The Middle East part 2

[Bernadotte 0]

Will search for A.  B may still be secret.

Why do you cite publications that you obvously havn't even seen in your arguments?

Wtf are you referring to, toadlife?  In what argument did I cite appendix A and B?  I stated that Avon's link to the so-called full report was actually not full without those Appendices.  That's all.  Besides, I'm quite sure I saw excerpts from A and I've read a number of references to it.

So why don't you try helping us find it/them or prove that they remain secret before deciding on what is so obvious and what is not?

[Bernadotte 0]

Its not that I'm running from the questions, for I don't even know which ones you are talking about...

Great!  Glad you're not running.

QUESTIONS:

1.  According to this article, Likud central committee member, Uzi Cohen, has said he represents a group that intends to present a plan to the congress for the "voluntary transfer" of Palestinians to Jordan.  Considering that there is really nothing stopping Palestinians from moving to Jordan right now, how does this Israeli MP intend to convince Palestinians to move out voluntarily?

2.  Why do you think 3/4 of a million Palestinians left their homes, farms and property in around 1948 to become refugees?  And why have they not been allowed to return?

3.  Why didn't Israel even allow the 30 - 40,000 internally displaced Palestinians who remained within Israel to return to their homes?  (ref: ReliefWeb)

5.  Why did Israel demolish over 400 Palestinian towns and villages in the late 40s and early 50s?  (And if you don't believe it happened then please explain what Israeli author A.B Yehoshua's famous short story "Facing the Forest" was based on.)

6.  Given that Israel won the 1967 war, drew its international borders around the West Bank and proceeded to settle that conquered land, why didn't Israel allow the inhabitants to become citizens like nearly every other conquering nation has ever done throughout history?  (Think Scotland, Wales, Texas, etc.)

[Guest]

Quote[/b] ]1.  According to this article, Likud central committee member, Uzi Cohen, has said he represents a group that intends to present a plan to the congress for the "voluntary transfer" of Palestinians to Jordan.  Considering that there is really nothing stopping Palestinians from moving to Jordan right now, how does this Israeli MP intend to convince Palestinians to move out voluntarily?

He cant, and shouldn't. Its a ridiculous idea and he doesn't have any "true" political weight to bring it to fruition.  Him and Gila Gamliel (likud member) are furious at Sharon for even thinking of the possibility of a Pal state.

Quote[/b] ]2.  Why do you think 3/4 of a million Palestinians left their homes, farms and property in around 1948 to become refugees?  And why have they not been allowed to return?

Two possibilities, both completely reasonable explantions.  

1: They were told by the arab armies to leave, in order to facilitate their "routing" of israel.  You can find this claim anywhere, like the Dershowitz book I talked about, im too lazy right now to dig up an exact source.

2: The Haganah kicked them out to make room for the jewish state.

Why haven't they been let back?  Well, why don't we ask that same question to the Americans concerning pretty much their whole country vis a vis the native americans.  Or the French and English, or so on, I can go on forever.  I don't envision their farms and huts in old Jaffo are still intact.  Change happens (I will touch on this important point later)

Quote[/b] ]3.  Why didn't Israel even allow the 30 - 40,000 internally displaced Palestinians who remained within Israel to return to their homes?  (ref: ReliefWeb)

See previous answer

Quote[/b] ]5.  Why did Israel demolish over 400 Palestinian towns and villages in the late 40s and early 50s?  (And if you don't believe it happened then please explain what Israeli author A.B Yehoshua's famous short story "Facing the Forest" was based on.)

Im impressed with your knowlege of israeli literary culture.  Another painfully blunt answer here... Why do they demolish homes today?  War.

BTW:  The 400 figure is a gross overestimate.  Source: In that same book.  (I should buy you a copy

)

Quote[/b] ]6.  Given that Israel won the 1967 war, drew its international borders around the West Bank and proceeded to settle that conquered land, why didn't Israel allow the inhabitants to become citizens like nearly every other conquering nation has ever done throughout history?  (Think Scotland, Wales, Texas, etc.)

Good question, and it shines on one of the greatest dangers facing israel today.  Hint: Its not terrorism.  Its babies.  Lots of em.  Palestinian demographics show an average family size much larger than the ones in Israel.  The three words that best define israel's character, IN THIS SPECIFIC ORDER, are a Jewish, Democratic, State.  The most important thing about israel is that it is a jewish state, period.  There is only 1 in the world.  There are many other democracies, but only 1 jewish state.  So, if all of a sudden, 5 million non-jewish people get the vote, the state becomes the not-so-jewish state, and then eventually, a muslim state.  This is why even hawks like Sharon understand the neccesity of a palestinian state, and why a one state solution will never, ever, be accepted by Israel.

Ok, so I mentioned something before about "change happens"... the idea here is that present realities supercede past principles. (Repeat that twice).  The right of return for the Palestinians is a matter of principal, not reality.  Their homes are long gone, and even the people who took their homes are long gone.  They can leave their squalid refugee lives if only they would drop this point-of-principal and face reality... (im enjoying this)  Life in a refugee camp is hell, i've seen them, i've been in them.  That is the reality.  They can have better lives as citizens in any other nation (particularly Palestine when it comes about), but giving them back their old homes means uprooting someone else from theirs.  Most of the Israelis living in israel now did not even exist when the state was created.  They had nothing to do with the refugee crisis.  Why should their reality be sacrificed for someone elses principal.  Furthermore, the idea that Palestinians can go back to their cultural hertiage - olive tree covered farms with small shacks and quiet serenity - in modern day israel is absurd.  Their homes have been turned into dense suburbs and sprawling urban metropoli(sp?).  They have an oppurtunity to continue life as citizens of another country, which of course is a problem, because no country seems to want them. (btw, big point here, there never was a palestinian state to begin with, they held egyptian, jordanian, or ottoman citizenship)

So, you have to understand that the basic moral concepts of "right intentions" and "wrong intentions" are completely abstract to politics.  Israel did what it was doing in its own interests, which is all that anyone can ever expect a nation to do.  I'm not completely lambasting human rights here, what I am saying is, it is pointless for you to harp on every little supposed wrongdoing by Israel.  For every one you find, someone can surely retort equally against the Palestinians.  The idea is that, we should strive for a point of convergance, where interests coincide.  (thanks to Thomas Jefferson on that one).

/rant

[Bernadotte 0]

Toda raba, rufusmac.

I really appreciate the insights and I'll have more to say after getting past tomorrow's work deadline.  I'd just ask you one other thing in the mean time...

(btw, big point here, there never was a palestinian state to begin with, they held egyptian, jordanian, or ottoman citizenship)

Ariel Sharon was born north of Tel Aviv in 1928, over 10 years after the Ottomans left.  What was his citizenship during the first 20 years of his life (before Israel came into being)?

[theavonlady 2]

Ariel Sharon was born north of Tel Aviv in 1928, over 10 years after the Ottomans left.  What was his citizenship during the first 20 years of his life (before Israel came into being)?

This is the umpteenth time you've parroted this question.

Polly wanna cracker?

The answer is Palestine. Now why don't you waste your time skills at home to show how you imagine this trivia is relevant to anything.

[Bernadotte 0]

Ariel Sharon was born north of Tel Aviv in 1928, over 10 years after the Ottomans left.  What was his citizenship during the first 20 years of his life (before Israel came into being)?

This is the umpteenth time you've parroted this question.

Polly wanna cracker?

The answer is Palestine. Now why don't you waste your time skills at home to show how you imagine this trivia is relevant to anything.

It's hardly trivial when one Israeli (you) believes that Palestinian citizenship existed and another (rufusmac) does not.  In fact, rufusmac raised this issue above as a "big point" rather than trivial.

And thanks again for not trolling.  :rolleyes:

[theavonlady 2]

Apology accepted. Nice to see some candor from you every onece in a while.

[Bernadotte 0]

Apology accepted. Nice to see some candor from you every onece in a while.

too late

[theavonlady 2]

Ariel Sharon was born north of Tel Aviv in 1928, over 10 years after the Ottomans left.  What was his citizenship during the first 20 years of his life (before Israel came into being)?

This is the umpteenth time you've parroted this question.

Polly wanna cracker?

The answer is Palestine. Now why don't you waste your time skills at home to show how you imagine this trivia is relevant to anything.

It's hardly trivial when one Israeli (you) believes that Palestinian citizenship existed and another (rufusmac) does not.  In fact, rufusmac raised this issue above as a "big point" rather than trivial.

It's as trivial as it was when you first pointed it out.

Jews were just as much called Palestinians back then as Moslem and Christian residents of the country.

Why don't you be a little honest and tell the folks out there in forum-land when and how modern day Israel got its previous name? Reminder: it has nothing to do with today's Arab Palestinians or their ancenstors.

[theavonlady 2]

It's hardly trivial when one Israeli (you) believes that Palestinian citizenship existed and another (rufusmac) does not.  In fact, rufusmac raised this issue above as a "big point" rather than trivial.

To quote Rufusmac in full:

Quote[/b] ]btw, big point here, there never was a palestinian state to begin with

What he meant was there never was an Arab Palestinian state here then.

There was a British run country named Palestine. Before that, the Turks ruled here.

And again, the name of the country for 2000 years had nothing to do with the Arab residents of Palestine.

Rufusmac and I are in full agreement AFAIK.

[Bernadotte 0]

...To quote Rufusmac in full:

Quote[/b] ]btw, big point here, there never was a palestinian state to begin with

What he meant was there never was an Arab Palestinian state here then.

Not really.  What rufusmac actually said in full was this:

Quote[/b] ](btw, big point here, there never was a palestinian state to begin with, they held egyptian, jordanian, or ottoman citizenship)

And whether he meant "Arab Palestinian state" or not, he still denied there ever being Palestinian citizenship.  And that appears to contradict your opinion.

Btw, why don't you let rufusmac speak for himself?

[theavonlady 2]

...To quote Rufusmac in full:

Quote[/b] ]btw, big point here, there never was a palestinian state to begin with

What he meant was there never was an Arab Palestinian state here then.

Not really.  What rufusmac actually said in full was this:

Quote[/b] ](btw, big point here, there never was a palestinian state to begin with, they held egyptian, jordanian, or ottoman citizenship)

When the Ottoman's ruled here, what citizenship did Palestinian Jews have?

Quote[/b] ]And whether he meant "Arab Palestinian state" or not, he still denied there ever being Palestinian citizenship.  And that appears to contradict your opinion.

I don't see it that way.

Quote[/b] ]Btw, why don't you let rufusmac speak for himself?

Sure!

<span style='font-size:27pt;line-height:100%'>RUFUSMAC!!

YOOHOO!!</span>

Maybe that will draw his attention. (edit: um, it's lunch hour here).

You're still not telling us what the point of all this is here and how about revealing the super-relevance of the origins of the country being named Palestine.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]6.  Given that Israel won the 1967 war, drew its international borders around the West Bank and proceeded to settle that conquered land, why didn't Israel allow the inhabitants to become citizens like nearly every other conquering nation has ever done throughout history?  (Think Scotland, Wales, Texas, etc.)

Good question, and it shines on one of the greatest dangers facing israel today.  Hint: Its not terrorism.  Its babies.  Lots of em.  Palestinian demographics show an average family size much larger than the ones in Israel.

LOL... Let me show you the first post ever made by Bernadotte:

Where do I see hope?

Demographics.  The birth-rate continues to be much higher among Palestinian Arabs than among Israeli Jews and the rate of Jews moving out of Israel is also much higher than Jewish immigration.  I guess the Palestinians discovered that the best way to make war is to make love because the bottom line is this:  For the first time ever, at some point in 2002, the population of Israel plus the Territories will cease to be majority Jewish.   When this finally happens, Israel's extreme right (what got Sharon into power) will no longer be able to swoon over annexing those territories without mass deportations.

(Hmm... Mass deportations...  Where have we heard that term before?  Better call it population transfer instead.)

I pray that this inevitable turn of demographics will neutralise the Greater Israel ambitions of the rabid right and its settler following.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]2.  Why do you think 3/4 of a million Palestinians left their homes, farms and property in around 1948 to become refugees?  And why have they not been allowed to return?

Two possibilities, both completely reasonable explantions.  

1: They were told by the arab armies to leave, in order to facilitate their "routing" of israel.  You can find this claim anywhere, like the Dershowitz book I talked about, im too lazy right now to dig up an exact source.

2: The Haganah kicked them out to make room for the jewish state.

Why haven't they been let back?  Well, why don't we ask that same question to the Americans concerning pretty much their whole country vis a vis the native americans.  Or the French and English, or so on, I can go on forever.  I don't envision their farms and huts in old Jaffo are still intact.  Change happens (I will touch on this important point later)

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]6.  Given that Israel won the 1967 war, drew its international borders around the West Bank and proceeded to settle that conquered land, why didn't Israel allow the inhabitants to become citizens like nearly every other conquering nation has ever done throughout history?  (Think Scotland, Wales, Texas, etc.)

Good question, and it shines on one of the greatest dangers facing israel today.  Hint: Its not terrorism.  Its babies.  Lots of em.  Palestinian demographics show an average family size much larger than the ones in Israel.  The three words that best define israel's character, IN THIS SPECIFIC ORDER, are a Jewish, Democratic, State.  The most important thing about israel is that it is a jewish state, period.  There is only 1 in the world.  There are many other democracies, but only 1 jewish state.  So, if all of a sudden, 5 million non-jewish people get the vote, the state becomes the not-so-jewish state, and then eventually, a muslim state.  This is why even hawks like Sharon understand the neccesity of a palestinian state, and why a one state solution will never, ever, be accepted by Israel.

Ok, so I mentioned something before about "change happens"... the idea here is that present realities supercede past principles. (Repeat that twice).  The right of return for the Palestinians is a matter of principal, not reality.  Their homes are long gone, and even the people who took their homes are long gone.  They can leave their squalid refugee lives if only they would drop this point-of-principal and face reality... (im enjoying this)  Life in a refugee camp is hell, i've seen them, i've been in them.  That is the reality.  They can have better lives as citizens in any other nation (particularly Palestine when it comes about), but giving them back their old homes means uprooting someone else from theirs.  Most of the Israelis living in israel now did not even exist when the state was created.  They had nothing to do with the refugee crisis.  Why should their reality be sacrificed for someone elses principal.  Furthermore, the idea that Palestinians can go back to their cultural hertiage - olive tree covered farms with small shacks and quiet serenity - in modern day israel is absurd.  Their homes have been turned into dense suburbs and sprawling urban metropoli(sp?).  They have an oppurtunity to continue life as citizens of another country, which of course is a problem, because no country seems to want them. (btw, big point here, there never was a palestinian state to begin with, they held egyptian, jordanian, or ottoman citizenship)

So, you have to understand that the basic moral concepts of "right intentions" and "wrong intentions" are completely abstract to politics.  Israel did what it was doing in its own interests, which is all that anyone can ever expect a nation to do.  I'm not completely lambasting human rights here, what I am saying is, it is pointless for you to harp on every little supposed wrongdoing by Israel.  For every one you find, someone can surely retort equally against the Palestinians.  The idea is that, we should strive for a point of convergance, where interests coincide.  (thanks to Thomas Jefferson on that one).

/rant

Wow i was really surprized that you tried to make a point on this bases.The way the U.S handled the indiginous people of America in that time is not particulary a historical part on wich the American soeciety is really proud on.Nor are most ex-colonial powers from Europe very pround on the native killing part of their history.In many cases the resemblance to ethnic cleansing is close.Are you going to say that because many colonial superpowers from the past have cases where they almost exterminated whole ethnicities in order to settle regions that wern't claimed by any other civilized country that therefore it's still justifyable in this modern times?

The mass of Jewish colonizations started in a whole other timeframe and still continues to this date with very violent consequences.It's the fact that the Palestinians have never had an independant state of their own that made it possible of Jews under Brittish protection to settle en mass in the region.Later ,they just annexed whole regions into their newly declared country ,with violence if nessecary.And when a territory is annexed and changed so it's full of Jewish towns and infrastructure then they can say ,well this land is ours because we live here now with all our stuff here.

In my point however ,if you think that it's morally justified to have cleanse a region in a violent way  of a certain etnicity in order to be able to colonize it and annex it to youre territory ,and this not as a multicultural society however a country of Jewish political and social dominance ,then you shouldn't be surprized in any way of the violent reaction of the Palestinians towards Jews.

Or let me turn youre argument tottaly upside down.In youre oppinion chief Sitting Bull should be regarded as a TERRORIST ,as he ordered killing raids on settlers (innocent civilians!) settling in his tribal lands.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]2.  Why do you think 3/4 of a million Palestinians left their homes, farms and property in around 1948 to become refugees?  And why have they not been allowed to return?

Two possibilities, both completely reasonable explantions.  

1: They were told by the arab armies to leave, in order to facilitate their "routing" of israel.  You can find this claim anywhere, like the Dershowitz book I talked about, im too lazy right now to dig up an exact source.

2: The Haganah kicked them out to make room for the jewish state.

Why haven't they been let back?  Well, why don't we ask that same question to the Americans concerning pretty much their whole country vis a vis the native americans.

In addition to what Apollo wrote, about the morality of your justification I'd like to point out 2 other things:

1.  Palestinian Arabs lost property that was legally owned by them and recorded in land registries recognised under international law.  Native Americans did not.

2.  Native Americans were ultimately allowed to become US citizens once America had drawn its borders around their captured territories.  According to you, Palestinians in Israel's captured territories will never be allowed to attain Israeli citizenship.

[Guest]

Quote[/b] ]2.  Why do you think 3/4 of a million Palestinians left their homes, farms and property in around 1948 to become refugees?  And why have they not been allowed to return?

Two possibilities, both completely reasonable explantions.  

1: They were told by the arab armies to leave, in order to facilitate their "routing" of israel.  You can find this claim anywhere, like the Dershowitz book I talked about, im too lazy right now to dig up an exact source.

2: The Haganah kicked them out to make room for the jewish state.

Why haven't they been let back?  Well, why don't we ask that same question to the Americans concerning pretty much their whole country vis a vis the native americans.

In addition to what Apollo wrote, about the morality of your justification I'd like to point out 2 other things:

1.  Palestinian Arabs lost property that was legally owned by them and recorded in land registries recognised under international law.  Native Americans did not.

2.  Native Americans were ultimately allowed to become US citizens once America had drawn its borders around their captured territories.  According to you, Palestinians in Israel's captured territories will never be allowed to attain Israeli citizenship.

Ok, alot to cover here.

First, to explain the palestine comment, Avon was right. I meant to say that a Palestinian Arab Nationality never existed. This is not a slur, its a fact. It shapes the history and defines the region.

Secondly, good point apollo. The most I can say is don't look too far into the colonial argument, because I was making based on the premise that Israel is a colonial power, which it is not (at this time). The point I was stressing, which you both missed, is that the moral argument is pointless. I don't morally justify american colonialism at all, nor do I justify certain israeli acts commited in the late 40's and early 50's. But, in the big picture, the creation of a Jewish state was an absolute good (to me), and the early Zionists acheived that in a number of ways, some good, some bad. No country has a perfect record, and I'll be the first to admit that Israel's is not; BUT...

Future peace arrangements cannot be determined by moral superiority (which seems to be the whole gist of this board) because its a stupid meaningless term (in this case). Again, for every percieved wrongdoing on the part of Israel, the native arabs certainly responded in kind. Everyone thinks they have the moral high ground. Hamas thinks they are doing the work of god, as do the settlers (who i in no way wish to compare to Hamas). Im not arguing moral relativism, i'm arguing that the past needs to be forgotten to make room for the future. (Taking reality into account)

If it isn't clear to you all already, i'm not going to respond to every illlegal act by israel as justified. Nor am I going to harp on the atrocities of the Palestinians. I find it strange that you all think that you can back me or Avon into a wall with a "new angle" or argument we haven't heard before. You have to believe me when I say that the answers to all your questions are easy to find, but they are not important. Would it surprise you to know that every settlement that was built after 67' was PURCHASED from palestinian land owners? Does that even matter? To me, no.

Quote[/b] ]According to you, Palestinians in Israel's captured territories will never be allowed to attain Israeli citizenship.

Precisely, they will have their own state. Eventually. Thats the idea. I'm a strong advocate of a Palestinian state, just not yet. I will get into how and when in a later post (when I have the energy)

Ps. To clear up this time issue, I'm in America right now (where its -13 degrees ) I'm not going back to israel until June. Where are you from Bernadotte?

[Bernadotte 0]

Today's New York Times has an article about Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip.  The story closed with the following:

Quote[/b] ]... Meanwhile, new settlers continue to arrive. Meyer and Adi Dana-Picard were only in Kfar Darom a few weeks when an antitank missile exploded near them. Both escaped with minor injuries. But Ms. Dana-Picard, who is pregnant with the couple's second child, argued that in many ways the settlement was a healthy environment for children.

"In Jerusalem, when you see an Arab you don't know whether he's with you or against you," she said, but here if you see an Arab you know he's dangerous and you shoot him."

Healthy?  

[theavonlady 2]

Today's New York Times has an article about Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip.  The story closed with the following:

Quote[/b] ]... Meanwhile, new settlers continue to arrive. Meyer and Adi Dana-Picard were only in Kfar Darom a few weeks when an antitank missile exploded near them. Both escaped with minor injuries. But Ms. Dana-Picard, who is pregnant with the couple's second child, argued that in many ways the settlement was a healthy environment for children.

"In Jerusalem, when you see an Arab you don't know whether he's with you or against you," she said, but here if you see an Arab you know he's dangerous and you shoot him."

Healthy?  

Is that the reporter's jab? It's not a quote from the Dan-Picards.

If so, it's reporter Smith's snide editorializing.

[Guest]

Today's New York Times has an article about Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip.  The story closed with the following:

Quote[/b] ]... Meanwhile, new settlers continue to arrive. Meyer and Adi Dana-Picard were only in Kfar Darom a few weeks when an antitank missile exploded near them. Both escaped with minor injuries. But Ms. Dana-Picard, who is pregnant with the couple's second child, argued that in many ways the settlement was a healthy environment for children.

"In Jerusalem, when you see an Arab you don't know whether he's with you or against you," she said, but here if you see an Arab you know he's dangerous and you shoot him."

Healthy?  

Don't even get me started on bad parenting.

[denoir 0]

Today's New York Times has an article about Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip.  The story closed with the following:

Quote[/b] ]... Meanwhile, new settlers continue to arrive. Meyer and Adi Dana-Picard were only in Kfar Darom a few weeks when an antitank missile exploded near them. Both escaped with minor injuries. But Ms. Dana-Picard, who is pregnant with the couple's second child, argued that in many ways the settlement was a healthy environment for children.

"In Jerusalem, when you see an Arab you don't know whether he's with you or against you," she said, but here if you see an Arab you know he's dangerous and you shoot him."

Healthy?  

Is that the reporter's jab? It's not a quote from the Dan-Picards.

If so, it's reporter Smith's snide editorializing.

From the article it seems like it's a direct quote and it would make sense in the context. Why would somebody in Gaza, discussing the situation there make an off-hand remark about Jerusalem without relating it to Gaza?

[theavonlady 2]

Today's New York Times has an article about Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip.  The story closed with the following:

Quote[/b] ]... Meanwhile, new settlers continue to arrive. Meyer and Adi Dana-Picard were only in Kfar Darom a few weeks when an antitank missile exploded near them. Both escaped with minor injuries. But Ms. Dana-Picard, who is pregnant with the couple's second child, argued that in many ways the settlement was a healthy environment for children.

"In Jerusalem, when you see an Arab you don't know whether he's with you or against you," she said, but here if you see an Arab you know he's dangerous and you shoot him."

Healthy?  

Is that the reporter's jab? It's not a quote from the Dan-Picards.

If so, it's reporter Smith's snide editorializing.

From the article it seems like it's a direct quote and it would make sense in the context. Why would somebody in Gaza, discussing the situation there make an off-hand remark about Jerusalem without relating it to Gaza?

Bernadotte was referring to the word "healthy". It is not part of the quote.

[Bernadotte 0]

Today's New York Times has an article about Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip.  The story closed with the following:

Quote[/b] ]... Meanwhile, new settlers continue to arrive. Meyer and Adi Dana-Picard were only in Kfar Darom a few weeks when an antitank missile exploded near them. Both escaped with minor injuries. But Ms. Dana-Picard, who is pregnant with the couple's second child, argued that in many ways the settlement was a healthy environment for children.

"In Jerusalem, when you see an Arab you don't know whether he's with you or against you," she said, but here if you see an Arab you know he's dangerous and you shoot him."

Healthy?  

Is that the reporter's jab? It's not a quote from the Dan-Picards.

If so, it's reporter Smith's snide editorializing.

From the article it seems like it's a direct quote and it would make sense in the context. Why would somebody in Gaza, discussing the situation there make an off-hand remark about Jerusalem without relating it to Gaza?

Bernadotte was referring to the word "healthy". It is not part of the quote.

Yes, I also found it hard to believe that she said that. However, I would have more difficulty believing that the NYT reporter merely fabricated it.

[Guest]

Today's New York Times has an article about Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip.  The story closed with the following:

Quote[/b] ]... Meanwhile, new settlers continue to arrive. Meyer and Adi Dana-Picard were only in Kfar Darom a few weeks when an antitank missile exploded near them. Both escaped with minor injuries. But Ms. Dana-Picard, who is pregnant with the couple's second child, argued that in many ways the settlement was a healthy environment for children.

"In Jerusalem, when you see an Arab you don't know whether he's with you or against you," she said, but here if you see an Arab you know he's dangerous and you shoot him."

Healthy?  

Is that the reporter's jab? It's not a quote from the Dan-Picards.

If so, it's reporter Smith's snide editorializing.

From the article it seems like it's a direct quote and it would make sense in the context. Why would somebody in Gaza, discussing the situation there make an off-hand remark about Jerusalem without relating it to Gaza?

Bernadotte was referring to the word "healthy". It is not part of the quote.

Yes, I also found it hard to believe that she said that.  However, I would have more difficulty believing that the NYT reporter merely fabricated it.

so are we to assume that one family's extreme views (i actually know a few that think like this) define israeli policy? Heres a key point of note. The Israeli government does not indoctrinate the settlers with religious ideology and anti-arab sentiment. They get it from people groups like Kach (who israel considers illegal and has arrested numerous members of). Yet, when discussing palestinian "policy", it seems to be taken as verbatim that terrorism (or resistance ) is the de-facto standard. What's wrong with this picture? Israel certainly has some housekeeping to do, but the Palestinian government-controlled media certainly pumps out propoganda that says things that would make the Dan-Picard's blush. oh, and another point while I am rolling...

When people like the Dan-Picard family say things like that, they are a minority. Every friday night, hundreds of israelis would pack into rabin square and cry for peace. Only a few kilometers away, thousands upon thousands of palestinians march down the street waving guns shouting "death to israel."

[theavonlady 2]

so are we to assume that one family's extreme views (i actually know a few that think like this) define israeli policy?

I think that if you lived in a border community where the intent of approaching Arabs is more often than not to kill and mame men, women and children, you would think no differently.

The views aren't extreme. The circumstances are.

I know many families like this. Until 1987, people generally didn't have to think this way. I can recall driving through Khan Yunis back then. Since then through the present, I stand a good chance of at least getting shot in the head or possibly lynched and deboweled, as has happened.

Have you ever been to Kfar Darom? We have. Mostly lovely people. Will you describe the rest of the community as "rabid right", as Bernadotte does?

BTW, it's amazing what a double standard he has. And he calls me a racist?! And what about you? Are you a racist?

Quote[/b] ]Heres a key point of note. The Israeli government does not indoctrinate the settlers with religious ideology and anti-arab sentiment. They get it from people groups like Kach (who israel considers illegal and has arrested numerous members of).

They get it from the Arabs. I don't subscribe to Kach. I never knowingly gave a penny to the JDL, Kach, Kahana Chai or any other offshoot. I haven't read any of his writings in detail. But the slogan "Kahana Zadak", "Kahana was right", is not completely false.

I suggest you visit some gorgeous communities, like Kfar Darom, Beit El, Karnei Shomron and so many more, before you cast you stereotype perverted view on everyone living east of the Green Line.

Quote[/b] ]When people like the Dan-Picard family say things like that, they are a minority. Every friday night, hundreds of israelis would pack into rabin square and cry for peace.

And what have they brought upon us instead? It's time they started crying for the dead, the wounded, the orphaned and widdowed - the fruits of Oslo.

Kishalon, Haver.

[Cephalid 0]

...

Future peace arrangements cannot be determined by moral superiority (which seems to be the whole gist of this board) because its a stupid meaningless term (in this case).  Again, for every percieved wrongdoing on the part of Israel, the native arabs certainly responded in kind.  Everyone thinks they have the moral high ground.  Hamas thinks they are doing the work of god, as do the settlers (who i in no way wish to compare to Hamas).  Im not arguing moral relativism, i'm arguing that the past needs to be forgotten to make room for the future. (Taking reality into account)

....

I agree with you, some parts of the past needs to be forgotten, but how much can you forget.

When you look on Israeli politics, they not even thinking about to accept the borderline defined by UN resolutions in ‘67.

They build their wall on mainly Palestinian ground and even start new settlements in the Golan now. I even have sometimes the impression that this suicide attacks merge into some plans of hardliners. So they don’t have to start negotiating, but can go on with annexing Palestinian land and trying to make new facts.

What I wonder, what do you rufusmac and avon think about the Geneva Accord.

Is this something you could live with?