Israelis have big b*lls

[Ali Barber]

Must have taken a lot of guts to come up with this, right or wrong:

From the BBC online Israeli Pilots Rebel Against Strikes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3137392.stm)

A group of Israeli air force pilots are refusing to carry out strikes against targets in the Palestinian territories.
The declaration by 27 pilots, some of whom regularly carry out combat missions, has been condemned by Israeli military leaders.
Israel frequently launches air strikes designed to kill Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The Israeli Government describes the operations as "targeted killings", but Palestinians and human rights groups condemn them as assassinations - and note that innocent civilians are often killed as well.
In their statement, released on Wednesday, the pilots say: "We, veteran and active pilots... are opposed to carrying out the illegal and immoral attack orders of the sort that Israel carries out in the territories."
They add: "We are refusing to continue to attack innocent civilians."
The letter from the pilots to the Israel Air Force (IAF) commander was quoted in the Israeli media.
Israel's Channel 2 television reported that the pilots were also refusing to fly ground troops into the Palestinian territories to carry out attacks.
'Moral force'
The Israeli air force commander, Major General Dan Halutz, accused the pilots of playing politics.
"This is not an earthquake in the air force," he told Channel 10 television.
"We are a humanitarian and moral force and army of the highest order."
He also criticised the pilots for not airing their grievances through the proper chain of command.
"This afternoon was the first I have heard of this," he said.
Hundreds of Israeli reserve soldiers have chosen prison over military service in the Palestinian territories during the last three years of Israeli-Palestinian violence.

[Jackonicko]

We always knew that the IDF/AF had more than its fair share of courageous and high calibre chaps, and I'd say that these particular individuals are following in the very finest traditions of their service, making such a huge sacrifice for what they see as the good of the nation they love. I'm just waiting for these blokes to be written off as 'apologists for Arafat', 'unwitting stooges of terrorist murderers' and all the other stuff that's usually thrown at anyone who dares criticise the State of Israel's appalling policies with regard to the Palestinians, however.

I just long for the day when Israel and the Palestinians can reach a just and lasting compromise. The Arabs refused any such compromise for decades, I know, with their refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist, but I genuinely hope and believe that the pre-1967 borders could now form the basis of a lasting and just solution - with a viable Palestinian State and a secure Israel co-existing side by side.

It won't be easy. Hamas and IJ still need to be crushed, while Israel needs to grasp the nettle and abandon its illegal settlements and withdraw to the '67 borders, and to reign back the hawks who espouse war and murder.

Perhaps the patriotism and idealism of these brave blokes will give people pause for thought, though I doubt it. In the wake of the New Year, I pray for a just peace and lasting prosperity for Arab and Jew alike.

[Didntdoit]

JN

I just long for the day when Israel and the Palestinians can reach a just and lasting compromise.

Hear, hear. Never too soon.

The pilots? Maximum respect.

[moggie]

Good for them - maybe an outbreak of common sense and people power. Let's hope it leads to a more grown up attitude by both sets of politicians (but I have no great expectation that it will).

[M609]

Very gutsy move. I really hope they can inspire more of their colleauges to do the same.

[Fox3snapshot]

Does this type of objection constitute mutiny/mutinous activity/deserting etc etc.????

:ooh:

The latest...

Israel's Air Force Chief Major-General Dan Halutz has issued an order to ground nine pilots who signed a letter refusing to take part in targeted assassinations and other operations in the Palestinian occupied territories.

Twenty-seven reserve pilots signed the letter, but only nine of them still do active duty with the Israeli Air Force.

Halutz told Haaretz he planned to treat the signatories "in the same way as the IDF (Israeli Army) has dealt with refuseniks until now. This method has proven itself."

The nine pilots will be called to meetings with the heads of their bases in the upcoming days and if they do not retract their statement, they will be dismissed from active service.

Meanwhile, Israel's Air Force Commander has also ordered the grounding of signatories of the letter currently serving as flight instructors at the IAF’s (Israeli Air Force) flight school. “These are not the people who should educate the next generation of pilots,” he conveyed.

In the meantime, former Israeli president and one-time air force commander Ezer Weizman attacked the group, saying they lacked "morality," that their act of publishing a letter was a "disgrace," and that they should "put their tail between their legs" and get out of the Air Force "as quickly as possible."

Likud Parliament Member Michael Ratzon, for his part, said the Israeli Army must try those pilots as "traitors." (Albawaba.com)

[jungly]

Pretty sure youre right Fox3.

If one pilot refuses to fly its is 'failure to obey a lawful order'.....but if more than one refuses and it can be proven that they conspired to do so together......then that is technically 'mutiny'.

Hats off to them for having to courage of their convictions....... Im sure they thought about the consequences long/hard.

[Fox3snapshot]

It seems that the Israeli Army has previously also had to also deal with these "refuseniks" as they call them....is it becoming a recurring theme with the IDF??

:uhoh:

[moggie]

Comment from Danny??

[Jackonicko]

In short, Fox, it is!

The willingness of many ordinary decent Israelis to say "No! No! We won't go!" seems to have become more marked as their Government has become progressively more hardline, and less willing to compromise with a Palestinian body which has become progressively (if imperfectly) more disposed to peace and reconciliation. That's hardly surprising, since Israel is in most respects a mature and liberal democracy, and most of its people are a decent, honourable bunch, with much the same instincts for fairness and human rights as you'd find anywhere.

The problem is that the hardliners, the Zionist 'Eretz Israel' fringe, and those in the new (illegal) settlements - many of whom are new immigrants from the USA - wield a disproportionate influence on Government policy. But while there is also a hardline Arab minority which include suicide bombers who are bent on the destruction of Israel, such hardline attitudes are perhaps understandable, and it would take an enormous leap of faith to see that the path to peace may be reached through compromise.

As you infer, it's all about 'lawful orders'. The position of the refuseniks is that some of the present operations are unlawful, and participating in them goes beyond what is expected under the terms and conditions of service as a reservist in the Israeli Defence Force.

[moggie]

Still waiting for a comment from Danny - I would have thought this sort of thing was right up his street!

[Skylark4]

Why Moggie? Is he an Israeli or a Palestinian or an international Lawyer?

Mike W

[saudipc-9]

Cannot say that I agree with this at all.
They wear a military uniform and have sworn to obey the orders of their superiors. What they have done is wrong regardless if you agree with them or not. There are several other avenues which they could have explored before arriving at this action.
They have weakened the chain of command and are setting a very poor example to the troops, who they as officers, are meant to lead.

[Jackonicko]

Historically speaking, "I vos only obeying orters" is a pretty flimsy excuse.

There are illegal orders, and it is an officer's duty to disobey them and not to commit war crimes. And deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime.

Hell at Nuremberg we even stuck some of the top German military leaders with "planning and waging an aggressive war" as being a war crime.

I'm not necessarily saying that Israel has deliberately targeted civilians, nor that it's waging an aggressive war, but this may be the defence used by these chaps.

[B Sousa]

Jackonicko writes: And deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime.

I think that is a grey area in that the leaders of all those militant groups appear to be "Civilian".
Personally, if I knew I was living next door to someone who was orchestrating the attacks in Israel, I think I would move. Makes more sense than watching Hellfire Missles coming through your window......

[M609]

I think I would move.

Sadly not an option for most of them, even if they what to.
No money, and nowhere to go........ :(

[Jackonicko]

If only the innocent deaths were confined to the immediate neighbours of 'terrorist leaders' it would be almost OK. But the Government of Israel now has a very broad definition of its enemies, including former terrorists who are now legitimate politicians (as many Irgun and Stern gang terrorists became...)

It's not long ago that Arafat himself was being threatened with assassination.

And its targeting has sometimes been imprecise, and has shown a casual disregard for the lives of Arab civilians.

It's still hard to condemn them however, after all they've been through.

[A Civilian]

Personally, if I knew I was living next door to someone who was orchestrating the attacks in Israel, I think I would move

Most of them don't even have homes never mind moving to another one.

Reading between the lines from what these pilots are saying I get the impression that there not against killing terrorists what there against is using a LGB droped from an F16 to do it when there lots of other means like using those sneaky Shin Bet guys. A LGB is just overkill which a much higher chance of killing innocent civies who are just trying to get by in one of the worst hell holes on the planet.

Of course knowing what that Sharon guy is like probably means that this is why he uses F16's in the first place. He's the sort of person that the Nuremberg trials was meant to stop from ever coming into power in the first place. I dont know if any of you guys have ever been to the IDF home page but if so you'll find a big banner saying 'Any rumors of Israeli crimes are nothing but PALESTINIAN LIES'. Talk about Totalitariansim or what :eek:

[Jackonicko]

A Civilian,

While I probably share your distaste for Sharon, and while I'd agree that the attitude of some Israelis to the Palestinians is unacceptable, I do think that it's too easy to accuse them of war crimes at the moment (I think there have been war crimes in the past, most notably at Sabra and Chatila).

They do operate with reckless disregard to civilian casualties, sometimes, but that's different to deliberately targeting civilians. Moreover, the very fact that these blokes can make a protest like this, without being simply taken out and shot, or even slammed in chokey, shows that there is still a strong streak of liberalism in what is one of the few working democracies in the region.

Which is perhaps why their failure to 'do the decent thing' and get out of the occupied territories and remove the settlements is so disappointing to those of us who do have an underlying regard for them.

[saudipc-9]

And its targeting has sometimes been imprecise, and has shown a casual disregard for the lives of Arab civilians.


I think the casual disregard for anyones life is what the IDF are trying to stop. Everyone seems to think that it is now possible to plant a GBU/LBG right into the car of a terrorist and not kill the other passengers. This just isn't the case. Personnaly, I think they have done as well as they could have to avoid hurting innocent lives but only in as far as they are able to do so. Alot of the munitions being used have a very small warhead in order to avoid collateral damage and death.
When the Palestinians stop blowing up restaurants and buses then maybe the IDF will have no cause to target in the "occupied territories"!

[moggie]

From Skylark:

Why Moggie? Is he an Israeli or a Palestinian or an international Lawyer?

Because Danny is usually first to back the IDF to the hilt, regardless of what they have done.

[Jackonicko]

Or you could say that Danny usually responds when he thinks that people have over-stepped the mark and have said something that is fundamentally unfair to Israel, the IDF/AF or Zionists. The fact that he hasn't done may even mean that this debate has been conducted in a more civilised and balanced manner than usual! Or perhaps he hasn't noticed? Or perhaps he's bored by the PLO apologists.....

You might also explain his understandable sensitivities regarding this issue by adding that he is a former reservist member of the IDF, and that he therefore has an entirely understandable pride in, and an admirable loyalty to, this force.

Anyone from Danny's background is naturally going to regard Palestinian terrrorism as ample justification for what the IDF have done, and while some Jews do oppose Zionism, security concerns (rather than dogma) mean that very few regard the 1967 borders as being sensible, and many do think that the Arabs already have their own states in Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, etc. and therefore see nothing wrong with expropriating the whole Biblical land of Israel. Don't get me wrong, I personally think that anything less than a return to those borders is too much to ask the Palestinians to swallow, I'm just trying to calmly explain the opposing pov.

The surprise is that Bubette hasn't contributed.

[Jordan D]

I must fully commend the pilots on their actions and the courage of their convictions for doing so ... lesser men wouldn't have.

I hope life gets better for them.

Jordan

[saudipc-9]

Well 17 new reasons today why what these men are doing is wrong!

[Bubbette]

I think it says a lot that they felt free to do this. However, it is disgusting that they presented it, on the net, as some sort of official IAF position. I think 7 of them were in active reservists, and those on active duty are going to be disciplined.

[PLovett]

Just a thought thrown into the ring for comment.

This world now seems to be taking the concept of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" more seriously than it has in the past. Why else would the USA so vehemently deny the concept of a world court to hear these types of offences in respect of its own citizens but encourage it for others.

Perhaps this has something to do with the actions of these Israeli officers.

As I said, just a thought.

[Jordan D]

Just thought I should add a footnote to that ... The USA has such a strong position against the International Court of Justice in the Hague, that the Senate has (or at least at one point) approved "The Hague Invasion Act", saying that if any American was sentenced there, the 'Administration' could without further feedback to the Senate invade the Hague.

Says something, doesn't it?

Jordan

[saudipc-9]

"The Republicans fear that American soldiers serving their country abroad will unjustly be hauled before the ICC in The Hague. Their "American Service Members' Protection Act" – that's the official name – would authorise the president to use force to free US military personnel held by the court."

"Critics sarcastically call it the "Hague Invasion Act". They are referring to legislation pushed by rightwing Republican members of Congress aimed at blocking the International Criminal Court. "

Jordon- more research required before making bogus and slanted posts please!

Pardon my last post--make it "19" more reasons why what these men are doing is wrong!

[Jackonicko]

And do those 19 reasons also justify bombing another sovereign nation, on a pretty flimsy pretext?

[Bubbette]

Absolutely---the same way America is attacking Afghanistan, and Yemen, and I hope your country would do the same if another country were training and bombing terrorists killing your children.

[propulike]

Bubbette

Please say you're not really serious about that last post .....

[Jackonicko]

Afghanistan and Yemen aren't attacking the USA, but the Syria isn't attacking Israel either. The pretext is that the countries being attacked are supporting and funding terrorist organisations and harbouring terrorists.

If that's acceptable why didn't we bomb Dublin and New York, both of which funded terrorist organisations and harboured known IRA and INLA terrorists. Would that have been OK, Bubs?

[A Civilian]

Dont engage guys.

Americans cannot rationalise that terrorism cannot be stopped by Tommahawk cruise missles and delta force commando's. To many Arnie films and a 'can do' culture is to blame IMO.

[Fox3snapshot]

Hmmmm....still a little miffed that by all accounts its cool that the US can detain, interogate and ultimately convict citizens of other nations of "crimes against humanity" but Boo bluddy hoo! it is completely unacceptable that they may be held accounatble for similar!

:hmm:

[A Civilian]

Its the 'Can Do' culture dude 'Can Do' :rolleyes:

Then of course their government starts to go round invading independent states all under a pre-text and they begin to wonder why the world hates them because a few years back they all loved them. I guessed they never realised that certain counties may not like the idea that the USA can do this after all they were overthrown in the past by another 'Can do' US government.

And very quickly a 'Can do' culture becomes a 'Why does everyone hate us' culture :yuk:

<<< Against the war poster FAnyonesI.

[saudipc-9]

Interesting to note that while so many feel free to critisize what has been done, no one has offered up a better alternative.
Come on then Civi & Jacko, what are your solutions to stopping terrorist attacks?

[Jackonicko]

Terrorism is almost inevitably a complex problem, requiring complex solutions which will vary widely from case to case.

Over-generalisations are thus of little usefulness.

But, having said that, here's a general guide! It seemed to prove successful in those few anti-terrorist campaigns which did prove successful (Malaysia, NI, etc.)

1) Demonstrate to the enemy the high cost and futility of continuing an armed struggle.
2) Compromise enough to isolate the terrorists (Mao's famous little fishes) from widespread support in their community (both inside the country and in neighbouring countries). Recognise legitimate grievances and demands and address and meet them.
3) Reward compromise. Go the extra mile. Resist provocation, especially when it comes from minority groups who oppose a peaceful solution, if the majority are still 'talking'.
4) Deal with the real leaders of the opposing side, and do so openly and fully once they renounce violence.
5) Be prepared to give ground in return for similar concessions from the other side.
6) Remain within international law when conducting military operations.
7) Keep your international allies on side.

Israel is VERY good at 1) and passes 7) by keeping its most important ally on side, though it's obviously becoming less good at that.

The way Israel is dealing with the problem will not solve it. It will store up generations of wannabe martyrs, and Israel will isolate itself internationally. Those who should sympathise with Israel's position will end up not caring, and thinking that the nation has brought its troubles upon itself. The fact that even a Republican US Government is now prepared to be gently but openly critical ought to provide Israel with a wake up call.

At the end of the day you have to reach a compromise or completely destroy the enemy (you have to kill or imprison all of them) and completely remove their communities, putting them beyond your borders. The only successful campaign based on this sort of ethnic cleansing and removal would seem to be America's successful disposession of the Native American tribes. For Israel to undertake such a final solution to its Arab problem does not seem practical, on all sorts of levels.

Achieving peace is neither easy nor painless, as we have discovered in Ulster. There is not, however, an acceptable alternative.

Bombing your neighbours is not a viable alternative to anything, S PC-9.

[Bubbette]

Prop, I was 100% serious--do you believe in appeasing terrorists as an effective force against terrorism? Cutting off their funds, arms caches, and training would be a better method.

[Fox3snapshot]

Bubbette,

Agree, what would have been a more respected solution to this would have been to sit back and think OK, where, how and why?! Yes, this process was basically done, but probably not to the extent it should have been.

By simply picking up the big stick and going around clubbing anything that ryhmes with terrorist is not going to solve anything.

Do not misconstrue from this or any of my other posts that I don't support a response and direct resolve to the acts of terrorism that have occurred, I just believe it is not being done properly and if we were fishing it would be great because we now have a huge can of worms!

:hmm:

[Bubbette]

All the diplomatic efforts have failed (re the Palestinians) because they don't want peace; unfortunately, they have a dictator for a leader. Getting rid of him seems to be the only way. But Israel listens to world pressure. . .esp the US'.

[Fox3snapshot]

Sorry Bubbette, little confused on that last post. Who doesn't want peace??? And more to the point why Re: The Palestinians....I assume you mean the whole crises, the Palestinians are only part of the crisis, it is realistically the Middle East crisis.

[Liam Gallagher]

Jackinicko,

I think your "Dealing with Terrorism-101" is great...... To make sure I understand it properly....

I have what I believe is a legitmate claim over your home as the land upon which it is built was many lifetimes ago seized illegally from a distant relative of mine. Last night I was going to seize your TV, stereo and car as reparation, however I restrained myself and as a reward I expect you to send me 1000 quid.....unfair you say....alright then compromise...750 quid..... Hang on brother Noel (who hates me) says if you give me any money at all, he will burn your house down. By the way, if you give me any money at all, I promise not to tell the boys down at the pub as some of them are really nasty and will take advantage of you......

I can't understand why more world leaders (apart from Mz Clarke) don't embrace your teachings.....

[Jackonicko]

Bubette,

Please let's not drag this thread down by adopting extremist positions based on one side's propaganda. There are Palestinian factions who do not want peace with Israel. There are still Palestinians who want to continue the armed struggle to achieve much more ambitious aims. They must be defeated - but that defeat must be achieved without contravening civilised norms or international law.

But to claim that this is the overall Palestinian position, or to say that Arafat doesn't want peace is simply wrong. Israeli propaganda may paint Arafat in a particular light, but Oslo alone demonstrated that he had a sincere desire for compromise and peace. (One doubts whether Sharon is as committed to a just and peaceful solution). But it is unreasonable to expect any Palestinian leader to accept peace on any terms - they have their own minimum terms which will have to be met. Something approximating to a return to 1967 borders, with the removal of the illegal settlements and the fence, is the compromise most likely to be acceptable to the majority of Palestinians. On the Israeli side, the minimum acceptable demand is for guaranteed security.

Liam Gallagher,

I don't understand your analogy at all. If I'm Israel (my home is built on land which was seized from you - not lifetimes ago, but when my Dad was a young man) then I'm the one in the position of power and I'm the one dictating the terms. And while you've been making a nuisance of yourself, I've beaten the crap out of you (and your neighbours) again and again, until you're a homeless cripple. You still continue to annoy me and stick your tongue out at me, and though you'd really like my allotment, I'm deciding that I'll give you that little patch of rough ground behind the garden shed, and that I'll stop beating you halfway to death every time I see you, if you promise to just stop annoying me.

But that's just silly.

The fact is that the kind of approach I outlined (backed by force, remember, and dictated from a position of strength) has proved successful in the only real world examples of where terrorism has actually been defeated.

[Bubbette]

jacko, that's not true. Poll after poll of Palestinians show that 60-80% want the destruction of Israel and support terrorism. Why is this so hard to believe?

[Jackonicko]

Yeah yeah, and they all eat babies, too. Do you only believe what the Jewish press, Israeli propaganda and fundamentalist preachers tell you?

[Bubbette]

?
This is from the Palestinians themselves. Did you see the Jenin (the Palestinian one that was banned in Israel, not the Israeli one) documentary. I have to say, that made me feel so so sorry for them because they are imbued with so much hate from cradle to grave. Surely you've see the two year olds dressed up as suicide bombers (and this from reuters--no friend of the Israelis).

[Liam Gallagher]

Jackonicko,

I chose my anology such that it had no genuine claim as those on the receiving end of Terrorism always believe the perpertrators' claim do not justify their actions. (perhaps that's the difference between the Terrorist and the freedom fighter)

You cannot negotiate with Terrorists. We are all entitle to our definitions and my definition of a Terrorist is an individual or group who engages, or supports or facilitates others, in the random and expressed targeting of non-combatants, with the intent of making the remaining population believe that they may be next (Terrorizing) with the aim of altering the view of the same remaining population regarding a certain political cause or to destabilise their society in general.

You know much more about Middle Eastern affairs than me and you no doubt have your definition of terrorists and I leave it to you to decide who the Terrorists are. By negotiating with them you open the door to further vile acts from groups supporting them or opposing them....your favours can be sold to the person who does you the greatest harm!!

I remain sceptical that peace exists in NI and should the relatively low levels of violence in NI decrease further and last such that those living there can claim to live in peace, I do not feel that such a peace came about through any "blue-printable" means. Rather it came about through factors unique to NI, namely the Terrorist acts becoming so vile in the eyes of a moderate (civilized??)population and that the IRA's "stated" political cause became irrelevant with the fall of communism and the manner in which both the UK and Ireland have embraced the EU (particularly Ireland) and the economic and social benefits that have followed.

[Jackonicko]

Liam,

Of course there will always be room for different interpretations of what has happened in Palestine and in NI.

The moral position that one 'cannot negotiate with terrorists' is compelling, but in the end, one has to, even if one only negotiates with them when they have renounced or put aside violence. Peaceful solutions in Northern Ireland, South Africa, Malaysia, Cyprus, Kenya, etc. were only achieved when negotiation replaced armed struggle. Mandela, Makarios, Kenyatta et al were all terrorists or supported by terrorists, while many of those responsible for founding the State of Israel had been Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists. Arafat was a terrorist, but has renounced terrorism. He's the Gerry Adams or Nelson Mandela of the Palestinians, and should be negotiated with. In fact, because of the problems Israel has with him, there is now an alternative, in the shape of a legitimately elected Palestinian Prime Minister. What's the argument against negotiating with him.

And while peace in Northern Ireland is both fragile and imperfect, there is peace of a sort.

I'd say that the IRA was made aware that it could not win, militarily. I'd say that the IRA was cut off from moderate Republican support through the achievement of civil rights, policing reforms, etc, (and through the realisation that an end of the 'Troubles' would bring economic and social benefits) and through dialogue with moderate republican leaders. We weren't deflected from the peace process by the actions of rogue elements. We made painful concessions and difficult compromises. We kept our allies on side. We remained legal.

While your point about Terrorist acts in NI "becoming so vile in the eyes of a moderate (civilized??) population" is well made, the peace process was well underway even while the IRA still enjoyed widespread support. I think you under-estimate the Arab hunger for peace and prosperity. Arafat is a clever populist, and in working towards peace he has enjoyed much (though by no means universal support). You hint at the importance of the Irish Republic to the peace process - there is surely a parallel here with Jordan?


Bubette,

You are so thoroughly indoctrinated that discussion with you is quite impossible for me. I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that the Palestinians are bent on Israel's destruction, and that they have no right to live in the Biblical land of Israel (There's no such thing as a Palestinian, they're all just Arabs, so Jordan should be enough for them, right?) and that ethnic cleansing and murder is either ok, or has never happened. Moreover, until you can recognise that the Palestinians lost most of their homeland in 1948 and the remainder in 1967, and that they have been treated as third class citizens, subject to long-standing humiliation, and massive repression you're not living in the real world. I'm sure that you can't see how the illegal settlements and savage putting down of the Intifada might be a legitimate grievance, because to you they shouldn't be there anyway. If you're right (or even if you seriously believe that you're right), and if thousands of years of occupation of that land mean nothing, then no-one can argue with you.

It's ironic that the State of Israel, a Western-style liberal democracy, should be pursuing repressive, discriminatory and racist policies against the indigenous population, especially after what the Jewish people have suffered themselves. Many of us expect more from such a great people, and many decent Israelis (presumably including the guys who inspired this thread) are equally sickened by their Government's actions and policies. There are some evil and insane people on the Palestinian side, sure, but that does not excuse the present treatment of the general Arab population. After Sabra and Chatila, it's clear that there are some equally wicked people on the Israeli side too. Some would include Sharon in that group.

[Liam Gallagher]

Jackonicko,

The more I learn, the less I understand regarding the Palestinian issue and make no comment upon it, save for the don't negotiate with terrorists mantra.

To clarify the point of an Irish Republic; I found/find it wholly unacceptable to negotaite away any part of NI to form a larger or united Ireland. The point I am trying to make, since the early 90's at least (say the Treaty of Masstrict) it seemed stupidity of the highest order that innocent people were being slaughtered for the holy grail of a United Ireland when the legitimate Political Leaders of all persuasions were rushing head long into a United States of Europe, where one's national identity will be redefined in more nominal role and, rightly or wrongly, a large chunk of economic and social decision-making would move away from Dublin, Belfast and London. Perhaps it took Adams and Co until the late 90's to figure this out, but then again I don't see the Provisionals disarming so perhaps they are still thinking about it.

Further, Wales and Scotland got their devolved assemblies before NI and their assemblies, such as they are, were achieved with little or no bloodshed.........what a complete and utter waste of lives "the troubles" were/are and I find little in the process to commend to any other parties save for the British govts policy of not negotiating with Terrorists and the govts occasional very hardline, and some may say illegal, means of dealing with suspected Terrorists (Gibraltar et al).

[Jackonicko]

As long as large numbers of PIRA weapons have been put beyond use, and as long as PIRA confine themselves to punishment beatings, shooting miscreants through the calves, knee-capping and the like, and refrain from shooting British squaddies, UDA and RUC men, and stop planting car bombs over there or over here, I'm simple minded enough to view it as a huge improvement. 'Peace' for want of a more suitable word.

And all without selling Ulster too far down the river. It's still Northern Ireland, rather than part of Eire, and will remain so until the demographics make it possible to democratically unite the two portions, if they ever do.

And if it took talking to pond-life like Adams to achieve it, then so be it. And while proclaiming 'we won't talk to terrorists' that's exactly what successive Governments did, but only after making it clear to the IRA that they could not win. Negotiating from a position of strength.....

Anyone who claims to understand the Palestine problem is either lying or exaggerating.....

[Fox3snapshot]

The Palestine problem started when the state of Israel was created.....

When and Who did that....

Small hint its modern history!

:sad:

[Bubbette]

No, actually, Palestinian Arabs were murdering Jews long before 1948--that's one reason the British pulled out of the area and Israel declared itself a state.

[Liam Gallagher]

Jackonicko,

No problem in "talking" with terrorists; I take issue with negotiating. Specifically, where those negotiating are offering up the idea of "we shall stop terrorizing your citizens if you make concessions". Only those at the table will know if such is going on and I would imagine it is couched in gentle language with a smirk and a nod. To that end, I do not understand the PIRA's concept of weapons "put beyond use" and find it hard to accept that any group should be allowed to keep such weapons long-term.

I admire the families of the victims who endorsed the peace plan and like you, accept that talking to the likes of Adams is a price worth paying for peace. However, if those weapons ever return "from beyond use", Adams and Co should pay a very high personal price for such deception and that price should be endless nights of playing Mummies and Daddies with a guy named Bubba!!!

[Fox3snapshot]

Bubbette....from the history books...

The Balfour Declaration - In November 1917, before Britain had conquered Jerusalem and the area to be known as Palestine, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. The declaration stated Britain's support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, without violating the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. The declaration was the result of lobbying by the small British Zionist movement, especially by Dr. Haim Weizmann, who had emigrated from Russia to Britain, but it was motivated by British strategic considerations. Paradoxically, perhaps, a major motivation for the declaration may have been the belief, inspired by anti-Semitism, that international Jewry would come to the aid of the British if they declared themselves in favor of a Jewish homeland, and the fear that the Germans were about to issue such a declaration.

:hmm:

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Bubbette, Before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the majority of Jews and Arabs in the Middle East lived in peace and harmony. They traded with each other and even intermarried (why do Sephardic Jews look like Arabs, Ashkenazic Jews look like Europeans and Falasha look like Ethiopians?) The largest and oldest synagogues were in cities like Damascus (burnt down in the late 40s in reponse to the seizure of Arab lands and the ethnic cleansing of over 400 Arab villages in Palestine). The problem dates back to the Balfour Declaration, which does not predict a state of Israel, but a homeland for Jews within Palestine. Herzl, in the 19th century, thought that no more than 50,000 Jews would settle and the original settlements from the 19th century onwards were developed through negotiation, land purchase and tolerance. Herzl recognised that the Arabs are Semitic and claim descent from Abraham through his son Ishmael. It all went pear shaped during the Mandate and, yes, Jewish settlers were killed as were Arab farmers and merchants.

I have lived and worked in modern Israel/Palestine and most people I met wanted peace. The young Palestinians want a western style pluralist democracy. They were also happy to live with the moderate and tolerant Jews, many of whom have Arab friends and business partners (the latest suicide bombing was in a restaurant jointly owned by Jews and Arabs in a city which has a Jewish Mayor and an Arab Deputy Mayor). There are 1 million Arabs living in towns and cities across Israel. They are Israeli citizens and are represented in the Knesset (itself built by agreement and subject to a lease on Armenian Christian land). The Christian Arabs, of which there are several hundred thousand, are brutalised by Israel even though they are under threat from the Islamic state demanded by Hamas.

Those who have watched Life of Brian will understand the parody on Popular Front for the Liberation of Judaea, Judaean People's Front etc. The Palestinians have the same arcane set of political groupings. They are disunited and some see peaceful progress as the way forward whilst some espouse terrorism. Some terrorists are selective in their targets, some are random. Some are on ceasefire, some are active. Everybody has break away groups. Arafat, the democratically elected President (one man, one vote, one time), can't even go to the shops and the PA are not allowed to drive their vehicles on any of the A-roads between settlements. Last year the Israelis banned the driving of vehicles in the northern West Bank (donkeys sold at 5 thousand pounds). The whole thing is a mess and, after sitting and talking to people on both sides of the line, I cannot see a solution.

In international terms the Israelis are the illegal aggressors. If you go to the appropriate websites you will find the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention. This makes it clear that an occupying nation that settles it's own civilians on occupied territory commits an offence. It also makes it clear that the occupying power is responsible for the welfare of the occupied people. Israel is in breach of its international obligations, whilst anyone with an understanding of history could see the Palestinian 'terrorists' in the same light as those nasty horrible Frenchmen who fought against the illegal German occupation of their territory during the forties.

Israel is in breach of large numbers of UN resolutions and should withdraw from the occupied territories and dismantle settlements. Unfortunately the Israeli infrastructure will not allow that. Gilo is a suburb of Jerusalem with no clear boundary other than on paper. Ma'ale Adummim (sp) is over 30000 people living in a fortified settlement deep in the West Bank. They have separate roads from the Arabs (who can be and are shot on sight for driving on settler roads). The settlements in the Jordan valley occupy some of the most fertile land in the Middle East and secure access to that most precious commodity, water. Losing the Jordan Valley settlements would cripple the modern Israeli economy (the Oslo Accords gave the PA the Jordan Valley subject to a 100 year lease being granted to the Israelis so that they could occupy it for economic and security reasons).

In the Jerusalem Post the right wing Jews refer to a 'final settlement' of the Palestinian problem. This involves 'transfer' (ethnic cleansing) of all Israeli Arabs to either the West Bank/Gaza or to Jordan and other countries. The most extreme look at the Old Testament lands of Israel including the East Bank of the Jordan as far as Amman and see the transfer of all Arabs from west of the Jordan and the eastern Jordan valley to anywhere (4 Members of the Knesset support this view).

Gaza (Gath) belonged to the Philistines (Arabic for Palestinian is Filistinee), but there are fanatical Jews who want to take that from the Arabs (the as yet undeveloped gas field would make Palestine or Israel economically viable).

Last year 50000 Orthodox Jews circled the walls of the Old City and declared that they would build the third temple in this generation. This requires the destruction of the third most holy site in Islam. Ironically, the most extreme Ultra Orthodox extremists want the secular Jews to do all of the fighting and refuse to join the IDF whilst calling for murder and mayhem on a massive scale.

These snippets are intended to put a different perspective on the situation. Many Israelis don't want to occupy the 'territories' and refusing to bomb people in their own country in contravention of the Geneva Convention is legally correct.

I conclude, however, that there is no solution, because in Isreal and Palestine there are too many Jews living in the first century AD, too many Muslims living in the seventh century and the majority who, live in the 21st century, are unwilling or unable to stop them.

[Jackonicko]

Nil Nos,

Bloody excellent and even-handed if depressing precis! Did you do the History of the ME course at SOAS or at RHC, then? ;)

Some more snippets:

The Balfour declaration sat uncomfortably with promises made to Arab leaders following their participation in Britain's war against the Ottoman Empire, even though it called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland within Palestine (and not comprising the whole of Palestine).

Violence against the Jews in Palestine began when numbers began to rise and when the pattern of land ownership began to significantly change (through massive illegal immigration and the disproportionate economic strength of the new Jewish immigrants) in the 1930s, with understandable Arab fears that they would become a minority in their own land.

Some fundamentalist Jews actually oppose any Jewish national homeland as being against the will of God, on the grounds that they haven't suffered enough yet (I paraphrase....)!

While a narrow legalistic interpretation of the situation would place Israel firmly in the wrong, even Arab sympathisers like me would urge that some consideration be given to the extraordinary hostility which Israel had to endure from its neighbours until the mid-1970s, and to the fact that the Jewish community had just survived the Nazi holocaust. Some degree of understanding and acceptance of Israel's position is therefore essential.

[Bubbette]

Oh Nils where to start. The violence started because, as was often the case throughout history, most markedly in Europe, the Jews became successful, and others hated them for that. It's still going on now--why are the Palest. Arabs clamoring to work in Israel--why don't they go to Jordan, or Egypt or Lebanon or Syria to work?
Re Christian Arabs, I think you meant to say they are brutalized by the PA, (see the exodus of over 1/3 of the Palestinian Christian Arab population living under the PA).

Your whole post was a joke, right? You surely are not asserting that Arafat was democratically elected, no? I think some of the Palestinians want to stop the murders; poll after poll shows that they are not in the majority, and those that do business with Israelis, like selling land, are routinely assassinated if their Israeli partners do not relocated them.

Re "international aggressors," Israel is in violation of no international laws, so I'm not sure where you get your information.

The Biblical Philistines were a seafaring people who are not related in any way to the Palestinian Arabs who are from Saudi Arabia.

RE ethnic cleansing, I"m not sure where you get this concept. Re resettlement of refugees, well, all of Israel is founded by refugees who were resettled, so I'm not sure why resettling WWII era refugees is a bad thing. Last I checked, all other WWII era refugees had found new homes.

Again, are you sure your whole post was not a joke? Because 99% of it is not based on truth, reality, or fact.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Bubba

I don't think you really understand what you are talking about.

The violence started for a number of reasons. Success of the Jews was perhaps a small part of it, but there were many Jewish settlers before WWII who were not successful and who were involved in acts of violence against the largely Arab community in Palestine. Even today there are non-Arab beggars in both West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I tried to be balanced and emphasised that the initial settlements were arranged by negotiation and many Arabs welcomed the new trading opportunities afforded.

The Palestinian Arabs are not clamouring to work in Israel any more than the other countries you mention. Over half of the current population of Jordan comes from Palestine, there are large numbers of Palestinians working in Lebanon and Syria and to a lesser extent in Egypt. The Palestinian diaspora, about two thirds of the total Palestinian population is scattered throughout the ME and exists also in the US and UK. Those Palestinians seeking to work in Israel are doing so because it is the closest place. The Arab population of East Jerusalem lives in close proximity to West Jerusalem (yards not miles) - why look for work in Jordan (30 miles), Egypt, Syria and Lebanon (no borders and no transit passes allowed by Israel). The population of Gaza can work nowhere else. The small industries that Arabs favour have been smashed by Israel - jewellery shops are called 'bomb making' factories because of the chemicals used, metal workshops are bulldozed for the same reason.

Yasser Arafat's wife Sonia is a Christian and there are Christians in the PA (most famously Hanan Ashrawi has been involved in diplomatic negotiations on the part of Palestine). The Christian community is indeed in meltdown - when I was in Palestine Hamas planted a particularly bad bomb and the Israelis went ploughing into Bethlehem. What would you do if you were blamed for the work of your enemies?

Nobody lives under the PA. Israel occupies towns and villages at will. At the time of the Jenin punch up last year Israel had invaded all the major Palestinian towns bar Jericho and smashed the hospitals, schools and public buildings and burnt all the records. The Muqatta, Arafat's HQ, is reduced to rubble. How can you run an authority when your Parliament is not allowed to meet unless Israel allows Gaza representatives to cross its territory? Frequently PA meetings are cancelled because MPs are detained. E-mail doesn't work - Israel confiscated the Palnet servers for 4 days last year (I had a Palnet account so was considerably p*ssed off).

Arafat was democratically elected. The UN declared the results of the PA elections as free and fair. There has not been a repeat election and Arafat should have stood down some years ago (hence 'one man, one vote, one time'). The UN will not allow fresh PA elections to take place because the conditions are not right and Israel will not allow campaigning by those political groups of which it disapproves. The election of George Bush was less fair than the election of Yasser Arafat.

You refer to 'poll after poll' - polling by whom of whom? The Palestinians are understandably unwilling to participate in such things.

Yes, some Arabs who have traded with Israelis have been murdered. I didn't say they hadn't and I didn't suggest that they hadn't. The PM of Israel was assassinated by an Israeli for deakling with the PA.

Re international law - I refer you to the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention. The demolition of Palestinian homes is illegal, the settlement of Palestinian land is illegal and the failure to provide for the welfare of the Palestinians is illegal.

The biblical Philistines did not become extinct, but like most of the Jews in Palestine during the Islamic conquest they were assimilated into the population and learnt Arabic. The Palestinian Arabs are not from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a twentieth century creation. The tribes and peoples that populated the provinces of the Ottoman empire moved freely within its loose boundaries, but the idea that Hejaz Arabs have moved into Palestine in modern times is absurd. The present Palestinians have lived in the area for centuries. The idea that some resettled Europeans have the right to dispossess them is absurd. The removal of a people is ethnic cleansing. The Arabs have a right to be where they are. I do not subscribe to the idea that the Jews from northern Europe have any prior right based on a book that is disputed. Palestine was not empty when the European settlers arrived and they had no right to take the land.

Sadly Bubba, unlike you, I have been there seen it done it. My post is based on fact, you are the one who lowers the tone of the debate by not accepting the Balfour Declaration is fact, Herzl's writings are fact (have you read them), the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions are international law and what I saw with my own eyes is fact.

[Jackonicko]

"Those Palestinians seeking to work in Israel are doing so because it is the closest place. The Arab population of East Jerusalem lives in close proximity to West Jerusalem (yards not miles) - why look for work in Jordan (30 miles), Egypt, Syria and Lebanon (no borders and no transit passes allowed by Israel)."

And some want to work in Palestine because it is their home and their country.

[Bubbette]

What country of Palestine are you referring to jackonicko? When and where did it exist?

Um, Nils, I think this will actually have to be my last response to you unless you pick up a. a history book and b. a newspaper. The Palestinians are constantly clamoring about roadblocks, and not being able to work, etc. in Israel. The Philistines most certainly died out, and the Palestinian Arabs are just that---Arabs. And anyone who thinks that the PA runs a democracy, well, I just don't have words for that other than I hope you are not in any kind of policy making position. Israel only destroys institutions of terror--not institutions of democracy, and last I checked, there were very few, if any, of those in the PA controlled areas. And regarding Palestinians' welfare, the PA was in charge of that not Israel.

BTW, Arafat's wife is "Suha" not "Sonia," and she lives in Paris.

[Jackonicko]

Bubette,

For you to suggest that anyone else 'pick up a history book' is ridiculous. Nil Nos has lived and worked in Israel/Palestine (have you) and clearly has a firm grasp of the history of the region, having read more than the Jewish Chronicle and the Old Testament. I have a degree in modern history, having studied the history of the Middle East as my special subject.

Saying that there is no such thing as Palestine does not make it so, however much you wish it to be true. Nor does saying there are no such people as Palestinians. Nor does saying that Arafat is not democratically elected and broadly representative.

Palestine is the name given to that former province of the Ottoman Empire. Although administered by Britain under a League of Nations Mandate, Palestine was in most senses a country until 1947, even minting and printing its own currency.

The UN planned to partition (broadly 50:50) this Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states. (The area originally allocated to the Jewish side is well illustrated on p.163 of 'Wars of National Liberation' by Daniel Moran, in a map which shows that the area now claimed by the Palestinians represents an extremely modest compromise position). This was not acceptable to either side, and the two sides went to war when the British Mandate ended on 15 May 1948, Israel unilaterally declaring its statehood.....

Thereafter, Palestine was the name given to the same area by those Palestinian Arabs who remained (about 160,000), and by those who were disposessed and ethnically cleansed (about 700,000. 700,000! That's one of the worst examples of ethnic cleansing we've seen and is a crime of massive proportions, all on its own.). It was also the name applied to the object of the Palestinians' dream of statehood in exactly the same way that the name Israel had been used by Zionist Jews long before the State of Israel came into being in May 1948.

Palestine is now the name applied to the tiny areas which should be under the control of the Palestine National Authority, if Israel paid any heed to its international and legal obligations. It is the name which will be applied to the viable state which even GWB and Tony Blair are now pressing for - uniting Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem under democratic, secular Arab control.

And before you get too 'holier than thou' about Arab terrorism perhaps you'd care to comment on the assasination of Lord Moyne, the bombing of the King David Hotel, or the events at Deir Yassan on 9 April 1948?

Had the Jewish population of Palestine remained small, the two sides could and perhaps would have co-existed. But the original target of 50,000 had been exceeded by 1935 (when there were 65,000 Jews in Palestine) and massive immigration continued apace.

I don't hold with Nilnos' view that the "Jews from northern Europe do not have any prior right" to have a state in Palestine, even if that right is based on what he calls "a book that is disputed". (I think their right to a homeland is equally based on the horrific crimes inflicted on them under the Third Reich, and in the Pogroms in Poland and Russia and before that throughout Europe). But what they do not have is an exclusive right to the Holy Land (which is holy to three religions), and certainly not at the expense of the indigenous Arab population who have at least as much right to their homeland.

That's not an extremist PLO apologist point of view - that's a sensible compromise position (and increasingly the position being taken by the USA, the EU and the UN), and if Israel cannot embrace it, then in the long term it is doomed.

I'm intrigued as to whether you're a right wing Zionist or one of their fundamentalist christian allies? Are we descended from Monkeys, do you think.....?

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Bubba

Good book for you to read: 'From Beirut to Jerusalem', gives a good idea of what has happened of late.

Philistines did not die out - no reference to that in history. Most peoples were absorbed by the Arab conquests and abandoned their languages and cultures at the height of Arab civilisation (which some would argue has passed its best in many senses). This almost certainly included large numbers of apostate Jews. The Berbers abandoned Christianity for Islam as did many people in the Ottoman and Arab Empires (many Bosnian Muslims were originally Serb Orthodox).

Define 'Arabs' - Arabs are desert dwellers. There is no clear classification that even the Arabs agree on (Berbers, Copts, Samaritans, Druze are frequently referred to as Arabs). The Palestinian Arabs come from many sources - this can be seen in the variety of dialects in such a small area. The nomadic Bedouin groups have a completely different dialect. Sephardic Jews are frequently mistaken for Arabs speaking, as they do, with Arab accents picked up in the diaspora - many of them also speak excellent Arabic.

I have read far more widely on the subject than you have and for 4 months I read Ha'aretz (English language Israeli moderate paper), Jerusalem Post (right wing paper), Jerusalem Times (Palestinian Christian weekly) and Today in Palestine (human rights sponsored magazine). Trust me I know a lot, but clearly not all, of the history. It is the reading of the Jerusalem Post papers and seeing your posts that convinces me that there will be no peace. You frighten me as do the American settlers in places such as Hebron. You should live in Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, Galilee or one of the many places where Jew and Arab live relatively peacefully. You might understand the issues a lot better.

Arafat's wife does indeed live in exile. Some of the Palestinian Christians I knew referred to her as Sonia (the Anglicised version of the name).

I didn't say the PA was democratic per se. I said that the election of Arafat was agreed as free and fair by the UN. The PA has a long way to go to be fully democratic as we in the UK would understand, but it is no less democratic than Florida.

Israel destroys whatever it wishes regardless of democracy or not - several foreign aid workers have been killed or injured and I have had more than my fair share of IDF rifles pointed at me (I was with Americans in US vehicles).

Under the Geneva Convention Israel remains responsible for the welfare of the people in the occupied territories. The PA has no tax raising powers, but relies on Israel to collect taxes and pass them on. Currently the Israeli Government is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of PA taxes. This meant when I was there that PA staff frequently waited months to be paid.

I'm sorry Bubba, but you seem unable to accept that my posts are based on such fundamental things as experience, history books, Jewish papers and speaking with people who live in the country you only hear about from afar.

The situation is and remains a mess and people like you do not help the problem. I would love to see all of the peoples living in peace and harmony, but it ain't going to happen.

[ARXW]

The Full Letter

We, Air Force pilots who were raised on the values of Zionism, sacrifice, and contributing to the state of Israel, have always served on the front lines, willing to carry out any mission, whether small or large, to defend and strengthen the state of Israel.

We, veteran and active pilots alike, who served and still serve the state of Israel for long weeks every year, are opposed to carrying out attack orders that are illegal and immoral of the type the state of Israel has been conducting in the territories.

We, who were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise, refuse to take part in Air Force attacks on civilian population centers. We, for whom the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force are an inalienable part of ourselves, refuse to continue to harm innocent civilians.

These actions are illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society. Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength.

We who serve as active pilots -- fighters, leaders, and instructors of the next generation of pilots -- hereby declare that we shall continue to serve in the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force for every mission in defense of the state of Israel.

Signed:

Brigadier General Yiftah Spector
Colonel Yigal Shohat
Colonel Ran
Lieutenant Colonel Yoel Piterberg
Lieutenant Colonel David Yisraeli,
Lieutenant Colonel Adam Netzer
Lieutenant Colonel Avner Ra'anan
Lieutenant Colonel Gideon Shaham
Major Haggai Tamir
Major Amir Massad
Major Gideon Dror
Major David Marcus
Major Professor Motti Peri
Major Yotam
Major Zeev Reshef
Major Reuven
Captain Assaf
Captain Tomer
Captain Ron
Captain Yonatan
Captain Allon
Captain Amnon


My two cents worth: What these guys did does seem to be unacceptable for a professional soldier, yet...Dani Halutz and co. (no mean personalities themselves) should have known better especially when this group is led by the legendary Yiftah Spector probably the F-4 Sqn commander of Halutz in 1973 and maybe even his instructor. For somebody who fought combat from 1966 to 1973 (13.5 mig kills in the air - the half victory over a soviet pilot) and then again in the crucial 1982 strike you don't just go out and become a 'traitor' all of a sudden. Yigal Shohat and Gideon Dror are two other combat vets (and ex POWs) from the same wars that Spector fought....

[A Civilian]

Thats a lot of head sheds.

[Bubbette]

Uh, where is the reserve designation for these pilots? Aren't most of them non-active?

Jackonicko, I have already commented on the King David attack,which was against a military target. And please--Deir Yassin?

I also am astounded that you think the PA is a democracy. There is not one Arab Muslim democracy--why do you think the PA is run any different from Syria, or Egypt?

The mandate of Palestine, as I've stated was divided into Jew available and Jew free areas. The Arab Muslims attacked the Jewish area. They lost. The least the Arab Muslims can do, if they can't stop murdering people, is go to their own side of the river. Course the Arab countries and UNRWA has such an interest in keeping them in squalor. . .

No Arab thinks a Berber, or non-Arab Copt, or even and Egyptian is an Arab.

Regarding exclusive rights, all have freedom of religion under Israel's rule. The Muslim PA and the Jordanian authorities prevent Jews andoften christians from visiting their holy sites.

And "The two sides" did not go to war--Israel was attacked by 6 Arab states--millions of Arab soldiers against a few 100,000 poorly equipped Israelis. Don't whitewash what was intended to be another pogrom--Israel didn't attack--the Arab countries did.

Your attempted whitewashing of history is either pathetic, JN, or one of many reasons, JN you too need to pick up a newspaper and a book. I am highly amused by the "PA is a democracy" idea--thanks for the laugh!

[Danny]

Nil, it is you who is twisting facts and continuing the spread of disinformation. Palestine was not empty when the European settlers arrived and they had no right to take the land.You fail to mention the fact that the jews purchased, yes purchased, huge amounts of the land and were willingly sold it by the local population. The jews were organised enough to set up agencies to do this, with the knowledge that it would form an important link in future demographics. There was nothing illegal about this although the Ottomans and later the British tried several times to institute laws preventing the jews from obtaining these land purchases. Unfortunately, the local population found ways to circumvent those laws and by-laws.

It wasn't until much later, once the jews had settled and developed that land, let's not avoid the issue here because the land they purchased was mostly undeveloped, and the locals saw the changes that some nationalists decided that they wanted a stake in the 20th century. Until the development those lands there had been no national movement or centralisation of any 'palestinian' group. There were only a few rich families who curried favour with whoever was ruling their patch at the time and feudal clans who had no structure or any great aims of nationalism. In fact the feuding factions of the Christian church had more to do with organising dissent to strengthen their own varying brands such as the Roman Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox, the Protestants and so on. They all had their 'benefactors' abroad and the region was always likely to erupt due to the interfering of religious powers.

You can twist the facts to suit your own theories and try and propagandise them with the usual double standards by demonising the Israelis but as usual it is the rewriting of history that infuriates me. It is no better than the rewriting attempts by the likes of David Irving. The course of history and the changing demographics, whether in the region of palestine or anywhere else on earth are what will be the influencing factors. The later developments of the UN and the partition of the area of the British Mandate into specific Jewish and Arab areas have been suitable ignored in your potted 'history'. The area assigned to the Arabs (or Palestinians as you would prefer to call them) was immediately occupied by the Egyptians (Gaza) and the Jordanians took over the West Bank, with the declared intention of using those areas to push the fledgling Israeli state into the sea. The fact that they were unable to fulfil those aims and were resoundingly beaten back into what then became the de-facto borders (actually they were armistice lines) up to 1967 are also conveniently ignored in the twisted facts reported in the posts above. I can go on and on but there is little point as we have all made up our minds and have our own points of view. What I won't agree to though, is those points which are blatant twists of fact into 'nouveau propaganda'.

I have just returned from a trip to Israel (work) and I can get a feeling of the atmosphere from the Israeli point of view. There will always be small elements on both sides that will twist information and facts to suit their agendas. The more religious they are and orthodox in their beliefs the more radical their aims. However, most Israelis don't want to rule over a large arab population. After 1967 they always stated that they would be willing to exchange the land they captured in return for a secure peace but neither the Palestinians nor their Arab backers wanted that. Israel has had to fight to defend itself since day one and before. It has had a strong ally in the USA since 1973 but to spout rubbish about a minority extremist group who want to 'cleanse all the land of Arabs' or the minority ultra-religious orthodox jews who don't believe in the state of Israel until there has been more suffering just shows how people like you end up creating the likes of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. You are just twisting and mixing fact and fiction to suit your own propaganda.

If you are going to try to speak from a position of authority then at least get your facts straight. Passing off gross distortions as truth only shows you to be as dangerous as the likes of Irving. I'm not saying the Israelis are without their problems and haven't made any mistakes but your rhetoric about how they are just poor innocents who have been tragically overtaken by events not of their and their backers doing just doesn't wash. And, like you I have been there and done it and seen it all first hand. Not only that, I have seen it first hand and seen it distorted by the likes of you first hand too.

The solution? I don't know but the bleeding heart utopia that jacko puts forward just isn't realistic. It sounds good in propaganda, and he claims to be a journalist or writer of stories so I have very little doubt that being of an ability to put words across convincingly, he can make his own facts 'appear' to be real but the in-depth study is lacking. More sound-bite politics if you ask me.

I can agree to disagree on many points and I can concede on others but I don't accept the gross distortions that Nil and Jacko are trying to put about in their double act. Having lived and fought out there I know what I have seen and with further study I have developed my own views but until the double standard is dropped you will find the Israelis taking matters into their own hands. The moral outrage at the fact that the Israelis struck at a terrorist training camp in Syria is even more galling when others try to compare the situation with Northern Ireland. I'm sure Nil and Jacko and others will believe the Syrian rubbish about being whiter than white and the fact that they have no involvement with any terrorist organisations that are involved in suicide murders. No of course they aren't. As long as the demon Israelis are allowed to strive for a secure life in their illegal country they will always be subject to acts of terror and therefore only have themselves to blame. I think I just got their 'facts of history' in a nutshell there.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Shalom Danny

No offence intended, but I did in my first post refer to the fact that the original land was indeed bought and that the original settlements were welcomed by the Arabs. In that much of the land in substantial areas was indeed purchased there is no problem if that is what a native group wish to do. The land was undeveloped in many places, however it was not an empty land, but one where there was legal title established throughout. The current annexation of land in the West Bank and the redrawing of the Jerusalem boundaries to include Arab lands is almost certainly illegal under the Geneva Convention.

I tried to be as objective as I could, but you must agree that the situation has got to the stage where people are staring into an abyss. I tried to point out the genuine problems that withdrawal from the occupied territories would bring. I was fair about the dislocated nature of Palestinian politics and highlighted the extremists that exist on the Jewish/Israeli side. I pointed out that they are a problem for both sides. I have drank with secular Jews who are just as worried by the antics of Rabbi Yossef (sp) as are the Arabs. My Arab Christian interpreters feared Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

I don't consider myself a propagandist, but saw things over a reasonable period from a different perspective than you would have seen when you lived there full time. Things have moved on and they haven't got better. The immigration of 1,000,000 Russian 'jews' has created an imbalance in Israeli society and I don't think it is good for anybody. Indeed the issues concerning the Israelis when I read the papers regularly were not just the Arab situation, but also Eastern European prostitution, AIDS, unemployment, overloaded benefits for Ultra Orthodox Jews and the state of parts of the economy as a result of the ongoing troubles.

Funnily enough I was discussing the convoluted nature of Arab Christian politics with my curate only tonight. I have had the pleasure of wandering freely around the Holy Sepulchre on many occasions and despair of the schisms that have caused the current ridiculous situation (even the key to Christianity's most holy site is held by a Muslim family because the Christian sects cannot agree).

I haven't commented on the Syria situation. I worry that the affect of the Israeli attack could be an expansion of the conflict. Syria under the Assads is not a place that I would choose to visit and I suspect that the decision to attack was not made lightly. Syria certainly harbours Hezbollah and the training camp belonged apparently to the PFLP (famous for assassinating the Tourist Minister Ze'evi).

I have shared a room, on another occasion that I can't detail, with an Israeli Foreign Office official. We discussed at length many of the issues that concerned him and the solutions. Security is the biggest issue that Israel has. The problem is that the rapid growth in the Arab population, particularly in Gaza has left many Israelis frightened as it is obvious that the Arab population west of the Jordan will exceed the Jewish population in a very short time. Lord alone knows what will happen when the explosion finally takes place. There is nowhere for the Gazans to go.

I don't think that I have rewritten history. My view is a perspective that many have, be it right or wrong. I tried to highlight that the extremists of both sides are the driving force behind what is happening. It is not wrong to point out what their policies mean since they, in Israels system of proportional repesentation, can wield undue influence. The Arabs were able to use their votes to lean on Barak's government in the same way that small religious parties can get concessions from Sharon. That's a fact, not a distortion.

The things that I have written about settler roads, bans on car driving etc were all reported in Ha'aretz (look at the Ha'aretz website to see the middle of the road Israeli point of view). I don't think it is a distortion or propaganda to say that young people on both sides desire peace and that Arabs have Jewish friends and want a democracy.

Land for peace is likely to be the only solution, but you are right that there are plenty of people who don't want that. If I lived in Tel Aviv I would worry about the proximity of Tulkarm and Qalqilya in security terms, but what is the solution? Building a wall won't satify anyone unless the settlements are evacuated since it will mean that the IDF will spend eternity trying to rule over a massive Arab population.

I'm sorry if you think that I am propagandising. I think not. I suspect we will disagree on certain interpretations of actions, but I think that we actually agree on most of the build up to what has happened.

I close with my final paragraph from my first post on the subject:

I conclude, however, that there is no solution, because in Israel and Palestine there are too many Jews living in the first century AD, too many Muslims living in the seventh century and the majority, who live in the 21st century, are unwilling or unable to stop them.

[Jackonicko]

Danny,

I always get very worried when the word liberal is used as a term of abuse.

I also dispute your accusation of 'distortion', especially when you fall back on the old 'the Jews turned the desert green, the Arabs therefore don't deserve the land they squandered' argument.

The UN partition (into separate Arab and Jewish areas) wasn't ignored, I even told you where you could find a good map showing exactly what was proposed.

You also say that Arab aggression against Israel has been ignored. It hasn't. Again and again I've stated my belief that Israel deserves extra consideration, and that we shouldn't get narrowly legalistic, because of the hostility and aggression it has faced. Otherwise we'd all be saying Israel should withdraw to the 1947 partition plan borders, and not to the 1967 borders. The history of the region since 1945 leads everyone to understand and agree that Israel's security must be ensured, even if that makes any settlement 'unbalanced' in Israel's favour.

No-one has claimed that Eretz Israel Zionist extremists or the 'there shouldn't be an Israel' brigade are anything but vocal minorities, Danny, so that's hardly 'fact twisting'.

You state that Israel has always been "willing to exchange the land they captured in return for a secure peace". Well now is the time for action. Allowing a Palestinian extremist fringe to derail the Peace process will ultimately be dangerous (and perhaps eventually fatal) to Israel, which does have every right to a secure and peaceful existence. Oslo was worth pursuing with rather more commitment and dedication - from both sides.

You deliberately attribute to us 'facts of history' which we haven't put forward, and suggest that we think that the "illegal country" of Israel "will always be subject to acts of terror" and that it therefore has only itself to blame. No-one is saying that, mate.

We're just echoing the sentiment of the blokes this thread is about:

"These actions are illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society. Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength."

That seems to be a point of view shared by many ordinary decent Israelis and Jews, who have increasingly become sickened and ashamed by what is being done in their names.

Israel must compromise or die, as increasing numbers of its friends are now telling it. I am entirely sincere in wanting this great nation to compromise, and resent being labelled as some kind of anti-Israeli PLO apologist or agent.

[Danny]

I also dispute your accusation of 'distortion', especially when you fall back on the old 'the Jews turned the desert green, the Arabs therefore don't deserve the land they squandered' argument.A distortion of a distortion methinks. Show me where I have said the above quote?

At least in Israel there is a vocal opposition to what the government does. The government at least is elected by the citizens on a regular basis, not on a once only basis. We all acknowledge that the current Sharon government is a result of the suicide murders. You will no doubt ignore the fact that Arafat actually encouraged the suicide murderers. Can you deny the TV footage of Arafat at the declaration of the second Intifada calling for "Shahid". No doubt there will be the usual 'interpretation' of the language used but anyone who can't concede that Arafat had and still has a hand in the murderous, indiscriminate violence isn't worth debating with.

The comparisons of indiscriminate suicide murders of innocent civilians with the targeted attacks by the IDF against known extremists is just one example of double standards at play. The IDF don't always get it right and there are sometimes innocent civilians who are killed but to make a comparison is just beneath contempt. It is a war and to assume that there will never be innocent casualties is naive in the extreme. Unfortunately there are people out there who believe that the indiscriminate murder of civilians is justified although they cloak their language in rhetoric, usually involving the word "cycle" as though it is somehow balanced and inevitable.

Even Nil conceded partly to the fact that most of the land originally developed by Israel was purchased legitimately but by going on to mention " The current annexation of land in the West Bank and the redrawing of the Jerusalem boundaries to include Arab lands is almost certainly illegal under the Geneva Convention." ignores the fact that the land mentioned in the next sentence is a totally different issue. It was captured after over 20 years of sustained attacks on Israelis. The settlements and their legality can be debated ad nauseum. Israel has a history of removing all settlements from territory returned for a negotiated peace. It's a starting point for negotiations and not something that has to be dealt with as a pre-condition.

[Jackonicko]

Isn't that what you were inferring? ("once the jews had settled and developed that land, let's not avoid the issue here because the land they purchased was mostly undeveloped, and the locals saw the changes that some nationalists decided that they wanted a stake in the 20th century")....

I have never equated terrorist violence or suicide bombing (which I have always condemned) with even the worst IDF excesses, though I do also condemn the latter.

I think that focusing on Arafat is a dangerous distraction, simply because he has become such a 'bogeyman'. He's enough of a peacemaker to have been embraced by the Pope and George Dubya, and there does at least seem to be real disagreement on exactly what his attitude to violence is. If he's ever encouraged the suicide bombers, I condemn him whole heartedly for that, while saluting him for the part he played at Oslo. Just as I'd salute Sharom for some of his achievements and statesmanship, and condemn him for other things he's done.

Israel's record on removing settlements doesn't seem that impressive to me, I have to say, and there will always be pre-conditions on both sides. Arafat must renounce and make real efforts to halt the violence, Israel must abide by international resolutions and its obligations. There's plenty left to negotiate about!

But at the end of the day, these long-serving, fairly senior, IDF officers (not liberal utopian English wets) have offered the opinion that:

"These actions are illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society. Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength."

I think that speaks volumes.

[Bubbette]

A bunch of retired officers (as is just about the entire Israeli population) making some leftist, suicidal statements really doesn't reflect Israeli public sentiment---see the ousting of the "dove" Barak and election of a used to be hawk Sharon.

[Chronic Snoozer]

The judges have it

Danny and Bubbette 7
Nils and Jacko 10

at the moment.

Ding, ding round two.

(very educational btw.)

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Danny,

I didn't concede the point on land purchase, it was in my first post on the subject. I actually raised it as an issue.

I haven't considered Arafat's actions or his language, only that he was elected. Arafat definitely falls into the bracket of 'mercurial' and what he says one day he condemns the next. Some of his speeches border on rants, he is inconsistent and he constantly misjudges the moment. He is totally unsuitable to govern an independent PA.

Ultimately neither Sharon nor Arafat are suitable partners for peace.

Sharon's ramble over the Dome of the Rock was insensitive, ill-timed and designed to embarrass his own PM and, arguably, sparked the Intifada (I know the argument that Palestinian extremists were looking for an excuse, but to give them such a reason was crass). Sharon's seizure of Beit Sharon, the house he 'owns', but doesn't occupy, in the Arab quarter of the Old City is a provocation. He has a superb residence in West Jerusalem and a massive ranch in the country, he didn't need to do what he did.

I think that there is unlikely to be another serious, workable attempt at peace until younger, more worldly wise men, take the helm. By then it might be too late.

Bubba,

Most Israelis are not retired officers. Demographics doesn't allow of it. There are 6 million Israelis. 1 million are Arabs - few serve as regulars in the IDF and even fewer if any make officer. There are 1 million new Russian immigrants. None of the older ones have served, few of the women have served and because of the language problems few of those who have served have made officer status. There are 1 or 2 million orthodox/ultra orthodox who have military exemptions. Their women don't serve and a lot of their men don't serve as the priority is the Yeshiva (concession to the religious right, you can defend your country or opt to spend your life studying the Torah). Those orthodox that do serve usually don't get involved in combat units (this is a real issue for secular groups in Israel). Of the rest, those who are old enough tend to be 'men' as opposed to officers - no armed force has more officers than men.

To be a conscript in the IDF is normal, and many of the ones I encountered would have been better flipping burgers than manning checkpoints in one of the most dangerous places on earth. To be an officer in the IDF still attracts kudos, that is why so many successful politicians in Israel come from the upper echelons - Dayan, Sharon, Barak, Mitna etc were all generals. Many generals retire and go straight to the top of party lists - Shaul Mofaz (sp) being the most recent.

To be aircrew in the IDF air force attracts even more kudos. The air force is one of the best equipped, best trained and most experienced in the world.

That is why the letter from these officers is so significant. These men are amongst the elite of Israeli society. They are adding their signatures to those of the many intellectuals and human rights activists who have also condemned the bombings. Some of them might one day be serious players on the Israeli political scene. I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand.

[Danny]

I agree with the points made there by Nil. There is a very healthy opposition in Israel to many of the policies of Sharon. He is extremely adept at provocation and whilst mercurial and a good tactician as a general he, like most of the other politicians are hamstrung by the vagaries of the proportional representation voting system which allows religious extremists and single issue hardliners to have unproportional power in minority coalition governments.

It was interesting that Tommy Lapid of the Shinui (Change) party rose to give the ultra religious parties a fright with his frank and outspoken criticism of them and their selfish ways. I would look at lapid and his party to become more of a force in the future as the majority of Israelis are secular and are fed up with the ridiculous power that the minority religious parties wield over them and their daily lives.

The Air Force pilots who signed the petition still represent a minority and the fact that they are receiving so much coverage only adds an unrealistic impression that they have any real influence. The situation is very dynamic in that volatile area and the majority of Israelis, I believe, do want peace. The vocal minorities of orthodox and fundamentalist Israelis wield the balance of power in the government and so have an influence far in excess of their representation. They do a lot of talking and in a few cases have gone so far as to commit acts of murder which are as despicable as any of the suicide murders. but, they are few and far between and the Israeli authorities are doing everything in their power to find and stop them, more often than not successfully. Contrast that with the hollow rhetoric we get from the palestinian spokespeople who use every single opportunity to link and equate the suicide murders with the actions of the Israeli government.

Unfortunately, many people are easily brainwashed into believing those comparisons as the Palestinian strategy is that if you mention it enough times then it becomes fact. 10 out of 10 for their propaganda strategy then but zero for their crocodile tears. Until the Palestinians show some desire to clamp down on their terrorist groups then most Israelis will have no faith. They, the Palestinians, are between a rock and a hard place and they only have themsleves and especially their corrupt leader, Yassir Arafat to blame for that. It may mean civil war for them. Unfortunate but as we are now seeing in Saudi Arabia and other places, the amount of support given to the religious fundamentalists to spread their indoctrination of hate and death, eventually comes back to bite them.

[RatherBeFlying]

Mitzna's platform in the last Israeli election included:[list=1] Fencing off the West Bank
Evacuating settlements
[/list=1] Note that there is no mention of a negotiating partner.

Mitzna also observed that no suicide bombing attacks have originated from Gaza because of an effectively patrolled fence.

Along with a loss of life triple that of Israelis, the demolitions, land seizures, checkpoints, uprooting of orchards, and blockades have made a gulag of Palestinian areas and fertilised a soil that will produce many more people filled with hate who see suicide bombing as one of very few ways to strike back.

It's beginning to look like the world's longest running prison riot.

A well patrolled fence along the '67 boundaries will allow the Palestinians to get on with building an economically viable future and keep the fanatics away from Israel.

[Bubbette]

Mitzna was soundly defeated. . . . .

[Lucifer]

Edward Said did much to promote this 'good' perception of the Palestinians - creating a vision in a way, and an ideology where there was none. But he was a prat; going to the point of supporting suicide bombings as a means of a political end.

The thing is that it is always going to be easy to portray the Israelis as bad and the Palestinians as good considering the power balance. That it has led to suicide bombings to get a word in edgeways is, I believe, a result of the continuing power balance in favour of Israel, which can easily be seen to lead to drastic measures to make a point, whether you think they are justified or not.

Israel must stand up to illegal settlements as it appears afraid to act. Arafat is elected, but must go - not through military action. He has appropriated millions to his own accounts overseas and is hardly a dynamic force for peace, whether he is allowing Hamas to act or not.

Unfortunately Sharon is also yesterday's man - he is acting as if Israel might disintegrate unless the maximum possible action is taken. You cannot simply strike Syria as they did - more threats prior as the US did to Afghanistan should have occurred. Admittadly the strike against Iraq in the 80s undoubtably prevented a nuclear program coming to fruition.

Israel's problem is the condition in which the Palestinians have been left after defeat, and the little land to develop as a country. This is a PR nightmare as concessions look bad to the electorate, while status quo horrifies the rest of the world.

If people remain so partisan as some comments, progress will never be achieved.

And I am sure everyone has noticed the powerhouse that is Israel's economy outside of defence.....a solution would do it's economy good.

[newswatcher]

Two quotes from bubbette, on which I would like to comment. Palestinian Arabs were murdering Jews long before 1948--that's one reason the British pulled out of the area and Israel declared itself a state And the main reason…………..?

I think you will find that the British pulled out in 1948, because they were fed up with taking casualties from Jewish terrorist organisations like the IZL, including the Stern gang. Over 300 British men and women were killed in Palestine between 1945-1948, including 233 military. I have already commented on the King David attack, which was against a military target By calling it a "military target", you insiuate that the attackers also constituted a legitimate military force. Wrong, they were terrorists. The hotel was only partially occupied by the HQ British Forces, and the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine. The rest of the building was still in use as a hotel. The majority of the 91 dead were civilians, including 15 Jewish secretaries.

[Bubbette]

No, the Arabs started the violence newswatcher. The early Jewish settlers were peaceful farmers, who reclaimed the malarial, swamp infested land to make it the first world country it is today and lightyears ahead, even then, of the living standards of the Arabs. The Arabs, instead of learning from their Jewish neigbhors advanced technicques, chose to murder them. This continues to this day. And yes, the K. David was a military target. And let's say it wasn't--does one misguided attack in any way justrified the Arabs' Jew-hatred from then until this day? I think not. I think you need to read a few books about dhimmi and Islam. And take special note of the recent Haifa attack. The restaurant wasn't co-owned by Muslims--it was co-owned by Christians---the latest targest of Islamic warfare. And appeasement doesn't work in fight militant Islam--not then, not now. Open your eyes.

Edward Said, the prospective murderer of Israelis? His recent death can only advance the cause of peace.

[Bubbette]

I absolutely am a Jew--what exactly are you implying? Do you have a problem with that?

And yes the peaceful Jewish farmers came to settle and reclaim the land, and the Arab Muslims rioted in order to kill as many as possible, even as they reaped the benefits of sewer systems, electricity, paved roads etc. With what do you disagree?

[RatherBeFlying]

Mitzna was soundly defeated. . . . . and so was Gore to, in the opinion of many, the great detriment of both countries and their downslide in world public opinion.

While I'll readily concede that Sharon was elected with a good more electoral process integrity than Bush, it remains that voters can and do make poor, even disastrous, choices on occasion -- Germany in 1933 for an extreme example.

[Bubbette]

Why was Sharon a bad choice? There would have been even more Israelis murdered if the left had remained in power. In case you've forgotten, it was the Likud who negotiated the first, and most difficult treaty, with Egypt. It takes two to effect a diplomatic peace--and there is no Palestinian leader who wants to do so.

[Jackonicko]

Rather Be:

Most sensible people (including those who don’t dismiss all Arab claims) realise that Israel’s legitimate security must be guaranteed. Interesting that you should quite sensibly suggest “A well patrolled fence along the '67 boundaries” – rather than one located several miles inside Palestinian territory like the present illegal monstrosity.

Bubbette:

The King David Hotel was a terrorist attack, and it was far from isolated. The Irgun and the Stern Gang did much more and much worse.

I think you need to read a few books about what went on during the Mandate, dear.....

The fact that the first Jewish settlers “reclaimed the malarial, swamp infested land to make it the first world country it is today” is a a crude over-simplification, and is irrelevant anyway. You might be interested to know that “sewer systems, electricity, paved roads etc.” began to appear under the Ottoman empire, and were far from being a generous Jewish gift to their Arab neighbours, though there is no doubt that Jewish settlement accelerated the process of modernisation. If land is stolen or illegally purchased, however, it doesn’t matter what you do to it or how you improve it, it’s simply not right. And that goes double for land that’s illegally occupied post-conflict.

And when these ‘improvements’ also include the ethnic cleansing of 700,000 of the original occupants, the murder of thousands, the demolition of countless Arab villages, and widespread ‘water-theft’ by tapping into Artesian wells below Arab allocated land, then it’s clear that such improvements are (at best) a mixed blessing.

You’re happy to rant about “Edward Said, the prospective murdererer of Israelis?” and opine that “His recent death can only advance the cause of peace.” Would you say the same about Sharon, when he passes away? Many moderate people would do, and with greater justification. "Why was Sharon a bad choice?" because under his leadership, the tentative steps towards peace were destroyed, and it was always clear that he would destroy the peace process. Peace with Egypt was easy, the USA was pushing both sides to reach agreement, you were dealing with Sadat, Egypt was desparate for peace and disillusioned with war, and it gave you an Arab ally without having to make important concessions and without having to risk Israel's fundamental security. By comparison, peace with the Palestinians would require hard compromises and difficult concessions, and would require a huge leap of faith and of imagination.

“I absolutely am a Jew--what exactly are you implying? Do you have a problem with that?”

Not at all over here, love, and I’m sure that no-one on these boards has a problem with anyone because of their ethnic or religious background.

I expect that he ‘thinks you may be Jewish’ because you parrot Israeli propaganda with such facility and with quite such a lack of critical analysis or open-mindedness. Personally I was just worried that you were one of those right wing creationist fundamentalist christian nutters, because they don’t speak the same language as the rest of us. Now I wonder whether you’re Ariel Sharon’s grand-daughter..... (that’s a little joke, by the way).

If you’re a Zionist Jew who believes in Eretz Israel, then I think you’re wrong, and I don’t think you have any right to settle on the West Bank, but I don’t have a problem with you or your religion. (I don’t have a problem with Baathists because they’re Iraqis (or because some of them are Moslems) but because they followed an evil man and supported immoral, illegal, dangerous and obsecene policies).

If you’re a US citizen, then I am surprised that you should be quite so blind to the fundamental human rights of the oppressed Palestinians, and that you are quite so hostile to granting them their democratic rights. Perhaps you’re a throwback to the 19th Century, and see them in the same way that many Americans then saw Native Americans, or blacks?

[RatherBeFlying]

I was a fan of Sharon for his deeds during the Yom Kippur war, but it's been downhill from there, especially in the last few years since I've been reading Ha'aretz which makes plain what a disastrous choice Sharon has been for Israel's future.

Past his Shelf Life -- Ha'aretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/348475.html) for today's example.

Who needs to care if there is a Palestinian negotiating partner -- put up a wall along the '67 lines and let them sort themselves out.

In fact, I look forward to Arafat's passing as his chief role has become providing a handy excuse for Sharon and Bush to allow the situation to fester. As Voltaire said: If there was not a God, man would have to invent Him!

[Bubbette]

JN the only land in the Mid East that was stolen was that stolen by the 22 Arab countries from their Jewish populations.

Sharon is a man of peace, willing to sacrifice everything for the cause; Said was a man of hate and he even attempted to murder a soldier.

Someone else mentioned whether or not I was Jewish, so I assume they have some problem with it, not you.

No right to settle on the West Bank? So Jews are second class citizens, with entire countries, even where Jews have lived for 1000s of years off limits? Sorry, I don't agree with your racist belief; I think all law abiding citizens shouldlive where they want.

Re the Palestinians, since they have democratically elected a leader to run their own government, it's ludicrous for you to blame Israel for their horrible plight. I don't feel sorry for the terrorist murderers; I do actually pity the people who are raised on such hate it seethes through their pores. If you get a chance to see the Arab Jenin documentary, you'll see what I mean. Or if you see the families celebrating the murder by a suicide bomber. That's sick to me. But their culture is different; they don't value life like western culture does.

A book just came out about the conversion efforts at Mohammed Atta's mosque in Germany. The imam there was discussing if there is a sinking boat, one doesn't put one's wife and family on it, one puts oneself on it. That's their culture, but it ain't the same as mine.

The PA is a democracy, isn't it?

[Chronic Snoozer]

Bub,

I think all law abiding citizens should live where they want.

Except Palestinians, or only Israelis? (the law abiding ones of course)

I absolutely am a Jew--what exactly are you implying? Do you have a problem with that?

I don't blame you for being paranoid, but is it necessary to be so aggressive?

Sorry, I don't agree with your racist belief Disagreeing with you doesn't make anyone a racist, and it goes both ways.

Try more reasoned arguments. For example, would you concede that Jews have ever done anything wrong??

Continue. ;-)

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

What do you call 100 attorneys dead on the sea floor? A good start.

I think its a legitimate question Bubbette to ask, what interest in Aviation do you have, since all your posts I have ever seen have been about Judaism and Arab-Israeli relations and not about the aviation industry as you would expect on an aviation bulletin board.

To answer all those advocates of a massive "Berlin Wall" between Israel and Palestine. First off Israel cannot continue to function without the hard work that is done by the Palestinians, the country would grind to a halt without their manual labour, doing the jobs the Jews feel is below them. I am not saying that in a racist way because in the Gulf States it is the same the country would cease to operate if it wasn't for the cheap labour bought in from Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka. The second reason they can't just close off the palestinian territories from the rest of Israel is the illegal settlements (sorry Bubbette only 14 of the 15 security council members agree that the settlements are illegal, and the Israeli govenment itself identified 25 of the settlements as being illegal and agreed to dismantle 14 of them) are scattered throughtout the territories.

Anyway this guy is obviously on a mission to patrol Bulletin boards to push the Anti-Arab propoganda down our throat so responding to his drivel is not going to ever change his point of view. So carry on Bubbette, but all you succeed in doing is reinforcing the stereotype most people have of the paranoid, unfriendly, ungenerous jewish person.

[GLOC]

AirNoServices.....

Well said! I think Fox3 followed a similar theme earlier but I noticed his post has dissapeared....

Might be time to shut this thread down before it gets ugly!

:hmm:

[Jackonicko]

ANSO,

As far as I'm concerned Bubbette is welcome here. I think it's interesting to have such a distilled and extreme expression of one side's view (all we lack is someone who will trot out the PLO line with complete enthusiasm and lack of discrimination between fact and fiction). I presume he/she is a private pilot (Attorneys can afford more hours and more interesting types than I can). I believe she contributes on other, more GA related fora more than she does on Mil Aircrew.

I'd like to distance myself from your stereotype of the "paranoid, unfriendly, ungenerous jewish person."

Anyone who has actually dealt with many Jews will confirm that they tend to be the world's most effusive, gregarious and friendly people, and that they are generous to a fault. We're not talking about short-armed, long-pocketed Scots or Journos, here.

As to paranioa, there's a more realistic case, though I'd just point out that we might have appeared 'paranoid' about the Germans in about 1944, or about the French in 1812..... There comes a point where one's experience of hostility and aggression makes paranoia a perfectly sensible survival strategy. And perhaps the memory of the holocaust makes some Jews think that the rest of the civilised World is not entirely reliable.

Bubette,

Go look at the map I recommended. The book should be in your local library. If not you'll find another. Every bit of today's Israel which is not part of that 1947 partition plan is stolen. The Arab side has moved on and doesn't want or expect most of it back. All they want back is those areas which were captured (read stolen) in 1967.

No-one has an absolute right to settle wherever they want. I don't see the USA having an 'open door policy' to Mexican immigrants, nor even to Cubans fleeing Castro's regime. They certainly wouldn't tolerate Mexico seizing Arizona by force of arms, and then (after finally giving back some of it) retaining illegal settlements on the portion handed back to US control. The West Bank is not Israel's to settle. It belongs to someone else. The Egyptians could not build settlements around Tel Aviv. The land isn't theirs, (even if they were to seize it) and that part of the Holy Land has always been part of the area allocated to the Jews by the League of Nations and its successors.

Giving Israel SOME of the blame for Palestine's plight is entirely fair. Israel has been witholding funds, destabilising political institutions, mounting military attacks, demolishing and destroying infrastructure, assassinating political leaders, murdering innocent civilians, refusing a 'right to return' and refusing to disgorge sufficient territory to form a viable Palestinian state.

You throw around insinuations of racism with some abandon, but your own complete refusal to acknowledge the rights of Palestinian Arabs to live in the lands which are rightfully theirs (as decided by the UN and the world at large) suggests that if anyone here is racist, then you might come closest to that description.

Until we're part of their culture, and until we've been oppressed by the IDF for decades, I suspect both of us will feel nothing but revulsion at some of the displays of jubilation which you mention. Hell, from the comfort of my desk, I even find the sight of Allied troops whooping and high fiving after killing the enemy just a tiny bit uncomfortable. It might be necessary, entirely justifiable and even desirable, but I'm wet enough to think that the taking of human life should always be taken very seriously, and treated with some degree of (wrong word) 'reverence'. I'm not comparing or equating the two at all. Military forces are there to kill, and (generally) do so legitimately, whereas terrorist murder (even of serving soldiers) is, in my view, always morally and legally wrong.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Bubbette

[QUOTE]That's their culture, but it ain't the same as mine.[QUOTE]

Lot shagged his daughters. Abraham shagged his half sister. David set up Uriah the Hittite so he could shag his wife. David's son incestuously raped David's daughter. Jacob had several wives/concubines (his sons had 4 separate mothers). Moses had the Midianites slaughtered because one Midianite had consensual sex with one Jew.

Your culture.......:ok:

The Tombs of the Patriarchs at Hebron are sacred to Jew and Arab alike since the Arabs claim descent from Abraham through his son Ishmael. You are a cousin of the Arabs you hate.

The burial place of Moses is next to a mosque just off the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. He is a prophet of both Islam and Judaism.

Despite the rantings of the Jerusalem post you are all Semitic together and there are as many Arab anti-Semites as there are Jewish ones.

Your alphabets might be different, but your languages are very close. Try these examples of Hebrew/Arabic:

Shalom/salaam - peace (sh and s are interchangeable in many ME dialects - shibboleth and sibboleth are the same in both languages).

Ahad/wahed - one (see un/one/een/ein in Europe)

Sabaat/sabaa - seven

Beit/beet - house (pronounced the same - beit lachem/ beet lahem - house of bread, house of meat)

Lo/la'a - no

You share hundreds of words and the same tenses and constructions.

[QUOTE]Sharon is a man of peace, willing to sacrifice everything for the cause[QUOTE]

Yep, including the lives of the Egyptian prisoners he abandoned in the desert without food or water in 1973. Most died. Geneva Convention.....doesn't apply to Israeli generals.

Sharon almost certainly had a hand in Sabra and Chattila - a lot of Israeli papers have discussed this.

Sharon has a poor record on the settlements. Recently some 'illegal' settlements were removed. They were unoccupied and had only been set up shortly before. He seriously expected all Palestinian 'terror' groups to disarm in return for the removal of 4 empty caravans. Meanwhile the extension of existing settlements and the annexation of villages surrounding Jerusalem continues apace - I've seen the settlements being built up on a daily basis. They are substantial and permanent and are built of brick and concrete. I repeat that the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory, bans the settling of an occupiers people on occupied land.

[QUOTE]I think all law abiding citizens should live where they want. [QUOTE]

No you don't. You don't think the Palestinian Arabs should be able to return to the homes abandoned in 1948 regardless of whether they want to be law abiding or not.

Did you know that the overwhelming majority of Palestians world wide are law abiding and don't kill anyone. If all Palestinians were to kill only 2 Jews each on a global basis the Jewish people would not exist. The fact that they don't and that the total Israeli deaths from the Intifada runs into hundreds, not thousands is a clue to the rest of us.

You think that the blonde haire, blue eyed Jewish descendants of the brown skinned, black haired Jews scattered centuries ago have some sort of claim on the land that is superior to the descendants of those Jews who were assimilated and converted to Islam in the 7th century. You're wrong.

Law abiding includes obeying UN resolutions and international treaties to which your government has signed up. The settlers break all the laws in the book, including in Hebron the murder of Arabs. Under your own terms have no right to live where they are.

Incidentally, what is your connection to aviation? I've got a couple of thousand miltary flying hours under my belt and a general service medal for my part in the war on terrorism in Northern Ireland. What did you do?

Finally, point about reputation of Jews being miserable; sadly this message gets over, when in fact most Jews have a generous disposition and a great sense of humour same as everyone else. I think the reputaion has been spread around by El Al cabin staff who are the most miserable in the industry.:cool:

[Lucifer]

I did say Said was a prat. I totally agree that his death is most probably a positive event for the cause of peace. Perhaps you misunderstood my drift - it was he that perpetrated a much more sympathetic view of the Palestinians.

You may not believe, Bubette, those terrorist acts that were carried out, but don't blind yourself to history or you are no better that others who distort history from 1939-1945.

Take a look at Roald Dahl's 'Going Solo'. His experience in Palestine confirms that there were zealots who were prepared to go to any lengths to claim what they believed was their land. How is that any better than what Palestinians do today.

Although Israel has a right to exist, people cannot claim te whole area exclusive and deny, even defeated peoples in the occupied territories, a right to basic rights. Punishing a whole people for deeds committed by a few is ignorant in the extreme, and no better than Said's views.

[Danny]

Jacko, there you go again with your distorted facts, suppositions and plain old lies. "If land is stolen or illegally purchased, however, it doesn’t matter what you do to it or how you improve it, it’s simply not right." The land was not stolen or illegally purchased but of course it suits your propaganda to refer to it as such which is what infuriates me. With regard to the settlements in the West Bank, that's a different issue but of course it suits you and the palestinian propaganda machine to blur any distinction between the two separate points and therefore imply that most of the land that constitutes Israel today was usurped from the previous inhabitants.

The rest of that paragraph you wrote about the murder of thousands and ethnic cleansing is just a lie and typical of the misinformation that is put about by the apologists for the suicide murderers and their claims that the murder of innocent civilians is only a backlash because of that. You know very well that the majority of the Arab population were ordered out by the Egyptians, Iraqis and Jordanians with the promise that they would be allowed back and even more, allowed to take over the land that would be freed after they had beaten the Jews into the sea. Well, history took a different turn and like an idiot who doesn't learn that banging your head against a wall doesn't get you anywhere the Arabs have continued to try and push the Jews into the sea. It was Sadat who was the visionary and look who killed him.

Also, your next paragraph includes this piece of horse manure "Egypt was desperate for peace and disillusioned with war, and it gave you an Arab ally without having to make important concessions and without having to risk Israel's fundamental security. By comparison, peace with the Palestinians would require hard compromises and difficult concessions, and would require a huge leap of faith and of imagination." which only goes to show you up as being of limited intelligence and even less logic. Are you therefore saying that the Palestinians are NOT desperate for peace? Well, we all know that their leader certainly isn't but as you and many others repeatedly state, and I have no doubt about this, most ordinary Palestinians pretty much want peace too. Your rubbish about "no risk" to Israels fundamental security also proves to me that you are a propagandist for the murdering b@stards who use suicide bombing as an excuse for being oppressed. The Sinai was a massive security buffer for Israel. I regularly fly into Taba in Egypt, right on the southernmost border with Israel and you only have to look right as you take off out of there and climb out to the northwest to see how small Israel really is. Long before reaching intermediate cruise you can see every major city in Israel. Considering that Egypt had always threatened to destroy Israel until Sadat realised that there was an alternative, I think the Israelis had some tough decisions to make regarding their security. I was actually there at the time Sadat arrived in Israel and i can tell you that it was an uplifting day and declared a national holiday with huge amounts of rejoicing in the streets just because of the thought that peace might actually be a possibility. Your attempt at distorting as though Egypt was desperate and Israel wasn't is just more proof that you have an agenda to distort facts.

The Palestinians want peace but their leadership is just not up to the job. Their double dealing and corruption together with the their incessant indoctrination of hate and martyrdom to their population from birth means that they have made it much more difficult to deal with by the Israelis. I agree that they have got the ****ty end of the stick and something needs to be done for the ordinary Palestinians. Unfortunately, much of their predicament is their own or their supporters doing. Until 1967 they were 'occupied' by Jordan in the West Bank and Egypt in Gaza but I don't hear much complaint about that. With Egypt blockading Israel in the Straits of Tiran, ordering the UN buffer force out of Sinai and Nasser claiming that he was going to destroy Israel once and for all, Israel pre-empted that and gave themselves a buffer zone to the south. They also warned the Jordanians to stay out of the conflict but were attacked anyway so they gained a buffer zone to the east. The Palestinians just went from being stateless with Jordanian or Egyptian ID papers to being stateless under the occupation of Israel. The biggest problems for them began after Arafat was allowed back to the country and he decided that after scuppering the peace negotiations he would go back to his preferred method of dealing with Israel, terrorism. That is what has brought the problems that the ordinary Palestinians suffer today.

With regard to the 'wall' or 'fence' as some like to refer to it, there was a fence there up until 1967. The new fence follows mainly the original border except in a few places where it is strategically necessary to change for security reasons. The total amount of former Jordanian land ending up on the Israeli side is less than 1% of the area of the West Bank. Also, the fence is the same as the border fence along Israels northern borders. It is a useful security apparatus and is designed to keep intruders out. Of course it suits the propagandists to turn it into a 'Berlin Wall' but even after a peace agreement there would be a need for a security fence, just as there is along the border with all Israels neighbours, even Egypt after their peace agreement.

Jacko, if you would only stop your double standards, we could continue to debate sensibly. Your continuous need to retort to Bubbette only contributes even more to thread drift. Try ignoring her. I do. Unfortunately, by distorting facts you only serve to continue the cycle of anger. Your post above is another classic example. "The Arab side has moved on and doesn't want or expect most of it back. All they want back is those areas which were captured (read stolen) in 1967." They were not 'stolen'. They were occupied during an armed conflict with the Jordanians and the Egyptians. Israel has always stated that it would be willing to return that land in exchange for peace and the UN resolution bandied about so much, 242, also states that Israel is not obliged to return that land unless a negotiated settlement can be agreed on.

I agree that giving Israel some of the blame for the Palestinians plight is fair but your analysis is again a gross distortion. If Arafat had not instigated the intifada and called for suicide martyrs then the Israelis wouldn't be in all their towns and blockading him. Until the intifada, the Palestinians had more rights and freedom than ever before in their history and that was even before the negotiations had reached their conclusions. It was Arafat who allowed the terrorists freedom of movement to attack Israel from within his PA areas. Until then there was massive trade and movement of labour between the two peoples. I will assume that Abu Ala's threat to resign just one day after being sworn in as PM due to Arafats meddling and underhand attempts to destroy any semblance of a peace process will be conveniently ignored or more likely turned around into some Israeli secret conspiracy?

[Bubbette]

Airno, let's say I have nothing to do with aviation. Does that make my views more or less valid? Your aviation connection certainly doesn't make your point any more or less valid.

Chronic Does stating that I'm a Jew means I'm aggressive? Does stating one is Christian make one aggressive? Or Muslim? Or are only Jews aggressive? No wonder you can't see the truth regarding Israel---it's still run by aggressive Jews! Are you the type that likes Jews only if they passively stand by while they are murdered by their neighbors?

Nils, I am learning how to speak standard Egyptian Arabic, not exactly what you wrote, and your Hebrew is off; PM if you want a lesson. I'm also not quite sure why the linguistic similarities between Arabic and Hebrew mean there are cultural similarities--just look at Israeli cultural and social values vs Arab cultural and social values, say honor killings, to prove your point wrong. As I said, most Christians and Jews would certainly send their children and wives first on the lifeboat, but that's not the Muslim way.

Judaism doesn't necessarily mandate life the way it was in the Bible 2000+ years ago; we have an additional set of laws which govern our daily lives--that's why "an eye for an eye" doesn't mean that in Jewish law. As most people are aware, Judaism does not permit incest; I don't think most Christian denominations do either. Interesting that you didn't know that; perhaps you should pick up a book on the three major religions before you go spouting off on cultures of which you are painfully ignorant.



Who said I hate Arabs? I love the food, the language is fun, so far, and I enjoy visiting their countries. Do I think all Arab terrorists should be disposed of? Yes.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Bubbette

The Arabic I have been studying is from a book on Jerusalem dialect. I was helped by people from Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Hebron and Jericho. There are a lot of differences, although I found my Arabic worked okay in Jordan when they stopped laughing at my pronunciation. Hebrew is, like Arabic, difficult to phonetically translate because of the lack of written vowels and the fact that letters don't exactly equate. The few Hebrew words I picked up were in a bar in Eilat and my teacher was a Russian emigre. Most Jews I met seemed to speak English with an American or east European accent (although there is an excellent bar in West Jerusalem run by a rugby supporting South African Jewish guy who will point out that it was another Jewish guy who scored the winning points in the Rugby World Cup - guess what's on his TV screen this week).

I know my way around the Bible and I do know about the proscriptions on sexual behaviour, I was trying to have a joke (did you not see the smilie?). I am familiar to varying degrees with all 3 major religions in the ME both as practised in situ and also as practised in the UK.

The cultural similarities exist because many Sephardim live a lifestyle similar to Arabs - as you say the food is excellent and as between the Sephardim and Arabs it is almost identical. Yemeni Jews run the best falafel stalls in Israel having fortuitously brought the recipe with them. North European Jewish food is different because of the materials available (chick peas and tahini were never easy to get in Lithuania).

I'm pleased you don't hate Arabs. Terrorism will cease when the terrorists are isolated and they don't have an excuse to stir up the general populace. This requires that the refugee camps run by UNWRAA are dismantled and their occupants are properly rehoused and settled (onus on the Arab countries). Many of the older people should be allowed to visit their former homes. The settlements should be dismantled, or as an act of generosity, given that 40% of the properties aren't even occupied, given or sold to the Palestinians. Any new Palestinian state should be prepared to accept Jewish residents as equal citizens if they choose to remain in settlements or live elsewhere in Gaza, Samaria and Judaea (ironically the PFLP would accept this as they are secular socialists). UN troops would probably have to help with policing until PA police could be trusted to treat Jewish residents as equals.

If terrorists do commit outrages then only they as individuals should be targeted. Collective punishment of an entire people will give succour to the terrorists. Most terrorist acts are not designed to just to kill Israelis, but to provoke a response. Hamas know that every time an Israeli tank enters Gaza they win because more young people are shot or rounded up. Whilst gunmen are indeed killed so are many innocent people. This keeps the spiral of violence going as more people seek revenge for lost relatives or for humiliations sufferred at the hands of the occupiers.

As I have said before, based on recent experience, there is little hope of peace because what I have suggested is never going to happen.


Exam question:

Useless facts - the average Palestinian woman in a Lebanese refugee camp has 2.4 children; the average Palestinian woman in a Gaza refugee camp has 8+ children. Gaza has no remaining natural water supplies and relies on desalination plants. Over 80% of the poulation of Gaza is unemployed and relies entirely on foreign aid. The majority of Gazans have no passports and cannot leave without Israeli approval. The settlement of Netzarim has only 500 residents; all adults were born in the USA. They have a one mile section of beach allocated to them - the other 1.5 million Gazans have about 12 miles of beach. Netzarim is on land that was not given by G-d or anyone else to the Jews and requires a permanent presence of a battalion of IDF troops. Discuss, with particular emphasis on the affect these facts have on world peace and the Israeli economy.

[Bubbette]

UN troops can't be trusted for anything--why do you think they could?

[Jackonicko]

The most despicable and downright dishonest thing about your post, Danny, is that you ignore much of what I have said in your efforts to portray me as a fanatical PLO supporter, and worse, as an apologist for terrorism. You know that I am neither of those things, and you know that I resent being called either. You have conveniently ignored my expressions of sincere admiration for Jews and Israel, my explicit recognition of Israel’s fundamental right to security, and the fact that I believe that extra territory, concessions, understanding and leeway should be given to Israel in recognition of what has been suffered. (“Again and again I've stated my belief that Israel deserves extra consideration, and that we shouldn't get narrowly legalistic, because of the hostility and aggression it has faced. Otherwise we'd all be saying Israel should withdraw to the 1947 partition plan borders, and not to the 1967 borders. The history of the region since 1945 leads everyone to understand and agree that Israel's security must be ensured, even if that makes any settlement 'unbalanced' in Israel's favour.”)

On the first page of this thread I said:

“I just long for the day when Israel and the Palestinians can reach a just and lasting compromise. The Arabs refused any such compromise for decades, I know, with their refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist, but I genuinely hope and believe that the pre-1967 borders could now form the basis of a lasting and just solution - with a viable Palestinian State and a secure Israel co-existing side by side.

It won't be easy. Hamas and IJ still need to be crushed, while Israel needs to grasp the nettle and abandon its illegal settlements and withdraw to the '67 borders, and to reign back the hawks who espouse war and murder.

Perhaps the patriotism and idealism of these brave blokes will give people pause for thought, though I doubt it. In the wake of the New Year, I pray for a just peace and lasting prosperity for Arab and Jew alike.”

Do you genuinely see any of that as being extremist, anti-semitic, pro-PLO, pro-terrorist rhetoric, Danny?

I have explicitely condemned terror and terrorism again and again (on this thread and others), and have explicitely stated my belief that “There are Palestinian factions who do not want peace with Israel. There are still Palestinians who want to continue the armed struggle to achieve much more ambitious aims. They must be defeated” and that “Military forces are there to kill, and (generally) do so legitimately, whereas terrorist murder (even of serving soldiers) is, in my view, always morally and legally wrong.”

We can surely disagree vehemently with one another without resorting to such deliberately offensive and almost criminally inaccurate smear tactics?

Seventeen distinguished IDF/AF pilots (including highly decorated war heroes), all of whom have given their working lives to defending and strengthening the state of Israel and all of whom “were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise” have concluded that recent actions were “illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society.”

They have expressed the belief that “Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength.” This should alert you to the fact that it is not just the ‘liberals’ who you despise who think that Israel has lost its way, or are you going to smear them as ‘liberals’, mouthpieces for Arafat, and apologists for terrorism, too.

You also accuse me of using “Distorted facts, suppositions and plain old lies”

1) You say that: “The land was not stolen or illegally purchased but of course it suits your propaganda to refer to it as such which is what infuriates me. With regard to the settlements in the West Bank, that's a different issue but of course it suits you and the palestinian propaganda machine to blur any distinction between the two separate points and therefore imply that most of the land that constitutes Israel today was usurped from the previous inhabitants.”

I do not infer that most of the land that constitutes Israel was usurped, only those portions of land which were allocated to the Arabs under the UN partition plan, and those areas in the Jewish areas from which their owners were driven out. Who holds the title to that land now? What compensation was given to the owners? How else can one characterise the change of ownership? In any case, it’s of historical interest only, since the Palestinians have agreed to recognise the pre 1967 borders and have thus made a de facto settlement with regard to the land taken from them in 1948-49. What’s at issue is the land taken by force of arms in 1967.

2) The opinion that "Egypt was desperate for peace and disillusioned with war” is, according to you, a piece of horse manure. Quite aside from the unncecessarily crude, rude and aggressive nature of your response, what else motivated Sadat (who we both admire), and what else allowed him to carry his country with him?

3) The fact that the return of the Sinai was not a “risk to Israel's fundamental security” is self evident. Once peace with Egypt was ensured, and with International oversight, the risk was effectively negated.

4) You say that my “rubbish about "no risk" to Israel’s fundamental security also proves to me that I am a “propagandist for the murdering b@stards who use suicide bombing as an excuse for being oppressed.” How does anything to do with the settlement with Egypt have anything to do with suicide bombers? Where have I ever excused any act of terror?

5) You characterise me as having inferred that while “Egypt was desperate” for peace Israel wasn't. I inferred nothing of the sort, and indeed pointed out the advantages to Israel which flowed from peace with its former enemy. It’s a given that it takes two to make peace.

6) The US Government seems uncomfortable with the routeing of today’s security fence, which is cutting off many Palestinians from their own land and from other parts of their community. If such a fence is necessary, then it must follow the border absolutely, or if required by Israel, then it should be within Israeli territory.

7) The land taken in 1967 has effectively been stolen. Another description could have applied until Israel allowed illegal settlement there, in direct contravention of international agreements. In any case, while you go off on one about the semantics of the phrase, the point was that the Arab side don’t want a return to what was agreed by the UN in 1947 (which would be unreasonable) but just want a viable state following the 1967 borders. I have said, again and again, that this is reasonable and fair ONLY if Israel’s legitimate security can be guaranteed. (I am some apologist for the PLO, aren’t I?)

If this is the treatment you mete out to critical admirers of Israel, god help its enemies, and god help Israel.

My position’s easy to summarise. I just long for the day when the terrorists have been defeated, the Hawks have been discredited and when a viable Palestinian State and a secure Israel can co-exist side by side in friendship and understanding. If that makes me half of the things you accuse me of, then maybe that’s better than being an intransigent, intolerant, narrow-minded, uncompromising and selfish jingoistic war-monger who will not bend an inch in his determination to keep the Arabs in sujugation and misery, and who will not admit to his country making a single error or mistake. Just prove me wrong, Danny.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Bubbette, Depends which nation they come from.

[Bubbette]

JN venteen distinguished IDF/AF pilots (including highly decorated war heroes), all of whom have given their working lives to defending and strengthening the state of Israel and all of whom “were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise” have concluded that recent actions were “illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society.”

Big deal--they don't represent either the IAF or the country!

I do not infer that most of the land that constitutes Israel was usurped, only those portions of land which were allocated to the Arabs under the UN partition plan, and those areas in the Jewish areas from which their owners were driven out. Who holds the title to that land now? What compensation was given to the owners? How else can one characterise the change of ownership? In any case, it’s of historical interest only, since the Palestinians have agreed to recognise the pre 1967 borders and have thus made a de facto settlement with regard to the land taken from them in 1948-49. What’s at issue is the land taken by force of arms in 1967.

No, that land is not at issue since it was won from Jordan, and Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel. Since very few Arabs were actually driven out (most left voluntarily because their leaders told them to, despite being begged by the jews not to leave), this has nothing to do with the facts of PA terrorism.

The land taken in 1967 has effectively been stolen. Another description could have applied until Israel allowed illegal settlement there, in direct contravention of international agreements. In any case, while you go off on one about the semantics of the phrase, the point was that the Arab side don’t want a return to what was agreed by the UN in 1947 (which would be unreasonable) but just want a viable state following the 1967 borders. I have said, again and again, that this is reasonable and fair ONLY if Israel’s legitimate security can be guaranteed. (I am some apologist for the PLO, aren’t I?)

You miss the point--the PA doesn't want two states--they want the destruction of Israel. Why is this not clear to you? The PA governs a good portion of what would be its state---yet they continue to kill and mame. Future neighbors don't act like that. And the settlements are in no way illegal, any more than London, Paris, Moscow or Berlin are illegal--their land was all won in wars.

"Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are "illegal." International law scholar Stephen Schwebel notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.

According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution. Rostow noted, "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote."

[Ali Barber]

As with any thread that involves Israel and the Palestinians, this has turned into a "you are wrong and I am right" thread. It is impossible to tell which one is right because everyone chooses to believe one set of propoganda or news reports (same thing?).

I have to say that the abusive tone used by Bubette (on the verge of racist perhaps) does the Israeli cause no favours. The restrained language of Nils and Jacko lends more credence to the Palestinian cause. But, as to which one is right, God or Allah knows!

Maybe it's time to close this thread and wait for the next round of Israel Vs Palestine to rise from an unrelated topic!

[GLOC]

Ali Barber...

Agreed, this is going nowhere.

:suspect:

[Jackonicko]

Although Nil Nos and I may seem pro-Palestinian by contrast with Bubs and Danny we are no such thing. We both respect and admire Israel, hate the terrorists, and want a peaceful settlement. Unfortunately anyone who simply states the facts, shows any sympathy or understanding for the other side and tries to steer a middle course gets abused and accused of being a 'liberal' or even some kind of terrorist mouthpiece. This is not an argument between opposite poles of the argument, it's between the extremists on one side and those espousing the centre ground.

Bubette
Words fail me. Might is right. It's OK for Israel to occupy and take over territory in the 20th century because the Normans did the same thing to London in the 11th Century. The UN is wrong when it says that settling territory taken in war is illegal. Israel did not ethnically cleanse 700,000 Palestinians (they left because the Jordanian Government told them to), the PA (which has explicitely signed up to a two-state solution, and to Arafat's declaration that Israel does have a right to exist) still wants the destruction of Israel. Oh yes, and anyone who disagrees with your right wing bile 'is not representative' and not worth listening to.

If you actually believe this cr@p you deserve our pity.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

JN

I respect and admire aspects of Israel, I have a lot of time for a lot of Israelis, but have you seen the way that they drive?

[Danny]

Jacko, call me extremist if you like but all I am saying is that your wording in all your posts fails to point out that Arafat is a two faced liar. So what if he signed up to a two state solution. He has played everyone along and now has his 'final solution' bubbling along nicely. His only aim ever was the removal of the State of Israel and a Palestinian homeland consisting of the whole area from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.

He still controls the PA security forces and uses that power to control all opposition to him. He not only allows the extremists to do their despicable acts of murder but he also controls some of the groups. Are you telling me that Arafat has no influence on the Tanzim or the Fatah Martyrs brigades?

Yet again in your previous but one post you quote: "It won't be easy. Hamas and IJ still need to be crushed, while Israel needs to grasp the nettle and abandon its illegal settlements and withdraw to the '67 borders, and to reign back the hawks who espouse war and murder." So, who is going to 'crush Hamas and Islamic Jihad? I don't see any efforts from the PA. All they want them to do is cease fire for a few weeks which they use for regrouping and planning further attacks. Who, in your words, is going to 'crush' Hamas and IJ? It is simple propaganda and unless the PA use their security forces to crack down on the terrorists it just isn't going to happen. Why? Arafat retains control of the PA security forces. Didn't you hear the news yesterday that Abu Ala, the new Palestinian PM has publicly threatened to resign after only ONE day in office because of Arafats two faced maneuvering? I haven't seen you comment on that yet. Next you'll be telling us that Abu Mazen resigned because he preferred to do a bit gardening and it had nothing to do with being continually undermined by Arafat.

You also know very well that what Arafat says in English (prompted by the man always standing behind him) to the western media is at odds what he says in Arabic for Arab consumption. He is the main reason that the Palestinians are today many times worse off than they were in the years following the Oslo agreements and in fact worse off than they ever were since 1967.

Once he is gone and it can't be soon enough, there will hopefully be someone with a more sensible outlook and uncorrupted to lead the Palestinians out of their miserable predicament. Anyone with the kind of vision that Sadat had will be welcomed by Israel and you will see Sharon disappear from the scene.

Until you pay more attention to the detail in your comments and comparisons, I will remain a brutal critic of your style. Semantics are everything in the Middle East and it is the continuous distortion of facts and the blending of truth with fiction that enrages all the posters on topics that involve Israel and the Palestinians.

Once again, I equate your insertion of quotes along the lines of "but I do respect the Jews" to those of people who try to claim they aren't racists by mentioning that some of their best friends are _____ (insert colour/religion/race). We all know that you are pro Palestinian and I can accept that and debate any points you raise as you can knowing that I am pro Israeli. I have never claimed that they are whiter than white and you know very well that I have criticised them in the past but your 'balancing' of the PA and Arafat with the Israeli government and Sharon just doesn't sit well. Double standards.

Yes, Bubbette does no one any favours with her simplistic and extreme views. That in itself is not reason to prevent her from making her points just as you are allowed to. At least she doesn't try to hide or couch her views with subtly inserted platitudes and we all know exactly where she is coming from. Thankfully, her views are those of someone outside of the area. I worry much more about views like that from the minority who do live there and even have some power. At least the Israelis have a police force and more importantly a judicial system that takes care of those who are prepared to more than just spout rhetoric. Sadly, the Palestinians only have a corrupt old terrorist who knows how to play a crowd and has driven them into even more squalor and depravation with his investment in mass murders and double play politics.

I will try and refrain from using such emotive, personal attacks on you in future but if you continue to twist facts into what I know to be false and misleading statements which are designed to portray Israelis as demons then I have no choice but to make my points as forcefully as I can on my own website. the only people who get booted off here are those that have little brain and even less credibility by oversimplifying regurgitated media bites. As on other threads dealing with the same issues, we had morons trying to bring up points from the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as though we need that kind of bigotry and I won't tolerate that. You are at least educated enough and literate to know what you are saying and that is why I'm prepared to let the debate continue.

Now, if this thread isn't back on topic within two more posts I'm going to close it. Just a reminder that the topic is referring to the Israeli pilots who publicly signed a petition whereby they objected to carrying out orders that involved actions against Palestinians.

[Jackonicko]

Lest there be any mistake.

I unreservedly condemn much of what Arafat has said and done. I happen to think that he's in some respects a bigger obstacle to the peace process than Sharon, though the fact that he remains a popular figurehead, yet has embraced that process, and has ended the 'drive Israel into the sea' official position is surely useful. I'm also inclined to think that he had to be as 'Hawkish' as he sometimes has been if he were not to be overthrown and replaced by someone even worse. (I'm sure that even Sharon tailors his words according to his audience, appearing more or less conciliatory according to the needs of his audience). I think that Arafat's assassination would be a disaster, but I can see that his death from illness could be a blessing.

I won't be commenting on the near resignation until I've heard the arguments on both sides from people whose views (on both sides) I respect.

It's perfectly possible to be pro-Jewish, anti-Zionist, and sympathetic to both Israel and to the Palestinians. It's a tad unfair to be accused of racism, or to be compared with those who emptily deny racism by saying "I have black friends".... I say it as I genuinely feel it, and do not insert 'empty platitudes'. Nor would I ever portray all Israelis as Demons, though, with respect, I think that some may be, just as some Palestinians definitely are.

I don't have any problem with the IDF ruthlessly crushing the terrorists (who are murdering scum, as I've said tens of times), but it must be accurately targeted, tightly focused, and must be seen to be making much greater efforts to avoid collateral damage. It would be better if it could be seen to be doing this in concert with Palestinian forces, or even with other outside agencies. While proving to the Palestinians that military victory by them is impossible and that continuing to fight is impossibly costly, much greater effort should also be made in pursuing peace with the ordinary people, undermining their support for IJ and Hamas and demonstrating that an acceptable peaceful solution can be achieved. Elements from the NI experience are of some limited relevance here.

To drag this back 'onto topic' I would just like to point out that the letter by the pilots has struck a huge chord here, because the people who wrote it are clearly patriots, honest and honourable men, and yet seem to have been driven to make much the same kind of comments that Israel's critical foreign friends make (and though you don't believe it, that's exactly what people like me are).

You have to like Israel to care that the occupation "is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength", as the pilots do, or to care that "the ongoing occupation is corrupting all of Israeli society.”

You might disagree with these blokes, but surely there's no doubting their patriotism and love of their country, however misguided you might think they are? The reason that so many Europeans are so critical of Israel is that they have huge sympathy for the Jews because of what they've endured, huge respect and admiration for the way they've endured it, and because they see that the Jews are just like us (or perhaps are just like we want to be). It is deeply frustrating if they seem to be letting themselves down, or if they are being less than they could be, and it is disturbing if they ever seem to be meting out anything which carries even the faintest whiff of what was done to them.

That's why these blokes have gained such respect, and why I, for one, think that they have huge balls!

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Anyone with the kind of vision that Sadat had will be welcomed by Israel and you will see Sharon disappear from the scene.

Danny, I feel that's a one-sided way of looking at this. I would say that the kind of vision that Rabin had will be welcomed by Palestine and you will see Arafat disappear from the scene.

Alas with the state of Middle Eastern politics, if you go out on a limb, and do domestically unpopular things to pursue a bigger vision of the future you want for your country and people, you get killed by your own people.

I really do feel that the strides towards peace being made by both Arafat and Rabin, were undermining the rhetoric put forth by the terrorist groups that given time the majority of both the Palestinians and Israelis would have stopped listening to them and stopped supporting them. Unfortunately this wasn't to be.

As far as Bubbette saying why would it make a difference if she has no involvement in Aviation. No difference just wondering why you would be on here, and makes me wonder if you trawl the worlds bulletin boards, prattling on like you have been here, not listening to what anyone has to say. If you are not going to listen and learn from what other (very well educated and experienced by the sounds of it) people have to say, why bother.

In relation to my post that got me banned till now, i'll rephrase. I have met quite a lot of jewish people both in Australia and in Israel. I personally have found them to be defensive and you could say paranoid (I take the point made that wouldn't you after what they've been through) and very insular. I'm sure its not the case but in a place like Australia where everyone else is very easy going and open, the closed lifestyle the orthodox jews lead gives rise to the opinion that they are unfriendly and ungenerous. And the point I was making was that the head in the sand attitude of Bubbette does nothing to dispel what I'm sure is the myth and stereotype I just mentioned.

All I can say was that in the 2 months I was backpacking in Israel and the West Bank, I was invited into 8 peoples homes for a cold drink or a meal. All these 8 people were palestinians who I found were friendly and generous to the point where they had nothing, but still wanted to pay for my taxi. This may not have anything to do with differences in Arabs and Israelis, and may in fact be more to do with what I have always found in my travels, the less people have the more they are willing to give. Also the poorest people are always the happiest. Thsi was the case nine years ago, that the Palestinian people really were very happy, and had a real excitement at what their future held. I don't think that excitemnet or happiness would remain thanks to Sharon and his henchmen.