Israel will react very very very very seriously

[Eli]

In a sense the whole of Israel is occupied territory, but no one that I know of demand the destruction of the state of Israel, not anymore. (well maybe some of the militant islamist groups, but they´re politically insignificant).

Syria, Iraq, Iran, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, the DFLP, the Fatah or course. Very insignificant.

[Zoid]

Re: Could not resist

Another interesting book "La conception matérialiste de la question juive" (Marxism and the jewish question) by Abraham Leon a marxist and a jew. I don´t know if its been translated to english, but I´ve found it in french, german, spanish and swedish

[Eli]

Random news from the PA.
Few days ago, a very rare event happened in the Palestinian territories and got very large media coverage. A woman gave birth to 4 children, two boys and two girls. The boys were called Yasser and Arafat, and the girls were called after two female suicide bombers including the last one that blew up in Jerusalem couple weeks ago.

[Az]

Last Natan's post : *applause*
Sirotnikov's stand on communism : we need to talk.


GePap:

As for saying my claim is false, Israel sought peace with Egypt only after ANOTHER WAR!, and one that showed the Israeli notion that they would win any war, so why seek peace, was not fully justified. Once Israel saw that it could not expect to keep the Sanai, it decided to give it away. The same has not happened with the Golan or the West Bank and Gaza. As for Assad (the old 'appeasement and hitler' bit is overused and a terrible historical example at that. Cliche), the man was a dictator, but israel could have made peace, if it were willing to give back the Golan- but its just too nice a territory, Strategically and from a water stand point for Israel to give it back. You constantly say the Israel should keep 10% of the west bank. That is land, not peace.

a. Israel won that war , despite the starting conditions that was against it , so I think that goes against your point.
b. Sure we can make peace with Assad . But say , Assad is replaced with , what would that give us ? a piece of paper. Still , Israel negotiated.

c. Israel would keep 10% of the west bank : Israel was negotiating some kind of territory swap.


it seems that people here are obsessed with this notion of an Imperialist Israel that wants to take all those territories . I sometimes contemplate these thoughts, but they all disappear when I saw the golan heights and the west bank from a plane.

These places are soooooooo small.....

[Natan]

Re: Well, Natan

Originally posted by GePap
I decide to not use quotes, since that goes on for ever. I will defer to you on the question of wether the arab states allow Jews or not, but that does not change my point, all it does is show that the Arab states are also acting immorally and unjustly. One can't say that because the other guys are bad, i will be bad.

I am not attempting to say that wrongs done by Israel are okay. I am saying that the Arab states and Palestinian militant/terrorist groups are responsible for the conflict.

That sort of logic leads nowhere. In principle, all refugees have the right of return- if a Jewish family wants to retun to Cairo, it is their right to do so, just as if a palestinian family want to return to Jaffa, they should be allowed to do so.

I disagree. There was a tremendous amount of population movement in many parts of the world in 1945-50, and trying to undo it is a hopeless endeavor.

On King David, fine, its a Military HQ- so what was wrong with the attack on an army base that killed two soldiers, which is how this thread begun? If there was nothing wrong with King david, there was nothing wrong with shooting at soldiers, since both are military targets, no?

Exactly. Did Siro or anyone else say "Those rotten Palestinian SOBs are wicked, evil people because they shot our soldiers?" Not that I saw. In fact, the topic's main purpose was to discuss the Kassam-2 rocket and Israel's response to its deployment.

As for WMD, US, China, Russia, Britain, France all legally get to have nukes, no one else theoretically can- the NPT treaty of 1968.

Firstly, this brings us back to the argument about international agreements, but besides, as I understand it Israel already had nuclear weapons at that point.

Iraq doesn't sell to anyone, neither does Iran

The issue with them is that we think they intend to use their weapons on their neighbors and possibly on us and feel threatened.

- the reason they are singelled out is because they would be breaking the NPT.

Did Bush say that?

Another way ion which international law matters. On the 'axis of evil' line, I use it rethorically. The point stands that sans US support, sactions would have been placed on israel long ago.

Yeah, and sans US support all Jews would be dead a long time ago. So what?

As for Israeli Police- the reaon its military police is because it is military administered land- ie. occupied territories, ie. not part of Israel. The police was military all the time, before any troubles begun.

Not exactly. There were also the border police and a special civil police unit too. But anyway, the same is true of other territories administered extra-territorially - like the allied occupation of Germany after WWII.

On Fatah, it is not the PA, no matter how much you want to say they are the same thing. Any palestinian state would use the PA constitution, not the Fatah one[ (saying that is like saying the GOP party platform is the US constitution).

The two situations are nowhere near analogous. To start with, the GOP has left power peacefully many times in the past, while Fatah has not. Secondly, unlike the GOP, Fatah is an armed terrorist group with thousands of gunmen at its disposal.

The PA constitution accepts the existance of Israel in Green Line borders.

I'm not saying it's false, but do you know where I could get the PA constitution or at least a source for that?

As for saying my claim is false, Israel sought peace with Egypt only after ANOTHER WAR! and one that showed the Israeli notion that they would win any war, so why seek peace, was not fully justified. Once Israel saw that it could not expect to keep the Sanai, it decided to give it away.

Not true. Firstly, the war confirmed Israel's power - Sadat thought he could hold onto the Sinai, but instead, Israeli forces penetrated farther into Egypt than they ever had before. Secondly, if this was so, Israel and Egypt would immediately have made peace, but instead, it happenned six years later - because only later did Sadat come to Jerusalem and announce his intent to trade peace for the Sinai.

The same has not happened with the Golan or the West Bank and Gaza.

I suppose Syria's role in the 1973 war is simply being ignored, since it is inconvenient?

As for Assad (the old 'appeasement and hitler' bit is overused and a terrible historical example at that. Cliche), the man was a dictator, but israel could have made peace, if it were willing to give back the Golan

Firstly, I don't think Israel could have made peace with him. Peace with a dictatorship, particularly a totalitarian dictatorship, really is dangerous, and that is not a cliche. More importantly, Hafez Assad rejected Israel's right to exist.

but its just too nice a territory, Strategically and from a water stand point for Israel to give it back.

Actually, it's that Syria insisted on having access to the sea of Galilee, even though its entire shore was always included in mandatory Palestine.

You constantly say the Israel should keep 10% of the west bank. That is land, not peace.

Funny, normally when a nation demands land in return for peace, it's called war-mongering.

Finally, on my claim: I don't think israel is solely responsible for the violence, i say that it is ultimately responsible for the violence, which is different. Both sides have commited crimes, both sides have committed attrocities and violated human rights- but in the end, it is Israels continued occupation of lands outside its recognized international borders, that keeps peace from coming, albeit very slowly due to 50 years of propaganda by extremists.

In short, you are saying that Israel is primarily responsible for the violence. I think the issue is not that Israel maintains control of this or that parcel of the land, it's that Israel exists at all.

Until israel goes back to its green Line borders, peace will not come, because the palestinians will continue to fight the occupation, and repressive arab regimes in the area will use that as a way of keeping themselves afloat. This conflict needs a political solution, anything short of that just prolongs the agony.

This is the flawed thinking - the idea that the green line possesses the capacity to control minds. You are not arguing in this paragraph that it is immoral for Israel to exist beyond the 1948 cease fire line with the Arab Legion, you are arguing that Palestinian and Arab violence will continue until Israel does no longer - but if the Palestinians announce daily that they are willing to die for all land on either side of the green line, why should we believe that they will be appeased by having just the land on one side of it? It seems clear to me that the Palestinians will continue to fight until either they get all of everything, or until they are convinced that they never will. To convince a nation that it cannot achieve its military aims requires military means.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by axi
Siro, this reminded me of a question i've always wanted to ask you:

Aren't kibbutzes modelled after the communist collectives? If so, how do you explain Israel's experiments with communist organisation forms? Since you hate communism, you've probably found an explaination about this.

Any information you have on the kibbutzes, please feel free to share it with us. I am eager to learn.

Well, second (or was it third?) aliyah Zionists were mostly communist idealist russian jews themselves, who were disappointed (or not) of the russian revolution.

Anyway, Kibutzez proved not to work too well. People disliked living in sych small groups with little privacy and little private property.

And that policy of isolating the kids had brought about some mental problems, since kids do require to be with their parents.

I don't hate communism.
While I agree with many of it's values I see it as unrealistic.

I would devote time to consider how to integrate some good values into our society today, but going to real communism? Nah.

And finally what I dislike are extreme revolutionist groups, esp. if they idolise the use of violence, and think that leftist values such as equality and freedom are unlimited and can be "enforced" rather than supported.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by paiktis22
How dissapointing. I now have to spoil the joke

Your dictionary apparently has not yiddish slang Natan

according to the english/russian/yddish site I've searched in
petseleh means small d!ck

I thought since you came from Russia Siro you might now it, oh well

Oh, then it's pronounced 'pitseleh' or something.

I'm not small.

What your size?
I'm sure your turkish buddies would love to know

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Against human nature Bull****! That´s just what some neo-liberal wackos try to make us belive, cause you can´t fight human nature, now can you?

I explained my point very well.

For communism to work, every person must be benevolent and fair. I believe people are generally self-interested bastards, so it won't work.

In a sense the whole of Israel is occupied territory, but no one that I know of demand the destruction of the state of Israel, not anymore. (well maybe some of the militant islamist groups, but they´re politically insignificant). And you know why there was violence prior to 1967, the whole "lets give the jews a state on the expense of the palestinians" thing stinks to high heaven.

1. Eli noted the groups still after Israel's destruction.

2. It wouldn't be at anyones expense had they talked it over instead of starting a war.

Which site is that?

The one you brought yourself

Typo

And I was supposed to guess?

Plus, if that was a typo it makes no sense, since my arguement wasn't that it's coverage of Israeli crimes is what makes it biased, but reather the lack of coverage of Palestinians crimes.

We have to agree that site is a propoganda site with a purpose.

I don't claim it's all out lies. It seems pretty reliable, at least most things I read. But I wouldn't call it impartial.

But by your definition anyone who reports Israeli "measures to try and fight terror" is a raving commie and can´t be trusted. Isn´t that so?

No, by my defenition anyone who ignores the violent reality around him, and keeps reporting lawful military actions retaliating against unlawful military actions as "war crimes" is a fool.

Amnesty don't care that there's a conflict and that the palestinians don't find themselves bound by any humane law. They behave like their job is only to hinder Israel's ability to defend itself.

Ok, I can understand what they say about closures and isolation and stuff. While the harm to the palestinian people is not the motive, it is a result.

However, the targeted killings, are just as legal as killings in any war.

Imagine an organization in WWII which reports every Nazi soldier killed by Allied snipers as a "war crime".

Yeah, I´m a racist ´cause I dare to critizise the zionists Are you connected to the Anti-Defamation League by any chance? You certainly have the one eye to qualify.

No, that would require me to blow up mosques and drink palestinian blood.

The fact of the matter is you are considered racist for what you do and say, and not for standing up against "zionism". Infact, that whole rebuttal claiming it's a zionist slander only suggests worse things.

I'm here for a long time, and have yet still to call Imran, Che, Osweld, Gnu and many other anti-israelis racists. Because they don't charge into threads with foam in their mouth mumbling about zionist occupational governments and such.

You didn't do just that, but it looked damn similar.


Terrorist or not quiz: (just add yes or no after the name)

The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), Israel
A terror organization in sheep's clothing
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement), Israel
A terror organization
Hizbollah (Party of God), Israel
[q]A terror organization since they targetted civilians[/b]

The rest I haven't sufficient knowledge about.

If everybody gets the same result I´ll agree to the definitions you speak of...

The definition is simple:

target only military / political symbols = freedom fighters / terrorists (depends on view , or my preferred "partisans".
target civilians = nothing but terrorists.

[Sirotnikov]

Re: Well, Natan

Originally posted by GePap
I will defer to you on the question of wether the arab states allow Jews or not, but that does not change my point, all it does is show that the Arab states are also acting immorally and unjustly. One can't say that because the other guys are bad, i will be bad. That sort of logic leads nowhere. In principle, all refugees have the right of return- if a Jewish family wants to retun to Cairo, it is their right to do so, just as if a palestinian family want to return to Jaffa, they should be allowed to do so.

I suggest to switch populations.

Let jews stay here, and pals stay in cairo.
I've no problem with paying money for the harm we've caused (assuming all parties will pay).
That would prevent future problems.

On the issue of violence pre-1947. there was never really any negotiation between arabs and Jews

There was until the brits took over.
divide and rule

, because both sides were busy talking to the english- besides, where would negotiations have lead? As Ben Gurion said, the conflict was that both people want the same land.

so what's the solution?
you say declaring war was the right answer?
if so, then why do you criticize israel?

On King David, fine, its a Military HQ- so what was wrong with the attack on an army base that killed two soldiers, which is how this thread begun? If there was nothing wrong with King david, there was nothing wrong with shooting at soldiers, since both are military targets, no?

Had they targeted a base it would be acceptable.
But they targeted a restaurant full of people, part of which happenned to be soldiers.
And the second terrorist tried to infiltrate a school.

The point stands that sans US support, sactions would have been placed on israel long ago.

I don't really think so.
Infact I'm thinking of a theory that the west enjoys this conflict here, as it (used to) keeps it localized and prevents militant islamism from fighting against the west.

As for Israeli Police- the reaon its military police is because it is military administered land- ie. occupied territories, ie. not part of Israel. The police was military all the time, before any troubles begun.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

If it's about the riots in Israel, military police was used since regular police hadn't the man power.

If it's about the riots in the territories, yes, it's not part of Israel, but an occupied buffer zone or something.

On Fatah, it is not the PA, no matter how much you want to say they are the same thing. Any palestinian state would use the PA constitution, not the Fatah one (saying that is like saying the GOP party platform is the US constitution).

The Fatah is the leading body within the PLO and comprises it's majority iirc.

The PA constitution accepts the existance of Israel in Green Line borders.

But RoR will nullify that.

As for saying my claim is false, Israel sought peace with Egypt only after ANOTHER WAR!, and one that showed the Israeli notion that they would win any war, so why seek peace, was not fully justified.

Why haven't the arabs sought peace when they saw they were beaten?

The reason peace came only then, was that the arabs saw 73 as a sort of victory over Israel, and only then, from an imaginary place of superiority, could make peace.

Once Israel saw that it could not expect to keep the Sanai, it decided to give it away.

It never planned to keep it.
It hardly ever developed it.

The same has not happened with the Golan or the West Bank and Gaza.

The golan was annexed after a while, since it plays a crucial role in israel's economy.
but still, about 50% would give it away for peace.

As for Assad (the old 'appeasement and hitler' bit is overused and a terrible historical example at that. Cliche), the man was a dictator, but israel could have made peace, if it were willing to give back the Golan- but its just too nice a territory, Strategically and from a water stand point for Israel to give it back.

agreed.

i remind you, israel agreed to returning 99% of the territory. but we didn't want assad with his feet in our water.

You know they already tried to divert kineret sources in the 50s. We'd all have died of thirst.

You constantly say the Israel should keep 10% of the west bank. That is land, not peace.

And the pals insist on having them too, that is land, not peace.

Finally, on my claim: I don't think israel is solely responsible for the violence, i say that it is ultimately responsible for the violence, which is different.

I disagree.
but still, ok.

Both sides have commited crimes, both sides have committed attrocities and violated human rights- but in the end, it is Israels continued occupation of lands outside its recognized international borders, that keeps peace from coming

disagree.

it's not what keeps peace from coming since peace didn't leave when it started.

it's simply a guarantee that israel will keep until peace will come, to assure that in case it won't, israel will have enough land to defend itself.

, albeit very slowly due to 50 years of propaganda by extremists.

It's been 50 years since 1967?

Until israel goes back to its green Line borders, peace will not come, because the palestinians will continue to fight the occupation, and repressive arab regimes in the area will use that as a way of keeping themselves afloat.

1. no withdrawal without peace
2. they'll keep themselves afloat anyway

This conflict needs a political solution, anything short of that just prolongs the agony.

true.
but a political solution requires the violence to be stopped.

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
Damn this forum and its evil influences on my work!

On a factual note, Egypt and Jorda both accepted UNSCR 242 when it came out, in 1968, under pressure by the USSR and US, respectively.

Although not before they had held a post-six day war conference in Khartoum which denied the possibility of negotiations with Israel. Furthermore, Jordan (I can't find exact statements to this effect for Egypt, but I believe it was true of Egypt as well) never attempted to negotiate the details. This was probably a good thing in the long run anyway, since neither Jordan nor the Palestinians wished the West Bank to come under Jordanian rule. And since peace has subsequently been created between Egypt and Israel, that is a moot point to the question of responsibility for the current violence.

Assad in Syria accepted it in 1972. Since they all accepted UNSCR 338, which calls for the implementation of UNSCR 242 when it came out, by 1975 Israels major neighbors all recognized 242.

It should also be noted here that the two sides have never agreed on what the resolution means. Israel accepted the English version, which called for withdrawl from "territories occupied" but not "The" or "all" territories occupied, while the Arabs said they interpreted the resolution according to the French, which used the definite article. Russian possesses no definite article, however, the Soviet delegate stated at the time that the exclusion of the word all implied that Israel was not obligated to withdraw from all territories. Also, it should be noted that Israel has not had a war with any of its major neighbors (excluding the skirmishes with Syria in Lebanon) since 1973.

[GePap]

I'm Back

To Siro and Natan:

First, I hope you guys get to read the book I mentioned. It is rather good....

Second, on the issue of saction v Israel. I have no doubt that without US support, there would be sanctions on Israel- especially since israel has only one friend, the US. The Arab bloc is large, has much better connections with other blocks like the African block and Latin America (the whole 80's Likud government strategy of selling weapons and help to questionable regimes did not really help Israel make friends). and the Palestinina cause has the support of the Europeans, so, without that one veto in the SC, there would be no Israel.

As for statements. It seems that there is a rather shallow imagination going on. Yes, so Egypt did say they would never negotiate with Israel- until they did. Public statements and private actions are differen things. If they were not, I really should start quoting old Israeli leadres like Yamir and Begin-there is plenty there that's less than peaceful. What people never seem to get is that there is such a thing as POLITICS, i think some of you have heard of it. If supporters of Israel ever got to reading about Arab politics, and their own, maybe they would see how much of what has happened is based onb the fact that both sides only listen to what they want to hear and ignore evrything else. 1967 is a great example. Lets look at what Nasser said- he said, for example, that he would mine the straits of Tiran, which is the causus-belli israel used to attack in 1967. Did Nasser ever move to mine the straits? Were any attempts even made? NO, as Israel discovered when it got there. So why would Nasser say that? To try force the Israelis back from an attack on Syria, which israel had been planning long before May 1967, as a way of dealing with the radical syrian regime. There are many more statements like that, which shows that internal and international politics shape what is said in public, but that public statements never will stop someone from negotiating if they really want to.

On the Yom Kippur war- israel did 'win', after heavy losses, and with Part of the Egyptian army in the sanai. And the Syrians almost broke through the Golan. It was not the romp 1967 had been and it showed the Israeli army that every future war would probably just get worse, not easier. besides, the soviets had come all out , saying that if Israel took one more step, bye bye for the Israelis, which scared the US into getting the Israelis to back down. 1956 was a military disater for Nasser, a brilliant political victory. 1973 was a military setback for Saddat, and a poltical victory for him too. As for your claim Siro, if Israel intended to always give Sanai back, why did settlements begin, which Begin then had to remove? All your statements seem to ignore the fact that there are parties in your country that did want the sanai, do want the Golan, and all of the Occupied territories, and the more radical ones even want Jordan. You also seem to gloss over the fact that these parties call for the expulsion not only of 2.8 million People from the occupied territories, but 1 million israeli citizens also, and that not long ago, Arik always spoke of israel's arabs as 'foreigners'. You alweays are quick to talk of palestinian extremists but seem to forget your own. remeber they killed one Israeli prime minister already, what will happen as they gain more strenght?

On econ, natan. Israel maintanined a mercantilist economy for the occupied territories. Only goods from israel could be sold there, as well as produce from israel. Produce from the Occupied territories was not allowed to compete with produce from israel in Israel itself due to tariffs and import restriction, while large subsidies were given to Israeli crops. Under this regime, the Palestininas, with a mainly agricultural econ base, had to turn elsewhere. Being cheap labor in israel, including, at a time, being the vast majority of construction workers in isarel, became the largets source of Palestinian income. Well,as Oslo came around, isarel did not loosen its import restrictions on palestinian goods, did not allow that many non-israeli goods to go into the teritories anyway and so forth. So prices for Palestinians remained high. at the same time, israel begun to restrict access of palestinian workers more and more, so that while prices remained the same, incomes dropped. What the Palestinians wanted was a fair economic system in whic they could compete, not the same mercantilist, colonialist system Israel had set up. During oslo, the system was kept, but palestininas were removed from further economic spheres. Do you expect this sort of thing to build good will towards israel in Palestinina hearts?

My biggest problem with Zionism, any type of nationalism whatsoever, is that it is an argument of collective rights over individual rights. You keep saying 'the Jews' and 'the paletinians". Well, what about a single Jew, a single paletinian? Do they exist for you? Don't they, as human beings, have rights, regardless of what group they are from? I am a believer in INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Rigths are within individuals, not groups. Groups derive their rights from their individual members, not the other way around. 90% of the individuals in the west Bank do not want to be part of Israel- why must they be? 99% of the individuals in Gaza don't want to be part of israel, why must they be? Thats why i say that israeli settler should be given the choice to stay or not, becuase that would be in accordance to their rights as individuals. I accept the fact that nationalism is the most important myth of present times, which is why the Palestinians get to have a national home alongside the Jews, but even when they form theirs, they can't use it as an excuse to attack anybody else, anymore than I will let Zionist do that.

I would be interested in you siro, or you Natan, giving me good philosophical (not historical- historical sap stories about past tragedies are immaterial. Because the germans tried to destroy european jewry[and lots of other eventually, just that Jews were first in line] does not give you a right to oppress a bunch of palestinians, never will) arguments why collective rights are more important than individual rights, and thus why notion like Zionism and nationalism in general are valid. I think then, we might move beyond the surface, into the deeper issues.

[axi]

***bump!***

Another thread, full of lots of funny stuff!

Read and laugh, or weep, depending on your mood.

[Natan]

Re: I'm Back

Originally posted by GePap
As for statements. It seems that there is a rather shallow imagination going on. Yes, so Egypt did say they would never negotiate with Israel- until they did. Public statements and private actions are differen things.

What people never seem to get is that there is such a thing as POLITICS, i think some of you have heard of it.

No, we were too busy thinking that international law strikes down its enemies with lightning bolts. If Arab regimes are unstable and fickle things, then that is a point against negotiating with them, because it means they cannot be counted on to follow through with any peace treaty.

If supporters of Israel ever got to reading about Arab politics, and their own

Your assumption is false. Want to share reading lists on the Arab world? I personally find Albert Hourani, Kanan Makiya, Danny Pipes, and Judith Miller to be excellent analysts on writers on the subject; I'm sure you have an interesting set of sources too. Let's not resort to petty insults like that.

maybe they would see how much of what has happened is based onb the fact that both sides only listen to what they want to hear and ignore evrything else. 1967 is a great example. Lets look at what Nasser said- he said, for example, that he would mine the straits of Tiran, which is the causus-belli israel used to attack in 1967.

Nasser insituted a blockade regardless of whether he mined it or not.

Did Nasser ever move to mine the straits? Were any attempts even made? NO, as Israel discovered when it got there. So why would Nasser say that? To try force the Israelis back from an attack on Syria, which israel had been planning long before May 1967, as a way of dealing with the radical syrian regime.

Israel had not been planning such an attack, but the Russians told Nasser that Israel was to stir up trouble.

There are many more statements like that, which shows that internal and international politics shape what is said in public, but that public statements never will stop someone from negotiating if they really want to.

But at the same time, public statements will never force someone to negotiate if they really don't want to.

On the Yom Kippur war- israel did 'win', after heavy losses, and with Part of the Egyptian army in the sanai. And the Syrians almost broke through the Golan. It was not the romp 1967 had been and it showed the Israeli army that every future war would probably just get worse, not easier. besides, the soviets had come all out , saying that if Israel took one more step, bye bye for the Israelis, which scared the US into getting the Israelis to back down.

I'd say that neither side had its military expectations met, but that in military terms, Israel was the clear victor.

1956 was a military disater for Nasser, a brilliant political victory. 1973 was a military setback for Saddat, and a poltical victory for him too.

As for your claim Siro, if Israel intended to always give Sanai back, why did settlements begin, which Begin then had to remove? All your statements seem to ignore the fact that there are parties in your country that did want the sanai, do want the Golan, and all of the Occupied territories, and the more radical ones even want Jordan.

Never heard about the ones claiming Jordan. Maybe banned parties like Kach or some lunatics foaming at the mouth, but no Knesset party.

You also seem to gloss over the fact that these parties call for the expulsion not only of 2.8 million People from the occupied territories, but 1 million israeli citizens also

Rehavam Ze'evi always avoided talking about Israeli Arabs because he knew it would get him banned. Or alternatively because he didn't want to get rid of them; an Arab protest group outside the Knesset reported that he was one of the most responsive of Israeli politicians when it came to the issues they were agitating.

and that not long ago, Arik always spoke of israel's arabs as 'foreigners'.

Source?

You alweays are quick to talk of palestinian extremists but seem to forget your own. remeber they killed one Israeli prime minister already, what will happen as they gain more strenght?

On econ, natan. Israel maintanined a mercantilist economy for the occupied territories. Only goods from israel could be sold there, as well as produce from israel.

Source?

Produce from the Occupied territories was not allowed to compete with produce from israel in Israel itself due to tariffs and import restriction

Gepap, shopping in the West Bank for cheap furniture became an Israeli national pastime during the 1980s. I'm going to have to question the validity of wherever you got that from.

Under this regime, the Palestininas, with a mainly agricultural econ base, had to turn elsewhere. Being cheap labor in israel, including, at a time, being the vast majority of construction workers in isarel, became the largets source of Palestinian income.

You know, income from expat workers is/was (my sources are a few years old) a huge source of money for Egypt, but that doesn't mean it was being run as a colony by the gulf oil states.

My biggest problem with Zionism, any type of nationalism whatsoever, is that it is an argument of collective rights over individual rights. You keep saying 'the Jews' and 'the paletinians".

I don't think you should be talking since you're unable to separate me from Israel even though I've lived my whole life thousands of miles away from it in another hemisphere. Terms like those you described are often useful abstractions, and a lot easier to write than "the political, military, paramilitary and religious leaders whose supporters consisted of a majority or substantial portion of the adherents of the Jewish/Islamic religion (or Hebrew/Arabic speakers) in the area and abroad."

I am a believer in INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

I've personally always believed that individuals should be controlled through the installation of electronic control chips in their brainds which will be programmed by the CIA and the Mossad to make them slaves for the needs of our Eternal Nation. I'm also a great admirer of Stalin. [/sarcasm] Really, do you think I oppose individual rights?

Rigths are within individuals, not groups. Groups derive their rights from their individual members, not the other way around.

Even Begin would agree with that statement.

90% of the individuals in the west Bank do not want to be part of Israel- why must they be? 99% of the individuals in Gaza don't want to be part of israel, why must they be?

These sort of arguments never worked for me because the geographic areas used are arbitrary. We could say (or could have a few years ago) that the slight majority of those living between the Jordan river and the sea wanted to live in a Jewish state and that therefore the area should be annexed by Israel. Today or in a few years, we could say it should all be ruled by an Arab state. Or, we could make the area smaller, and point out that while most people living in Ramallah don't want to live in Israel, those in Gush Etzion do. And then we eventually reach an absurd level at which we point out that since Marvin Feinkelbaum and his wife Fatima Abdurrazaq want to live in a Communist collective which will transcend national boundaries, their home (or maybe apartment) should be independent. The point being, you can't just take a given geographic area and say that it should be independent because people there don't want to pay income tax.

Furthermore, these same arguments could well be made about Western Sahara, Kashmir, Kurdistan, and the freemen of Montana compound.

(not historical- historical sap stories about past tragedies are immaterial. Because the germans tried to destroy european jewry[and lots of other eventually, just that Jews were first in line] does not give you a right to oppress a bunch of palestinians, never will)

If that's how you frame the argument, obviously there is no point in having it. A philosophical debate will not be productive in the slightest. Politics, treaties, and wars are, at least to a certain extent, parts of reality. Philosophy is much more vaguely grounded in reality, and much harder to have a productive discussion about.

However, since you ask, I am going to state once and only once why I don't often oppose, and in some cases (Jews, Kurds, some others) support nationalism. My understanding of human nature, based on personal experience and history, has convinced me that in many cases it is the best way to defend individual rights. I don't think Kurds will enjoy personal freedom any time soon unless they get a state of their own. I think history has validated the Zionist movement's identical claim about Jews in the earlier part of the twentieth century. I think that people have a very strong tendency to lapse into tribal thinking, and I don't think we can, in most cases simply defeat or educate away this tendency, and certainly not quickly enough to help those whose individual rights are endangered.

[*End Is Forever*]

Siro, do you post this thread every so often only with an extra "very" in the title? That was the first thing that struck me when I read the thread listing...

[Sirotnikov]

Oh **** this is an old thread


But I was right in my prediction, no?


GeGap, philosophically I have tons of conflicting ideas.

However, I am not sure that I agree with

Rigths are within individuals, not groups. Groups derive their rights from their individual members, not the other way around.

You see, I'm a terribly realistic person, and that statement is very theoretical and moral.

And realisticly a person has absolutely no rights. Esp. if there is no society to provide them to him.

A person in the Sahara won't find refuge in protesting his rights to be fed or treated or anything should be protected. He has no one to protect.

Therefore, the way I see it, a person's rights eminate from the society / group he is in, and the group's acceptance of those rights.

The problem is, that lefties tend to take their own society standards for granted.

That's why I'm a believer in nations as suppliers of custom rights to different people, based on their beliefs and / or their traditions.

That's why I don't believe in universalism - since there is no one way to fit them all.

That's why I don't believe that strongly in individualism - since the individual is pragmatically worthless. He has no power behind him. He has no one to protect him and no one to assure his rights.

I do believe however, that a nation should supply enough individualism so that people won't get offended - pricvacy, freedom etc.

I'm a believer of groups. People devide themselves into group of one or more different critereas in which they find themselves close.

One can belong to several groups at once, but he can really be in only a limited number at once.

While I am also a white male, I do close to nothing to promote the status of white males in the world.

While I am also a prodigy kid with a love for philosophy, history and computers, I do very little in those fields too.

Currently, I'm mostly active in the Israeli group. And in the group of Leo Baeck (my high school) students, as I'm also newspaper editor.