Palestine compared to Germany

[Rudy Tamasz]

It is Eki's dream to see Israel disappear just like East Germany did. In that case the free and prosperous West Germany was the state East Germany merged into. Now Eki will be probably happy that Palestinians made another step towards freedom and prosperity.

"The era of justice and Islamic rule has arrived," Hamas spokesman Islam Shahawan announced.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

After such glorious words and deeds it'll be downright stupid for Israelis to keep their meaningless little statelet and deny the necessity to join Palestine.

[Eki]

It is Eki's dream to see Israel disappear just like East Germany did. In that case the free and prosperous West Germany was the state East Germany merged into. Now Eki will be probably happy that Palestinians made another step towards freedom and prosperity.

"The era of justice and Islamic rule has arrived," Hamas spokesman Islam Shahawan announced.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

After such glorious words and deeds it'll be downright stupid for Israelis to keep their meaningless little statelet and deny the necessity to join Palestine.
They should have given East Germany not Palestine to the Jews after WW2, I mean it was the Germans who were responsible of the Holocaust, not Palestinians.

[Rudy Tamasz]

You forgot to ask Jews, Eki. Theeir prefrence has always been Palestine for they lived there since circa 1300 BC. In the modern times they started resettling in Palestine before WWI.

In any case the talk about what should have happened after WW2 is pointless. We live in the current reality. Tell me straight, should Israelis merge with such a peaceful and rich Palestinian Arab state now?

[Eki]

You forgot to ask Jews, Eki. Theeir prefrence has always been Palestine for they lived there since circa 1300 BC. In the modern times they started resettling in Palestine before WWI.


Place of birth goes before preference. I'm sure many Finns would prefer to live in Monaco, but I don't think they let in everybody. Most of my ancestors didn't live in Finland circa 1300 BC, but I don't think that entitles me to claim the places they lived in my own and freely move there. If the Jews hadn't liked to live in East Germany, they should have just stayed where they were living before the war. The Zionists had just about as much right to make Palestine a Jewish state as the Islamists have the right to make France an Islamic country.

[Flat.tyres]

so, if Israelis were born in that land, are we saying they are entitles to remain there?

not a black and white discussion by any stretch of the imagination but knowing how these discussions deteriorate, I think I will bow out here ;)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

How ironic that the effects of Hitler and maybe even WW1 are being felt in the world today :(

[Rudy Tamasz]

Good old Eki at his best. ;) Are you a politician by any chance? First you dodge a straignt question, probably because your positions are too weak to answer it. Then you change the subjects by switching from recent events to WWII. Finally like an experienced politician you start using plural instead if singular. Instead of "I want to live in Monaco" we hear "many Finns would prefer to live in Monaco".

Your debating skill is commendable but there's too little substance. Like in that old Deep Purple song:

Your lights are burning bright
But nobody's home

[Eki]

Instead of "I want to live in Monaco" we hear "many Finns would prefer to live in Monaco".

Actually I wouldn't prefer Monaco over Finland, but I guess many would, since most people spend their holidays abroad somewhere warm. Not me, I prefer Spitzbergen or Iceland over hot places. If I had to choose some country other than Finland, I would likely choose Norway or Iceland.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Actually I wouldn't prefer Monaco over Finland, but I guess many would, since most people spend their holidays abroad somewhere warm. Not me, I prefer Spitzbergen or Iceland over hot places. If I had to choose some country other than Finland, I would likely choose Norway or Iceland.


That's a nice addition to our discussion over Palestine, isn't it? :)

[Eki]

That's a nice addition to our discussion over Palestine, isn't it? :)
This discussion would quickly end if nobody ever added anything to it.

[N. Jones]

You forgot to ask Jews, Eki. Theeir prefrence has always been Palestine for they lived there since circa 1300 BC. In the modern times they started resettling in Palestine before WWI.

In any case the talk about what should have happened after WW2 is pointless. We live in the current reality. Tell me straight, should Israelis merge with such a peaceful and rich Palestinian Arab state now?

Why shouldn't they?

[Gannex]

Why shouldn't the [Israelis merge with an Arab state of Palestine]?
Because they'd be killed, that's why. Look at how Hamas is treating their fellow Muslims aligned with Fatah: last week they were forcing them to jump off 15-storey buildings and then burning their mangled bodies on the ground. In other cases, they are more humane, and simply take them out and execute them by gun-shot to the head. And these are fellow Muslims. What do you think these guys would do to Jews, whom they and their parents and their grand-parents have hated for decades?

That's why the Jews cannot afford to become citizens of Arab Palestine. They would be signing their death warrants if they agreed to it.

[N. Jones]

I should clarify - they should find a way to divide Israel so the Palestinians can attempt to live in peace.

You don't think the Israelis have the military intelligence to deal with that problem?

Do you also not realize that if Palestine as a state would not last long if they declared war on Israel? Even if they just constantly provoked them I highly doubt the rest of the world would just stand by and do nothing.
Especially the US - who give billions of dollars yearly to Israel.

[bowler]

I should clarify - they should find a way to divide Israel so the Palestinians can attempt to live in peace.



Who is "they"?

"they" have been working on it for years, and "they" cannot find peace.

Is there another "they" that everyone has missed?

If it was that easy, it would not be as it is.

[N. Jones]

They - the people that live there.

[Gannex]

I should clarify - they should find a way to divide Israel so the Palestinians can attempt to live in peace.
"They" did divide the land east of the Mediterranean, at least three times, but in each case the Arab population refused to accept the division, because it did not involve the destruction of the State of Israel and the killing or expulsion of all the Jews who lived there. The first division was made by the United Nations in 1948. The states of Jordan, Egypt and Syria were given almost all the land, and the Jews were given about one percent of the land, which they called Israel. The Arabs (the notion of Palestinians had not been invented at this point) replied by declaring war on the Jews, vowing to kill them on the land, and drive the rest into the sea. They failed, and the tiny piece of land given to the Jews was increased by a few hundred square miles. Failure of attempted division number one.

After the war of 1948, the Jews were constantly attacked by neighbouring Arabs, and the efforts to kill them rose to a climax some twenty years later, in 1967. On that occasion, Syria, Egypt and Jordan massed their troops on Israel's borders as the Egyptian president proclaimed that this time the Jews would be annihilated completely. As it turned out, it was the armies of the Arab states that were annihilated, and the State of Israel established new larger borders, the so-called 1967 borders, which, by and large, are the borders of Israel to this day. Those borders, however, which could have been another "division" of the land into Arab and Jewish areas, was also a complete failure, because the Arab populations didn't accept them, and spent the next six years preparing to -- you guessed it -- annihilate the Jews.

So on Yom Kippur 1973, there was yet another attempt at genocide, and again it failed. The Jews survived the Yom Kippur war, but it convinced large portions of the Jewish population that no State of Israel, within any borders at all, would ever be acceptable to the Arabs of the region.

Despite that, at Camp David, and months later at Taba, in about 2001 or roughly that time, Ehud Barak, the then Labour prime minister of Israel, went out on a limb and risked his political career by offering to the Arabs a final settlement of the border issue by ceding all but a few square miles of the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza, and offering to work toward a shared sovereignty over Jerusalem.

The Arabs' response to this further attempt at, as you put it N. Jones, "dividing the land" so that all could live in peace, ended in the present state of war between the two peoples, Arab and Jew.

So attempted divisions there have been a-plenty, but the sad fact is that the Arabs of the Middle East have always refused any division of the land that allows Jews to occupy even the smallest part of it. They have demanded the destruction of the Jews, and have always made clear that they will settle for nothing less.

[Rollo]

"They" did divide the land east of the Mediterranean, at least three times, but in each case the Arab population refused to accept the division, because it did not involve the destruction of the State of Israel and the killing or expulsion of all the Jews who lived there. The first division was made by the United Nations in 1948. The states of Jordan, Egypt and Syria were given almost all the land, and the Jews were given about one percent of the land, which they called Israel. The Arabs (the notion of Palestinians had not been invented at this point) replied by declaring war on the Jews, vowing to kill them on the land, and drive the rest into the sea. They failed, and the tiny piece of land given to the Jews was increased by a few hundred square miles. Failure of attempted division number one.

You have a very short sighted view of history if you can only look back to 1948. There was the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the occupation by the Ottoman Empire which can trace it's roots all the way back through the Eastern Roman Empire, the Roman Empire and Republic.

Whatever you decide to call the nation (and I don't care what) it should be a single country with full rights for all citizens regardless of race or religion, be they Arabs or Jews, Judaists or Islam.

+4000 years since the time of Abraham means that the only method of reconciliation is the expulsion of everyone which is not only unfeasible but also impossible.

In the interim, everyone should put up, shut up, and get along - for if they don't the results will be as has been, which is little more than bloody murder by both sides. In short, I think they're all criminally stupid and beyond hope.

[Flat.tyres]

gannex and rollo have got it about right. the problem is that the surrounding countries will never allow peace with israel. islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion but seems hell bent on irradicating the jews.

Until that mentality changes, then you will never have peace.

[Eki]

the surrounding countries will never allow peace with israel. islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion but seems hell bent on irradicating the jews.

Why do you think that? It doesn't seem that way to me.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Why do you think that? It doesn't seem that way to me.

Cause it's much easier to see the surrounding world in the negative light than do something positive. Palestinian Arabs set killing infidels and enjoying a paradise with virgins as their ultimate goal. They didn't even bother to create any economy at all. Gaza and West Bank are wastelands that don't produce anything. If it wasn't for aid from EU, USA, fellow Arab states and even Israel, Palestinians would starve to death with their guns and bombs in a few weeks. Hence their infighting, which is just struggle for control over the financial flows. On the other hand, Israel is a functioning democracy and has market economy, not without its share of issues, but still.

[Eki]

Palestinian Arabs set killing infidels and enjoying a paradise with virgins as their ultimate goal.
Have they told you so themselves, or have their enemies told you so (mainly Israel and the US)? The way I see it "killing infidels" is a mean/tool to defend Islam against Jewish and Western influences in the Middle East and not a goal. I'm sure they'd be satisfied if they just got rid of Israel and let the Jews live there with reduced power. There are Jews living in peace in Islamic countries. Iran has even guaranteed their Jewish minority a seat in the Iranian parliament.

[Rollo]

Why do you think that? It doesn't seem that way to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5016012.stm

Article 1 of the Charter for the Hamas organisation is "the destruction of the State of Israel and to establish an Islamic state in the whole of Palestine" (post-1948 Israel, the West Bank and Gaza).
I didn't link to they're website as it's in Arabic.

If the Jews actually followed the instructions laid out in the law as given to Moses, then they should accept the Arabs as aliens in their land.

Deuteronomy 10
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.

The Balfour declaration called for the creation of a single state, and the Torah says that Jews should accept foreigners into their land.

Therefore:
The people of Israel are criminally stupid for not obeying their own law.
The people of Palestine are equally criminally stupid for being so muderous.

I'm angry at both groups for the destruction of each other. They're both fundamentally wrong.

[Flat.tyres]

Why do you think that? It doesn't seem that way to me.

for once we agree. it doesnt seem that way but we are repeatedly told it IS a peaceful religion. :D

if you want me to post an example each day of the intollerance carried out in the name of Islam, then I will do. perhaps you can do the same for the Jews to back up your side.

todays snippet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6766569.stm

[N. Jones]

I can't paraphrase this so I am going to link it:
http://juancole.com/

Look for the heading titles "The Situation in Gaza".

An excerpt:

"It is to be expected that a lot of comment in the United States on these events will be rife with racist attitudes and polemical dismissals. The Palestinians have long been demonized by the Western media, apparently for not going along quietly with their expulsion from their homes, the large scale theft of their land, and their reduction to an almost slave-like status of statelessness. Palestinians are not intrinsically more violent than anyone else, not essentially less able to administer or govern than anyone else. Few countries have not had civil wars or at least major civil conflicts. The question should be not "Why are Palestinians like that?"-- which is a racist question-- but what social and economic factors are driving the present conflict?

Why is it that so little analysis is offered of why things have developed as they have? Isn't anyone interested in the important differences between Gaza's economy and that of the West Bank? Gaza is much poorer and much more isolated from the world. Is it any big surprise that its population is more radicalized and might be drawn into supporting Hamas?"

I will NEVER agree with the narrow view that muslims and Islam is the great evil. ALL news is biased in some way and it has shaped these horrid views we see of the people who live in the middle-east.

I expect (sadly) my fellow Americans to act this way but I would never expect open-,minded Europeans to act that way as well....

[Eki]

for once we agree. it doesnt seem that way but we are repeatedly told it IS a peaceful religion. :D

if you want me to post an example each day of the intollerance carried out in the name of Islam, then I will do. perhaps you can do the same for the Jews to back up your side.

todays snippet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6766569.stm
I didn't see anything about Israel's neighbours wanting to irradicate the Jews, just that some Muslims don't like Rushdie to be knighted. BTW, what has Rushdie done for Britain so that he deserved to be knighted?

[Rudy Tamasz]

I didn't see anything about Israel's neighbours wanting to irradicate the Jews, just that some Muslims don't like Rushdie to be knighted. BTW, what has Rushdie done for Britain so that he deserved to be knighted?

Well, some of Muslims in power have issued an official order (fatwah, sp?) to have him killed. Isn't that eradicating of infidels?

[Flat.tyres]

I didn't see anything about Israel's neighbours wanting to irradicate the Jews, just that some Muslims don't like Rushdie to be knighted. BTW, what has Rushdie done for Britain so that he deserved to be knighted?

i appreciate that English is not your first language but I really must insist you answer the post you quoted and not relate it back to something else entirely. we had expanded the arguement from its original basis and i was demonstrating areas where Islam is being manipulated on a significant basis to facilitate mass intollerance. Now, im not saying that other religins dont have their fanatics but i dont think anything in todays world compares to the hate crimes carried out in the name of Islam and Arab unity. (yes, I appreciate they are different but in the majority of cases, closely related)

lets discuss the subject and forget the spin otherwise we might as well discuss f1 with Garry.

[Gannex]

Flat.tyres and N.Jones, I would like to add one point to those you have made so well. All the major religions can be a force either for peace and tolerance, or for murder and hatred, depending on the time and on whose interpretation of the religion carries the most sway at that time. Look at Christianity, for example. Today, most Christians tend toward tolerance and pacifism, but at the time of the Crusades it was not so. Then, Christianity stood for all-out war against the infidel, and the killing of all those who could not or would not embrace Jesus as their saviour. Similarly, during the Spanish Inquisition Christianity stood for forcible conversion and torture on a mass scale.

Ironically, at the time of the Inquisition, Muslims were justly proud of the tolerant, multi-cultural society they had created in Spain before the Christians took over. In Spain under Islamic control, Jews flourished and were accorded respect, Christianity was allowed and even encouraged, and the authoritative Islamic clerics preached that every man and woman should be permitted to find their own way to God.

Times have changed, however. Now, throughout the Islamic world, the religion has been taken over by the aggressive extremists, while the moderate peace-loving interpreters of Islam, though undoubtedly numerous, have been cowed into fearful submission and silence. To suggest that Islam is now a force for peace in the world is, in my view, as ludicrous as suggesting that Christianity was a force for peace at the time of the Crusades. It has nothing to do with the texts of the Holy Books, nothing to do with the "true" nature of the religion itself, but everything to do with who, within the religion and speaking in its name, holds the power. Now, in Islam, the power is held by the hate-filled, aggressive wing; the peace-loving majority, if they are a majority, have been shouldered into irrelevance to leave Islam, today, as one of the world's greatest forces for evil.

[Eki]

Well, some of Muslims in power have issued an official order (fatwah, sp?) to have him killed. Isn't that eradicating of infidels?
As far as I know, Rushdie is a Muslim himself, and definitely not Jewish.

[Eki]

i appreciate that English is not your first language but I really must insist you answer the post you quoted and not relate it back to something else entirely. we had expanded the arguement from its original basis and i was demonstrating areas where Islam is being manipulated on a significant basis to facilitate mass intollerance. Now, im not saying that other religins dont have their fanatics but i dont think anything in todays world compares to the hate crimes carried out in the name of Islam and Arab unity. (yes, I appreciate they are different but in the majority of cases, closely related)

lets discuss the subject and forget the spin otherwise we might as well discuss f1 with Garry.
It's you who's spinning, not me. I asked you why do you think Israel's neighbours want to eradicate all Jews and you answered with something irrelevant about Rushdie who's not even a Jew nor is he from Israel or its neighbouring country. I ask again why do you think Israel's neighbours want to eradicate all the Jews? I have never heard them say they do.

[Gannex]

Rushdie is considered by Islam to be an apostate, a former Muslim who has strayed from the righteous path, which is the worst type of infidel. So yes, Eki, the fatwah against him was most definitely a call for the eradication of an infidel.

[Eki]

Article 1 of the Charter for the Hamas organisation is "the destruction of the State of Israel and to establish an Islamic state in the whole of Palestine" (post-1948 Israel, the West Bank and Gaza).
I didn't link to they're website as it's in Arabic.

That says eradicating Israel and says nothing about eradicating the Jews. Jews and Israel are different things. Eradicating Israel doesn't necessarily mean eradicating the Jews (especially if they don't resist the destruction of Israel). Eradicating the Jews doesn't necessarily mean eradicating Israel, since it could at least in theory be populated by non-Jews (however I doubt they'd want to keep the name).

[Flat.tyres]

It's you who's spinning, not me. I asked you why do you think Israel's neighbours want to eradicate all Jews and you answered with something irrelevant about Rushdie who's not even a Jew nor is he from Israel or its neighbouring country. I ask again why do you think Israel's neighbours want to eradicate all the Jews? I have never heard them say they do.

I said that I would provide evidence of intollerance relating to an earlier post. may i suggest that you read them first?

there are also many examples of extreemist muslims and even countries calling for the destruction of the Jews. its so well documented but just for a laugh.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/14/iran.israel/

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranisraelnuclearterrorism500710.html

do you also not remember the first gulf war where saddam was lobbing scuds over to try and get Israel involved thereby escerlating the conflict.

Hammas also has called for the destruction of the state. It was part of their core manifesto for many years until last year when they were forced to remove it in a concession to acceptance politically. fortunatly, they just changed the wording to say they will bomb and shoot them.

As for Rushdie, it was an example of intollerance but it does illustrate the point very well when senior government officials in Pakistan and Iran are calling for retaliation.

[Eki]

I said that I would provide evidence of intollerance relating to an earlier post. may i suggest that you read them first?

there are also many examples of extreemist muslims and even countries calling for the destruction of the Jews. its so well documented but just for a laugh.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/14/iran.israel/

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranisraelnuclearterrorism500710.html

do you also not remember the first gulf war where saddam was lobbing scuds over to try and get Israel involved thereby escerlating the conflict.

Hammas also has called for the destruction of the state. It was part of their core manifesto for many years until last year when they were forced to remove it in a concession to acceptance politically. fortunatly, they just changed the wording to say they will bomb and shoot them.

As for Rushdie, it was an example of intollerance but it does illustrate the point very well when senior government officials in Pakistan and Iran are calling for retaliation.
Again, nothing new. Both links were the same ol' about the Iranian President wanting to wipe out Israel, they said nothing about him wanting to wipe out the Jews. He didn't even want to believe Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews, maybe because the deed sounds too terrible to be true.

I haven't heard Saddam say he wanted to destroy the Jews either. He fired the Scuds because Iraq was attacked. The US fired hundreds of missiles to Iraq, was it because they wanted to eradicate the Iraqis?

[BDunnell]

Put simply, I cannot understand the mentality of anyone who wishes for a sovereign state to be eliminated in any sense.

[Mark in Oshawa]

OH boy, I leave this forum for a couple of weeks and find Eki still dancing on the edge of anti-Semitism.

Nothing much changes, just the headlines.

Look, this is really simple to understand. The reality of the situation is there is only one nation in the Arab part of the world that is a true democracy. One with functioning laws, protection of minorities and a stable economy. It was built on the worst piece of desert in the area, it was one of the few nations in this area that has no natural resources, and it basically was under attack from the day it was granted independence by all of its neighbours. It's people have maintained this democracy through 3 major wars, years of terrorist attacks, and while they have not always been 100% pure in some of their actions, their human rights record is just slightly soiled when compared to the regimes of some of the nations that attack it daily. Now if I never brought up religion AT ALL, this nation would be worthy of praise.

What also should be noted is that while the concept of a Jewish state has only been around since the Balfour declaration, the fact is it was the Jews that settled it first, and have always maintained some contact with the region. Yes, they shared it with Arabs, and they still do. Arab citizens of Israel have the vote there, and while they dont have the power maybe their numbers dictate, a lot of that can be laid at the feet of the constant threat of annihliation Israel faces on a daily basis.

The dirty little secret of this new phase of the unrest in this part of the world is the now nasty cat fight between Hamas and Fatah. WHY would any sane democratic leader want to deal with the butchers in Hamas? Why would they deal really with Fatah, who for years have let Hamas do what they wanted when they were NOT as strong as they are now. This is proving once again that the people in Gaza have a huge problem in that too many of their people are willing to use violence in the most nasty way to achieve their goals. Every day this goes on, it proves why Israel has always been reluctant to share their land with the Arabs as many would advocate. Israel has worked too hard, fought too hard and is smart enough to realize that you cannot do deals with people NOT committed to peace. Arafat took Western aid for years to bring Gaza and the West Bank up to a standard that people would want to give up on armed insurrection for their own state. All Arafat did, is what most Arab leaders did, put money in Swiss Bank accounts. The Palestinian Authority is having all its chickens come home to roost now, and Israel, by virtue of the "wall" and pulling out of Gaza is now a spectator instead of a target. Now that Hamas is turning on its own people because they cant get at the Israeli's as readily. Once again, Israel will be blamed by some for this, but I cannot fathom why. At some point, the people to blame must actually the people doing the killing. I know that is a tough concept for a few of you, responsiblity lying with the people actually committing the crimes, since everything is always strung out to be the fault of America or some other proxy, but the reality is Hamas is a vicious gang of thugs, and for anyone to advocate the Israelis negotiating with them is a naive fool.

When the Arab world is serious about recognizing Israel isn't going anywhere and is more useful as a friend than as an enemy, maybe Israel will be more willing to open up to the idea of sharing their land with Arabs.

Oh yes, one more thought. Eki, when the President of Iran says he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and you try to claim that isn't being anti-semitic, I guess that makes you as naive or stupid, you pick one.

If Iran dropped about 4 or 5 nuclear weapons on Israel it would do 2 things. One, convince the world to go to war with Iran because it is obvious these people are insane and two, pollute the whole of the Middle East with enough radiation poisoning that many more Muslims would die than people realize. We also must point out, that Lebanon and Jordan would suffer heavy casualties as well. For any "sane" leader to advocate nuclear attack because they don't like a nation is criminal. For you Eki to defend what he said, proves you really are not playing with a full deck......

[Eki]

OH boy, I leave this forum for a couple of weeks and find Eki still dancing on the edge of anti-Semitism.

Oh yes, one more thought. Eki, when the President of Iran says he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and you try to claim that isn't being anti-semitic, I guess that makes you as naive or stupid, you pick one.
That's not anti-Semitic, that's anti-Zionist or anti-Israel.



If Iran dropped about 4 or 5 nuclear weapons on Israel it would do 2 things. One, convince the world to go to war with Iran because it is obvious these people are insane and two, pollute the whole of the Middle East with enough radiation poisoning that many more Muslims would die than people realize. We also must point out, that Lebanon and Jordan would suffer heavy casualties as well. For any "sane" leader to advocate nuclear attack because they don't like a nation is criminal. For you Eki to defend what he said, proves you really are not playing with a full deck......
Iran has never threatened or advocated nuclear attack against Israel. In fact, they have adamantly denying they are even trying to build nuclear weapons. You can't make nuclear attack without any nuclear weapons. I'm not say they couldn't be planning a nuclear attack, but as long as there's proof or they admit it, it's just Western propaganda (you could say it's dancing on the edge of anti-Islamic, but I don't).

[bowler]

Eki,

I can't work out whether you believe the stuff you say, or you just want to wind other people up.

You seem to be intelligent, so it must be the latter.

It works well.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's not anti-Semitic, that's anti-Zionist or anti-Israel.

Well, Anti Zionist and Anti-Israel statements to a Jew, even one who isn't really political will sound anti-semitic. Like I said, you are dancing on the edge.




Iran has never threatened or advocated nuclear attack against Israel. In fact, they have adamantly denying they are even trying to build nuclear weapons. You can't make nuclear attack without any nuclear weapons. I'm not say they couldn't be planning a nuclear attack, but as long as there's proof or they admit it, it's just Western propaganda (you could say it's dancing on the edge of anti-Islamic, but I don't).

OH right, Iran has NEVER advocated it. When a President of a nation says he wants to wipe out another one, I presume he isn't going to use a bottle of Windex and paper towels. Iran of course is under fire from the EU and the US for their nuclear program and they of course are not fooling anyone, they want a bomb. Every crackpot fool in the Middle East seems to think having a Nuke will make their nation better.

As for Western propaganda, it isn't all lies, it is often based in the truth. When the politicians of Western Europe are talking about Iran as a problem, I have to assume it isn't because the Iranians have driven up the price of Falalfel.

[BDunnell]

Every crackpot fool in the Middle East seems to think having a Nuke will make their nation better.

All the more reason, I feel, for moves towards wider nuclear disarmament. After all, if nuclear weapons are seen by one country as a means of power projection, why should we expect other countries or groups not to view them as being something to aspire to for the same reasons?

[BDunnell]

By the way, I should add that the statement I made above is not seeking to blame the existing nuclear powers entirely for the threat posed by others; that would be too simplistic. I do, however, feel that there is a relevant point to be made on the topic.

[Gannex]

I agree with you generally, BDunnell, about nuclear disarmament. Most nations would be safer if every nation got rid of nuclear weapons. But there is one exception, I fear, and that is the very country we are discussing: Israel. There is a country, if ever there was one, which absolutely has to have nuclear capability if it is to survive. Even with nuclear weapons, Israel's survival is questionable, but without them the nation is surely doomed. All the peoples around Israel want to see the nation destroyed, and though the Egyptian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian elites have been pressured into adopting a position, governmentally speaking, that Israel may continue to exist, the populations of those countries, if ever given the right to determine foreign policy, would immediately resume Nasser's approach to Israel -- nothing less than annihilation will do.

So Israel, I would say, BDunnell, is the one and only nation in the world which is surrounded by peoples, and even some governments, and several powerful militias who will not rest until the nation is destroyed. She has no choice, therefore, but to be armed with nuclear weapons, and it would be an act of national suicide even to let it be thought that she were not so armed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gannex, in a perfect world we would have no nukes. In your example, ok, then Israel would get one because of course, the Arabs will wipe them out without it. That is just too simplistic. Just as simplistic as BDunnell's assertion that the nuclear powers should consider disarming so the crackpots wont want to join the club.

The problem is the genie has been out of the bottle for 60 plus years, and it cannot be put back. We will NEVER see a world where nukes are not the final option, and there is no point in wishing it was otherwise. If Saddam could have had the bomb, he would have. Iran is working on it, despite Eki's assertions they are not (Eki, you should do PR for the Mullahs) .

The thing is, nations with the Bomb very quickly realize to use it would label them as evil, and they would likely draw attacks from the other nuclear powers. With the bomb, comes responsiblity, and the US very quickly realized once the fallout from Nagasaki was over that they likely would never use the bomb in anger again. The bomb became the reason we have as a world avoided massive wars. The bomb is the reason the USSR and USA never found a way to go at each other in anger. (proxy wars were the only outlet for this constant posturing). Now we ( the world ) is about to enter a stage that could be catastrophic. We have a nation right now working on nuclear projects who have a)no fear of dying (ask the Mullahs in Iran, and they will tell you Paradise awaits to those who die giving infidels death) and b)the possible delivery system to hit the target they most want to eradicate. The fact they want to knock Israel out IS BASED ON RELIGION, and you can toss logic out the window. Eki can state all the crap he wants about this not being anti-Semitic, but when they host conferences of Holocaust deniers in Tehran with the President of Iran as the star, it is pretty facile to believe that Iran should be trusted with a nuke and a way to get it to Israel.

AS for Palestine, well, the Arab world never wanted to share it with the Jews, but somehow the Jew's have made at least Egypt and Jordan see sense. It is too bad the time, energy and resources wasted on waging war to get that one sliver of land couldn't have been put to a more productive use, such as investing in industry, capital projects and democratic institutions You know, getting on with life.....oh right, this is a holy war...never mind.

[L5->R5/CR]

They should have given East Germany not Palestine to the Jews after WW2, I mean it was the Germans who were responsible of the Holocaust, not Palestinians.



The Zionist started inserting the Jews into Israel after WWI.

Time for you to go back and learn some history.


PS The Europeans were more sided with Palestine. It was Israel that was strong enough to expand after WWII.

[Eki]

As for Western propaganda, it isn't all lies, it is often based in the truth. When the politicians of Western Europe are talking about Iran as a problem,
Are they? Blair maybe, but are others? I don't hear Finnish politicians talk about Iran that much. Maybe because they don't think Iran is a problem to them. Usually when European politicians talk about Iran, there seems to be the US as a ringleader trying to fan more flames.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The question that started the thread still remains unanswered. Will Palestinian Arabs be able and willing to secure a decent economy and a functional governance system if they take over the whole Palestine? So far they have been hardly able to do it at Gaza and West Bank.

[Schultz]

Rudy, it's a bit difficult to make any decent progress like what youtalk about, when the attitude and environment is totally dictated by the instability that the Israeli nation state provides to the region.

Whats a functional governance system? a democracy? The problem being, as is being evidenced lately, is that there are too many groups vying for political power right now. Fatah, Hamas, and i'm not sure how one of these groups is going to prevail. And if one group does prevail, you probably won't see the disarmament of the other group. So you have a situation like in Lebanon where you have a government in power, while groups like the Phalange and Hezbollah are armed to the teeth. In being armed to the teeth, they are threatening democracy as the exclusive forum for dispute resolution and therefore, democracy cannot last in palestine. That is, unless the other group is disarmed or annihalated. This is not going to happen withing 20 years.

i just find it impossible to consider what Palestine would look like without Israel. every policy made by the palestinian's have revolved around the only consistent thing in the life of the people. Yhat is, the need for a Palestinian state, and having to fight Israel to achieve that aim.

[Flat.tyres]

Eki,

I can't work out whether you believe the stuff you say, or you just want to wind other people up.

You seem to be intelligent, so it must be the latter.

It works well.

Agree with you.

It's good to challenge views and perceptions but not constructive to ignore any weaknesses in your arguement and just to concentrate on the strengths.

from what I have read of Eki, he can add interesting insights into a discussion but prefers to be single minded in case appreciating a different point of view in some how detracts from his arguement.

Thats the point where debating and discussion becomes a contest rather than a genuine willingness to learn and understand.

[Eki]

The question that started the thread still remains unanswered. Will Palestinian Arabs be able and willing to secure a decent economy and a functional governance system if they take over the whole Palestine? So far they have been hardly able to do it at Gaza and West Bank.
It doesn't help their economy that Israel keeps them under siege and ruins their infrastructure with missiles and tanks. They let out the foreigners but keep Palestinians locked in like in a concentration camp or the Warsaw ghetto:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284773,00.html


Israel Launches Deadliest Military Action in Gaza Since Hamas Takeover

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

AP

EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip — Israel fired missiles and sent tanks on a foray into Gaza on Wednesday, killing four Palestinians in the deadliest military action since Hamas militants took control of the coastal strip.

At the same time, Israel allowed in a few sick and wounded Palestinians who had been holed up for days at a fetid border passage with Gaza.

A teenager with leukemia and four other Palestinians in need of medical care went through the tunnel at the Erez crossing in Israel, the military said. Israeli officials also authorized entry of all foreigners living in Gaza.

Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate Palestinian president, harshly criticized Hamas for its takeover of Gaza last week, referring to members of the group as "murderous terrorists." He accused Hamas of trying to assassinate him when he planned a visit to Gaza a month ago, digging a tunnel under a road where his car was to pass and trying to fill it with more than 550 pounds of explosives. Hamas denied the allegation.

Despite the turmoil, Abbas said peace talks with Israel should resume and appealed for international help in convening a peace conference.

A U.N. agency, meanwhile, warned of general food shortages in Gaza within weeks if the main cargo crossing with Israel wasn't reopened.

Israeli aircraft fired missiles at two rocket launchers in northern Gaza, in the first aerial attack on the strip since Hamas vanquished Abbas' rival Fatah. No injuries were reported in the strike, which came in retaliation for militant rocket fire on Israel.

Israeli tanks, meanwhile, rolled about 600 yards inside southern Gaza before dawn, and four militants were killed in a gunbattle, Palestinian hospital officials said.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, they leave Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians have emigrated all over the world. Israel doesn't let them INTO Israel (they did, but people got tired of cleaning up blown up buses of civilians), but they can go out to the world through Jordan or Egypt. You really need to look at a map. Also get that Israel was quite willing to give them access in the Oslo Accords. Arafat had 95% of what he wanted right in front of him and wouldn't sign off on it. Well, tell me how Palestine is better off now. It isn't Israel killing people on the streets, it is Hamas fighting Fatah. This is a civil war and Israel is a spectator who happens to hope Fatah wins.

People have to quit blaming Israel for all the problems in this part of the world. If Israel was NOT there, they would blame someone else I am sure. Just don't take any responsbility. Can't have that....might mean someone might have credability....

[N. Jones]

OH right, Iran has NEVER advocated it. When a President of a nation says he wants to wipe out another one, I presume he isn't going to use a bottle of Windex and paper towels. Iran of course is under fire from the EU and the US for their nuclear program and they of course are not fooling anyone, they want a bomb. Every crackpot fool in the Middle East seems to think having a Nuke will make their nation better.

The Iranian President has NO power in Iran - the Supreme Jurisprudent does and HE has already stated that nuclear weapons are a clear violation of Islam.

Secondly - I understand your point fully Gannex but I do not agree with it what so ever. This is also the point I was making earlier. There are many, hell very many, people in Iran who want a western style government and NOT one run by Islam. Also, to speak of just the US, every Muslim country but three are allies of the US. So where is this great Islamic enemy? Syria, Iran, and Sudan?? That's not much of a threat.

One other point about Iran - if they ever attacked Iran with a nuclear weapon they would be invaded by Israel with the full backing of the US and Europe. Iran's military is VERY weak and they would be defeated in 72 hours. They would stand NO chance. So why would they risk an attack? What is the point of Iran ever making a bomb that could be traced to them so they could be attacked by the most powerful military in the world? Not to mention the fact that Israel is the ONLY Middle-Eastern power with nuclear weapons.

[BDunnell]

One other point about Iran - if they ever attacked Iran with a nuclear weapon they would be invaded by Israel with the full backing of the US and Europe. Iran's military is VERY weak and they would be defeated in 72 hours. They would stand NO chance.

I do not believe that this is the case. There is very good evidence of the Iranian military being better prepared and better trained than the Americans had previously believed. Of course, it would still be almost impossible for the Iranian military to withstand a US-led attack, but their capabilities cannot be underestimated. They are certainly far greater than those of Iraq, certainly in 2003 and probably in 1991.

[N. Jones]

According to this article a number of military weapons were purchased from the US; some of them even went through Israel!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm

This article states that their air force may or may not be fully operational (and also is primarily US made fighter jets):
http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/iran/iranff.htm

All I could find as I'm currently pressed for time by not much to get excited about...

[Eki]

According to this article a number of military weapons were purchased from the US; some of them even went through Israel!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm

This article states that their air force may or may not be fully operational (and also is primarily US made fighter jets):
http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/iran/iranff.htm

All I could find as I'm currently pressed for time by not much to get excited about...
Air force will be irrelevant in the long run. Iran is more populous and ethnically homogeneous, so the resistance in the form of guerrilla war fare would most likely be stronger than in Iraq or maybe even Vietnam. I don't think it's a good idea to invade Iran for no good reason.

[N. Jones]

There isn't one single good reason to invade them at all.
And there has to be some peaceful solution to Israel/Palestine. This is the biggest sticking point when it comes to terrorism. I know most of you won't believe me, but resolving this issue will help diffuse a lot of terrorist groups around the world.

[Eki]

There isn't one single good reason to invade them at all.
And there has to be some peaceful solution to Israel/Palestine. This is the biggest sticking point when it comes to terrorism. I know most of you won't believe me, but resolving this issue will help diffuse a lot of terrorist groups around the world.
I believe you. The peaceful solution must be a compromise where both parties gain some and lose some and can save their faces. The solution is not that the Palestinians give up and surrender. That isn't going to happen. Nor will Israel surrender.

[BDunnell]

According to this article a number of military weapons were purchased from the US; some of them even went through Israel!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm

This article states that their air force may or may not be fully operational (and also is primarily US made fighter jets):
http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/iran/iranff.htm

All I could find as I'm currently pressed for time by not much to get excited about...

Having US-made equipment, and thus no 'official' access to spare parts for much of it, hasn't stopped Iranian industry from developing new systems by itself. There has apparently been some surprise at the level of activity of Iran's F-14 Tomcats, for example, and the level of their training with them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The idea that if the Palestine issue was solved, it would end terrorism presupposes two things: 1) that all terrorism is related to this conflict. I think a lot of it uses this conflict as some of the justification, but the only way these terrorists want the problem solved is with Israel in Arab hands only, and every Jew driven out of Israel. Anything less is unnacceptable. It isn't me saying that, it has been said over and over again by Hamas and Hezbollah. They get their funding from Iran, Syria and other Arab nations who have said they want peace while funding these terrorist organzations, so I hold little hope that the Palestinian "question" will ever be solved unless it is on the terms I described and 2) the second naive supposition is that we negotiate with terrorist's as equals in the first place. IT has been said that dialogue with these groups would do the west some good to understanding their grieveances, but lets be honest. Any group who advocates massive civilian death's because they are not "true believers" isn't interesting in rational discussion. Terrorist actions such as hijacking have always ended up the same way. Negotiation is given some thought, but in the end, the terrorist holds the cards and plays them the way they see fit. It is why plane hijackers are never given anything. If you give ground or reward these tactics once, you invite 10 more incidents. People who put guns to the heads of innocents and slice the throats of civilians on videotape while claiming they are doing it for god are not rational. People who think they will get 72 virgins for turning their body into a human bomb getting on buses are not rational. You don't reward irrational behaviour with negotiation, espcially if they want what I have stated in my first statment: The total destruction of Israel as it stands.

The fact that Al Quaida says they hate western civilization and Christianity, not to mention tolerance and women's rights says to me this is FAR larger than the Palestinian question. Just keep on with your naive beliefs that if Israel was out of the way, this would end. It wont. It may never. There are people who have twisted Islam into their own perverse ends, and I don't see any way of stopping them. The sooner people in and out the Arab world realize this, the better off we all are. Israel is a sore spot to be sure, and I understand a lot of why that is, but at some point, rational people in the Islamic world have to conclude there is a more productive way of living than the constant strife that is threatened.

As for Iran, they will not go down easy, they have a very good military and they inhabitant a very difficult country to invade. What is more, the American public wouldn't tolerate it and the US Military wants no part of it. It is why Iran is very eager to push their role in Iraq and aggravate things in the Middle East. They know they can push the US of A a lot further now than they could before Iraq. The American public don't want to support another war unless the threat is proven. They were game for Iraq based on the information that was out there, but as we saw, the CIA, SDECE and MI of Britain were wrong on WMD's so people are more cautious. Bush has no political capital for a venture there so regardless of what is said for public consuption in Tehran, the US aint coming.

[Eki]

I think a lot of it uses this conflict as some of the justification, but the only way these terrorists want the problem solved is with Israel in Arab hands only, and every Jew driven out of Israel. Anything less is unnacceptable.
I don't think they want every Jew driven out of Israel. I think they'd be satisfied with the Jews not running things in Israel anymore.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, if the Jew's don't run Israel, they are swimming in the Med, or flying out of the area. There are too many groups have basically said they are dedicated to Israel's destruction and this is an anti-semtic thing. It isn't just about Zionism or anything. The Arab world has pretty much driven the Jew's out of every city they used to live in (Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus) since the creation of Israel. Since Israel was created, it has been the sole goal of groups that have sprung up to terrorize Israel such as Hezbollah and Hamas. You would have to be naive that they just want control for control's sake. Israel has arab citizens now that vote. The reason there isnt' more, is because no one in the West Bank or Gaza seems to be interested in being part of this democracy. They want their own, and they will kill each other by the dozen to get control of it. Why would the Israeli's want any part of this?

[Eki]

.

[Eki]

.

[Eki]

The Arab world has pretty much driven the Jew's out of every city they used to live in (Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus) since the creation of Israel.
Were they really "driven" or were the Jews happy to move to the just founded Jewish nation?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, I think they had help. Maybe it is just me....but I think advertising one's Jewish roots in the midst of a Sunni culture is not a way of making friends and influencing people.

You don't want to admit maybe Israel and the Jews just MAY be paranoid for a good reason, and you can believe what you like, but the evidence of what is going on in Gaza says to me they have reason. When people are begging Israel to let them in to get away from Hamas, While in the same breath saying how nasty Israel is, it says volumes about the problems in Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas, like Hezbollah don't have peace accords with Israel on their agenda. If they have to kill a few Palestinians that protest being told to fight this holy war, they are not losing sleep over it...