knew the USA wasn't going to interfere.

Fighting the 6 day war was a real trick for Israel, but I doubt they could repeat it again, or survive in the long term surrounded by hostile governments, no government has managed to do so previously.

Additionally, if Israel gets really stroppy, it may not be the Arabs that are causing them problems...

I'm fairly certain that Israel's retaliation would ratchet up if the Palestinians became more aggressive, and Israel certainly has the greater capability to make people miserable if they wanted to. Hence there's a sort of uneasy balance - the militants have to keep proving that they can back up their words, but if they push Israel too far then they may find themselves in a situation that they can't handle. They are ultimately powerless against Israel because of fighting capability; Israel is only limited by the support that its population and allies give for retaliation.

The difference is that things can't get much worse for the militants. You can't really fight people who are willing to kill themselves, in any kind of reasonable manner. It's a gigantic never ending game of Whack a mole.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

. It's a gigantic never ending game of Whack a mole.

If for ''wacking a mole'' you had to put your troups on the line and too many bystanders would be ''wacked'' along side fews mole.

[Ithekro]

It is much easier to "whack moles" from the air. You can see them easiler and you get to use a much wider hammer.

[ganbaru]

It's easier yes but the said ''wider hammer'' is far from a scalpel. Ground operation might be more precise ( depending of the mean used) but you put your troup much in harm way than from the air.

[DonQuigleone]

The point is, the moles never stops. Eventually your arms get tired, or you run out of money to keep playing.

[Ithekro]

To bring some news into the subject while not really changing the subject:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45542885...east_n_africa/

Egyptian election results deepen Israeli fears

A question...the Israeli are fencing their borders. Will this become a way to keep people out....or will it turn out to be a thing to keep the Israeli in one giant place.

[Ascaloth]

*thumps every last mole in the thread with a wooden mallet*

Enough with the whack-a-metaphors!

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The point is, the moles never stops. Eventually your arms get tired, or you run out of money to keep playing.

Use a bunker buster instead of the mallet dummy.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

To be fair, there's a lot of other Jihadist groups throughout Palestine, Hamas is just the most prominent. Even if it does receive funding from Iran, there's a long history of militant groups receiving funding from wealthy backers. The IRA could not have existed but for wealthy Irish-Americans who donated to it. But both movements were acting on sentiments that were already existing within the populace.

There are many sentiments within the populace that are not born out. There needs to be a level of organization and, usually, monetary backing. Without those two things, you'd essentially have disorganized gangs. That's not very effective, particularly since they might fight with each other. (That's likely also another reason for many of these groups' anti-Israeli rhetoric - if peace extends too far, people within these groups may not remain united.)

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Turkey is a fair amount stronger (and Israel did not fight them in the 6 day war). Otherwise the Arab countries are not particularly stronger, but that could easily change. For one thing, there's a lot more oil money flowing around now then there was back then. It's a changing battlefield, and there's no reason to assume things will stay the same. Generally speaking however, I doubt Israel would be able to withstand the combined forces of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Egypt, and Turkey all put together. It the past it managed to keep a few alliances, particularly with Jordan (which they're still maintaining, kinda...), Turkey, and Egypt.

Furthermore, if Europe and America removed the guarantee from Israel, there'd be no reason for other countries to start interfering, say Russia could start dipping it's fingers back into the region, or European powers could align with Arab powers against Israeli interests. For instance, if I was France, and Egypt offered me exclusive economic rights of some kind in return for backing up Egypt in a treaty negotiation with Israel, well I might take them up on it if I knew the USA wasn't going to interfere.

Oil pipelines and fields are extremely vulnerable targets, and now that many of these countries are wealthier, they are more averse to provoking conflict. Israel has shown that its military is quite capable, and it's a poorly kept secret that Israel is a nuclear power. Perhaps if all of the Arabic nations united together they could overcome Israel, but why would any one of them want to risk damage (or utter destruction) by attempting such a thing?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The difference is that things can't get much worse for the militants. You can't really fight people who are willing to kill themselves, in any kind of reasonable manner. It's a gigantic never ending game of Whack a mole.

Things can get worse for the militants. Also, as you're probably aware, the suicide bombers and such tend to be low-level members of these groups. When is the last time you heard of a high-level group member committing suicide? They're always caught or captured, even when the odds are seemingly completely against them. I think that says something about their desire to live.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

A question...the Israeli are fencing their borders. Will this become a way to keep people out....or will it turn out to be a thing to keep the Israeli in one giant place.

It's a way to keep people out. The fence concept isn't new; people complained about it originally, but after it was built, the number of suicide bombing attacks within Israel declined.

[Tom Bombadil]

U.S. Asks South Korea to Cut Petrochemical Imports From Iran

South Korean imports of Iranian petrochemicals amount only to $300 million a year. Still, the country fears the impact their suspension might have on its trade ties with Iran, especially its crude oil imports. Iran is the fourth-largest source of crude oil for South Korea, accounting for 10 percent of its oil imports.

According to this article at reuters:

Crude imports by South Korea, the world's fifth-largest crude buyer, fell 3.8 percent in August from a year earlier to 72.8 million barrels, state-run Korea National Oil Corp (KNOC) said on Thursday.

If we recall that Japan has similar amount of crude oil import from Iran, I wonder why is South Korea singled out ?