Isreal / Plaestine -What can the quartet do towards advancing a two state solution ;

by Mike Novack Fri Mar 19, 2010 18:46

"The timing of attack and counter attack in Gaza is predictably nauseating. Just as the Arab peoples were getting a sympathetic ear , there are more mortars launched from Gaza., and these reciprocated by a retaliatory Israeli Air strike within 24 hours."

This latest is perhaps a good example. How do you judge "proportion"?

Near as I can tell people in Gaza fired five rockets at the Israelis and the Israelis fired six back (the reports I've seen refer to hitting six targets in Gaza). Now that's pretty proportionate in terms of EFFORT but of course not proportionate in terms of results achieved. That's because the Israelis know how to aim their rockets, mortars, etc. Are they supposed to play fair by putting on blindfolds and firing at random? Is THAT what you mean by "proportional" response? I think the "Cast Lead" invasion of Gaza was wrong. The Israelis should perhaps not have gone in, just stood back and fired a corresponding number of artillery rounds back. But that would NOT have led to less Gazans killed. And would have given us less to legitimately complain about -- the "rules" governing artilleryare like "horeseshoes", close counts, and civilians within that distance of a friing position are not immune (the "rules" consider that the responsibility of those who sited the artillery posiiton next to them).

We NEED to understand the implications for the "two state solution". Now I think Israel should immediately withdraw fully and allow the Palestinians to form their state but that imposes the responsibilities of a state also. That does NOT (without negotiations and paying the demanded price) get open borders to Israel. That does NOT get "peace" if unable to control militants who will persist in cross border attacks, because again, getting that neighbor to agree to "restraint" requires negotiations and a price. Yes I know, no "peace" for the Israelis either BUT (a big but) it's the weaker party that NEEDS peace, not the stornger.

Might I humbly suggest that ONE of the reasons we aren't seeing progress isn't Israeli stubborness. The current situation of the Palestinians is very bad, but it could get worse.

by donkylemore Sat Mar 20, 2010 17:08

Mike
Yes the Israelis know how to use their weaponry to greater effect. Moreover , their weapons are so much more exact and sophisticated .
But tell me . I have argued an absurd proposition elsewhere. It is this
Suppose the USA were to give the BOMB to Hisbullah, - and if we are to accept the MAD proposition as a given , would there then not be peace in the region.
I would think there would be a very good possibility that there would be peace from the bilateral sense of terror. No peace of mind but an assurance that any invasion by Israel would have to be a very calculated one ; in the same way the Palestinians 'd hand would be stayed .
If the territories and Jerusalem were settled I would make this proposal with greater sense of commitment.
But I put it to you . What would be your objection to giving the bomb (n uclear ) to the Palestinians - Now ..Yes ! it sems absurd and farcical , But think about it..
MAD - concept . It kept the world safe during the cold war.

by Mike Novack Sat Mar 20, 2010 18:12

PRECISELY the problem.

To be VIABLE a free and independent Palestinains state will NEED ...........
a) Passage of people and goods to moving via Israel.
b) A transit route across between Gaza and the West Bank.
c) Restraint on the part of Israel when dissadent militants persist in attacks (and they will)

Sorry, but the Palestinains cannot depend entirely on "good will"/help from Egypt and Jordan who in the past have proven not to be such good friends. So a viable Palestinian state will need these three things. Unfortunately, those issues, the territories and Jerusalem , are the ONLY coin they have which would be of the least interest to the Israelis. Getting "a", "b", and "c" will reqire concessions on those issues so settling first won't help. Have to be settled WITH the overall "peace process"..

But this does NOT necessarily lead to peace for the Palestinians as they may (sorry, probably) will be forced into a civil war. Do you not understand this from your own history? Not see the parallel? That's what I mean by not ALL of the problem being on the part of the Israelis.

And as for "mutually assured destruction" having kept the peace, you have a somewhat strange view of history. Nobody GAVE "the bomb" to the Solviet Union. Nor was that the reason peace was kept -- or rather NOT kept. The US did not use "the bomb" in the Korean War (China did not have it yet) and Britain didn't use "the bomb" against Argentina. In other words, we DID have wars and it was understood that although one side had "the bomb" it wasn't going to be used.

And Hezbolla? What do THEY have to do with this? Are you under the impression that they are primary players in a conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians? The resistance of the Palestinians to the Israelis has little/nothing to do with militant Islam. Yes there are some militant Islamic extremists among the Palestinians but they act mainly against the non-Moslem Palestinians. I am not fully convinced even about the Iranians. Is that REALLY "support for the Palestinians" as much as a message to Israel "don't support Kurdish independence or we'll make trouble in your back yard".

by Fred Johnston Sat Mar 20, 2010 18:15

Ten minutes ago read of the IDF having murdered a teenager, a Palestinian. Then at the same time they are trying to force the Scottish government to make it illegal to boycott Israeli goods or services or events! I am not joking. Rights that people have fought for centuries to earn, they would abolish. Oh, and the right to be a Palestinian and live . . . .

by me Sat Mar 20, 2010 19:13

In other words, we DID have wars and it was understood that although one side had "the bomb" it wasn't going to be used.

The massive flaw in your line of reasoning is that it ignores the fact that Israel HAS a bomb and according to all accounts is more than willing to use it.

However because of the inherent secrecy surrounding issues related to Israel's undeclared and totally un-inspected Nuke program, it is impossible to know whether the Israeli's always implied, but almost rarely ever openly stated, image as a slightly insane, very nervous, trigger-happy possessor of Tactical Nuke capabilities, is the result of slick PR or are they really that insane that they are willing to trigger WW3 just because they don't always get their way.

i recently read this document, which I found on a US military website

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

It has a rather chilling comment at the end of a paragraph about possible increase in stability in the region if others such as Iran obtain nukes.

Current Israeli President Ezer Weizman has stated “the nuclear issue is gaining momentum [and the] next war will not be conventional.

Such implied threats are almost always ignored when Western media are commenting/reporting on the topic of M.E nukes. judging by THAT statement, and others like it, such as this one by Israeli 'Historian' Martin van Creveld, who stated In a September 2003 interview in Elsevier (Dutch weekly) on Israel and the 'dangers' it faces from Iran, the Palestinians and 'world opinion':

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

That it is Iran that Western politicians and media claim is the main danger to peace in the region is laughable, given the fact the Israelis appear to openly threaten countries who have made absolutely no threats towards them

In the August 21, 2004 edition of the International Herald Tribune van Creveld wrote,

"Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."

The document I linked to above also has a few interesting things to say on the subject of other ways the Israelis threaten:

"One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their “use” on the United States.

America does not want Israel's nuclear profile raised. They have been used in the past to ensure America does not desert Israel under increased Arab, or oil embargo, pressure and have forced the United States to support Israeli diplomatically against the Soviet Union. Israel used their existence to guarantee a continuing supply of American conventional weapons, a policy likely to continue. "

On the subject of a M.A.D. strategy being conducive to the future stability of the region, should others obtain nukes:

Regardless of the true types and numbers (see Appendix A) of Israeli nuclear weapons, they have developed a sophisticated system, by myriad methods, and are a nuclear power to be reckoned with.

Their nuclear ambiguity has served their purposes well but Israel is entering a different phase of visibility even as their nuclear capability is entering a new phase. This new visibility may not be in America's interest.

Many are predicting the Israeli nuclear arsenal will become less useful “out of the basement” and possibly spur a regional arms race. If so, Israel has a 5-10 year lead time at present before mutual assured destruction, Middle East style, will set in.

Would regional mutual second strike capability, easier to acquire than superpower mutual second strike capability, result in regional stability? Some think so.

Interesting are the numbers of warheads reported in the document. Appendix A lists a timeline and gives numbers for various date e.g.: it claims 'greater than 400 thermo-nuclear and nuclear weapons' in 1997

However the BBC recently posted a graphic (reproduced below) as part of this story on Obama's plans for 'dramatic reductions' in nuclear weapons (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8543897.stm) which gives a figure of '80 Strategic Nuclear Warheads' - the discrepancy could be due to the different definitions - "thermo-nuclear and nuclear weapons'" versus "Strategic Nuclear Warheads". I'm also rather sceptical that Obama has any real plans related to nuke-reductions, other than to try and make the Iranians look bad.

A rather conservative estimate of Tactical Nuke warheads worldwide

by Me Sat Mar 20, 2010 19:42

Nobody GAVE "the bomb" to the Soviet Union.

Although it is true no one actually handed them an actual bomb, certainly someone handed them information to speed along their nuclear program.

Have you never heard of the Ethel and Julius Rosenberg? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

Or more importantly, Kim Philby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby) and the Cambridge Spy-ring?

In January 1949, the British Government was informed that Venona project intercepts showed that nuclear secrets were passed to the Soviet Union from the British Embassy in Washington in 1944 and 1945 by an agent code-named 'Homer'. In 1950, Philby was asked to help track down this agent. Knowing from the start that 'Homer' was his old university friend, Second Secretary Donald Maclean, Philby warned Maclean in 1951, leading to the defection of both Burgess and Maclean

Rather presciently, Philby and his fellow Cambridge spies decided to spy for the Soviets, not because they were ideologically left-wing, but rather they feared for the World should the US ever obtain a pre-eminent dominant position unhindered by an equally powerful opponent.

Given the behaviour of the US since the collapse of the Soviet System, it appears Philby was correct to fear US domination.

The US did not use "the bomb" in the Korean War (China did not have it yet)

No, but the Soivets DID, and the it appears that the US was not prepared to risk it's use, given the possibility of Soviet reaction.

and Britain didn't use "the bomb" against Argentina

No, because they could never have justified it's use to their own people, let alone to others, since Argentina posed no actual threat to the land of Britain.

The Israelis, on the other hand, given their years of racist indoctrination and immersion since birth in a culture of 'eternal victim-hood', certainly would make a strong attempt to convince their rather rabid citizenry that use of a nuke was justified

by Kevin Sat Mar 20, 2010 20:42

This nuclear exchange is going nowhere.

Neither the Arabs or Israelis care for anything said by the quartet. They both despise the EU, though the Arabs would like us as a counterbalance to the USA's support of Israel. Best for the EU to keep out and spend its €billions on rebuilding places like Southill.

If I were the Israeli government, I would pressure the Palestinians out of "Judea and Samaria". After all, they have 300,000 citizens living there now, who are not going to stand for expulsion.

If I were the Palestinians, I would keep my collective head down and breed like anything, and end up on top in a generation or two.

by donkylemore Sat Mar 20, 2010 21:11

Mike .
I either failed to make the point sufficiently succinctly or you failed to interpret it correctly ; One impression is given , but another interpretation is taken- this can occur through blindness or obduracy or illiteracy
-( which means that it is either my failing or yours )

I tried to suggest a BALANCE of power between the USA and the USSR through their mutual possession of nuclear weapons.
and the MAD principle in this context did subject both powers to consider the use of the bomb with greater circumspection . The sequellae of the use of the bomb by either side became unthinkable , and thus neither side could chance its use.
Regan then tries to up the ante by introducing the STAR WARS project - a concept more obscene and odious than was conjectured in the realms of movie makers of the time .
But it didnt make the world any safer until by necessity the USSR began trumping everything militarily which the USA were developing .

I never suggested that the USA gave the USSR anything, - The Russians were capable of developing a bomb on their own. In fact many Russian scientists were ahead of their USA peer group particularly in the realm of the space science ,Indeed , as some Russian scientists defected to the USA the West discovered how sophisticated was the science behind the Iron Curtain.

The extreme elements within the Palestinian ,movement have undoubtedly flirted with the Hisbullah movement from despair rather than a belief in political reconciliation.
The Palestinian movement ; the Israeli Palestinians ; the Isreali muslims ; need to be considered as deferentialy as the study of Zionism ; and other Jewish subcultures - require a wider debate - I'll return to this in a moment .

I have seen the Hizbullah movement develop in the mountain regions of S Lebanon where there are many PLO refugee settlements , and yes I did meet some ''converts'' who moved from the fringes of the Palestinian movement to the centre of the Hisbullah movement .
Before the internet became available in S Lebanon , particularly from the port city of Tyre south where there are the largest pockets of the dispossessed and there is rampant poverty the Hizbullah movement began to take hold.. The movement expanded and attracted many followers as they began to provide medicines and food . Some things which were erstwhile not provided by the Lebanese government were provided by the movement and naturally this attracted many to its ranks .

One would have to be bind or an obscurantist to refute this .
The other question of what degree of support the Palestinians would accrue across the MUSLIM worlld is a much bigger debate and in this manner I connsider it outside the scipeof the original article .

So , again . The MAD concept was suggested in the context of a bilateral knowledge and appreciation that the enemy had the same destructive than one''s self .
The Global MAD concept was being applied to two opposing warring parties ; and the question is simply asked whether this appreciation would stay the hand of either party in initiating conflict ; and it is postulated that a pre emptive strike on either side would be discouraged ; It was as simple as that .

Finally I quite agree with your 3 bullet points re the prerequisites the Palestinians require for statehood . There are many more but yes, you have encapsulated the essence of it here .

by Me Sat Mar 20, 2010 21:22

It should be remembered, in any discussion on the subject, that Hizbollah arose as a direct consequence of the 1982 Israeli invasion, and decades long occupation, of the neighbouring country of Lebanon, and not as some mere adjunct to the PLO.

Many have surmised that this invasion and occupation was an attempt to secure much needed water supplies dressed up as an attempt to deal with the Palestinian refugees, forced to flee to Lebanon after the Israeli Ethnic cleansings of the late 1940's

by donkylemore Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:58

Me
Very informative comment . Thank you. Terrifying to think that the graphic depiction is an underestimation of warheads.
But you avoid addressing the question . Would arming Hizbullah and the Gazans / and West Bank Palestinians ( despite who do integrate - whatever is said here ) would this bring about a fearsome.. terrifying peace?
Yes I accept the absurdity of such a proposition .. but would it bring about a good result from an albeit flawed intent . Or would it be that flawed if the end justified the means
Of course the argument will be made about how preposterous it would be to give Hizbulah the bomb .. they are terrorists and could not be relied on to handle such a final option or an option with such a finality ?
After all we only trust the bomb in the hands of the good guys..
Was the first bomb ( Hiroshima?) intended to show thae Japanese how futile their continued fighting was or was there a sense of the memory of Pearl Harbour lurking there in the background ..
Any why did the ''''good guys'' then see the necessity to drop another bomb a few days later?
Was the leveling of Dresden and so many of her citizens necessary or did it reflect the wrath for the the bombing of London .
Any way some of the bad guys have the bomb already as you amply demonstrate but has this vile .odious weaponry make us feel more or less safe , now that sso many states have it ?

by Mike Novack Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:46

They are very good at the job which is THEIR specialty but can be way off the mark when it is somebody else's back yard.

Don't take just MY word for this, ask others with a degree in Physics.

IT WASN'T A SECRET! The people who keep secrets thought it was a big secret and the spies seeking out secrets thought it was a secret, but by the late 30's/early 40's any uni with a Physics department likely to have at least a few folks who knew exactly HOW to make an A-bomb down to being able to calculate just how much fissionable material needed to "go critical", the possible methods to separate out enough fissionable material, etc. Now that's just how to proceed in general, finding out the most practical PRODUCTION METHODS requires a great deal of experimentation and a fair bit of time. In other words, they wouldn't necessarily know the DETAILS.

I once even knew the names of the two poor devils who during WW II walked into the spook office "We assume that we have folks already doing this but in case not, here are plans for how to make an atomic bomb" (sorry but I lost about half our books in a house fire, and Physics was shelved in the room that burned). They were given a rather hard time for a while as the spooks wouldn't believe they came up with this on their own (or that anybody in atomic physics could do likewise).

The Rosenbergs, Philby, etc. didn't possess any USEFUL information to pass on. But like I said, the spies just as much in the dark about the state of science as the spy catchers. Had the true state of affairs been understood by the pros (that it was only the practical "production details" that would be unknown) the spies wouldn't have been "caught" (much better to leave them in place and use them to feed faulty production details -- those can't quickly be distinguished from true gen and can absorb much effort in the process).

Lots of other WW II "innovations" similar. The theory part of RADAR and SONAR everybody knew (20's stuff -- it didn't take long using radio to discover that things like ships, mountains, etc. cast radio shadows and reflections). But knowing POSSIBLE isn't the same as figuring out gear that is robust enough, compact enough, light enough, etc. to make a PRACTICAL system. Which is why there was a "spook war" going on to try to discover "how far along are the other guys on this".

by Me Sun Mar 21, 2010 19:52

But you avoid addressing the question . Would arming Hizbullah and the Gazans / and West Bank Palestinians ( despite who do integrate - whatever is said here ) would this bring about a fearsome.. terrifying peace?

Sorry, but it appears to me that your question is a ridiculous one - but not for the reasons you claim: i.e. "about how preposterous it would be to give Hizbulah the bomb .. they are terrorists and could not be relied on to handle such a final option or an option with such a finality ?"

Despite all the ridiculous Israeli/Zionist racist propaganda (for the consumption of gullible idiots, IMHO) Hezbollah have provided ample evidence that they are quite sane and rational, or at least as sane and rational as anyone on the opposing side. So too have Hamas - it would be impossible for them to achieve what they have if they were not

none of the groups you mention would be able to store such weapons with any degree of security, due to an number of factors e.g. lack of secure territory - nowhere to setup safe secure storage facilities, no reliable delivery method, nor any suitable command facilities from which to direct it's usage.

In the case of the Palestinians there is also the thorny little question of the quite obvious widespread group-infiltration by Israeli-spies/agents, much the same as existed, and probably still exists, in NI.

it's apples and oranges.

Now if you were to talk about Syria and Iran instead of Hezbollah and the Palestinians you might have a topic worth discussing

The only thing that will bring the Israelis to the table with an actual real desire for peace would be to eliminate the arrogant untouchability-factor they have enjoyed due to their big-brother the US and also their regional Nuke capabilities.

If other regional powers had the ability to counter Israeli first and second strike capabilities the Israelis would be forced to behave in a different fashion - until then they will continue to behave as the arrogant fascist racist supremacists they have been indoctrinated to be since birth

After all we only trust the bomb in the hands of the good guys..

Personally I don't hold with this notion that only so-called 'Sovereign states' should hold an absolute monopoly on military violence - and the idea that Hezbollah or the Iranians or Islamic groups are more dangerous than any of our own western nutcases is belied by the presences of religiously inspired nutters in both the Israeli and US military structures. Why anyone would consider the Military leaders of the so-called 'Western' powers to be 'sane and rational heads', is beyond me. The notion that anyone of an Islamic background is automatically a religious nutcase bent on martyrdom and just itching to create armageddon is a very silly racist propaganda meme believed by only the most doltish idiotic people.

Was the first bomb ( Hiroshima?) intended to show the Japanese how futile their continued fighting was or was there a sense of the memory of Pearl Harbour lurking there in the background ..

the bombing of Japan was in order to demonstrate US power. Someone once asked me

'Why did the US drop the bomb on Japan?'

I replied with the simplest and most complete answer I could think of:

'They did it because they wanted to demonstrate, to everyone else, that they could and would do it'.

It had nothing to do with demonstrating anything to the Japanese, who anyway had been trying to surrender for at least 30 days before the US nuked them.

Any why did the ''''good guys'' then see the necessity to drop another bomb a few days later?

To make sure that no one could be in any doubt as to what the actual message was. . . .

Was the leveling of Dresden and so many of her citizens necessary or did it reflect the wrath for the the bombing of London .

actually the blitz of London was a response to the British bombing of German cities - the luvverly sane and rational Brits started bombing german cities long before the Germans bombed any British city - a fact never mentioned in so called 'histories' of WWII - remember; 'history is written by the winners'

Again IMHO the completely military unnecessary firebombing of Dresden was again in order to send a message to the Soviets, who had large divisions approaching Dresden, just a few hundred kilometers to the east. Those Soviet Divisions could actually see the flames of Dresden. Imagine their thoughts as they watched the Allies cold-bloodedly and needlessly slaughter a city of absolutely no military value whatsoever.

again : they did because the wanted to demonstrate that they could.

Any way some of the bad guys have the bomb already as you amply demonstrate but has this vile .odious weaponry make us feel more or less safe , now that so many states have it ?

no i don't think it makes us feel more safe, but since the technology is already loose then to only allow certain nations to posses it and prevent all other from having it, is to create a situation where those nations feel they can always act with impunity, which as history has repeatedly shown, is never a good idea.

by Mike Novack Mon Mar 22, 2010 00:54

But Donkylmore, which if ANY of those three can be demanded BY RIGHT?

To be VIABLE a free and independent Palestinains state will NEED ...........
a) Passage of people and goods to moving via Israel.
b) A transit route across between Gaza and the West Bank.
c) Restraint on the part of Israel when dissadent militants persist in attacks (and they will)

They may be requirements for a VIABLE Palestinian state but they aren't requirements of statehood and none of them are things that one state need grant to a neighbor state EXCEPT "by good will". They aren't things that one state OWES another. The Palestinians are "owed" (and we can legtimately insist) that the Israelis not occupy them, not oppress them, etc. We can't LEGITIMATELY demand that the Israelis give them anything in addition.

"b" is not a "right" because Israel would be surrounding neither part of the Palestinian state. Yes of course, if not getting this from Israel the Palestinians are dependent on Jordan and Egypt for this and must pay the prices those two countries demand but that is not the responsibility of the Israelis.

"a" is never a "right" between countries, always a special arrangement between them and dependent on friendly relations.

"c" is not a "right" and the price demanded can be fearful. You should understand THAT because of your own history. It's the reason that Irish independence from Britain was immediately followed by a civil war (the price). Because Britain would/could demand that price. BY RIGHT. We might consider "restraint" praiseworthy but not agreeing to restraint isn't evil. We can't legitimately demand it.

by Me Mon Mar 22, 2010 13:32

Essentially Mike you appear to have argued yourself into the position that a two state solution is unlikely to work - and that only leaves a one state solution.

i have noticed over the past 18 months that the pro-Israel camp have begun to use the phrase 'two state solution' more and more. This appears to me to be quite strange since it is obvious that they have absolutely no desire for a 2 state solution. Indeed their land offering made under the so called 'road map' makes sure that a Palestinian state could never be a viable option given the fragmented nature of the land envisaged as being under the control of some mythical future Palestinian state. So I can only presume they are calling now for a 2 state solution because they are terrified of a One-state solution, as that would mean the end of their little experiment in State racism, and feel that if they keep harping on about a 2 state solution they'll be able to drown out any call for a one state solution.

A one state solution is in my opinion the only equitable solution. Given the problems you have mentioned Mike, given the unwillingness of the Israelis to make any real concessions, no 2 state solution would have any hope of being successful and would lead to even bigger problems down the line.

Unless the world wishes to condone the complete ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories, which appears to be the preferred Israeli option, then a one state solution is the only option which has any hope of producing a state in which Palestinians could hope to live some sort of bearable life, one that doesn't lead them inevitably toward what Israeli's like to call 'terrorism'

by Mike Novack Mon Mar 22, 2010 18:18

For some reason you think that it HAS to work for the Palestinians (that there has to be a way out for them, that anything else is illegitimate).

You are trying to argue that since the EXISTENCE of the Israelis (even were they not doing anything WRONG) makes a good outcome unlikely for the Palestinians -- if only one of these peoples can thrive there, you prefer that be the Palestinians. Well you can certainly have that preference. But in that sort of choice you have no gripe against those whose preference is the other way around. You've lost the basis for arguing that those who choose the other way around are wrong to do so.

So no, you hadn't any basis for concluding that what I said would be any reason why I had to support a "single state solution" just because alternative solutions wouldn't lead to peace for the Palestinians (maybe they could have peace from Israel; but then not peace among themselves).

by me Mon Mar 22, 2010 22:02

You are trying to argue that since the EXISTENCE of the Israelis (even were they not doing anything WRONG) makes a good outcome unlikely for the Palestinians -- if only one of these peoples can thrive there, you prefer that be the Palestinians.

Wow, how you could arrive at that conclusion is astounding.

First of all it is not the existence of 'Israelis' (i.e. the individuals) which i object to, but rather the inherently racist exclusionary entity that is currently known as 'Israel'.

Were it to change its inherently racist exclusionary nature I would have nothing against it, or it's citizens. Unfortunately the ideology behind it's founding is inherently racist ad exclusionary so that seems unlikely, something I think even you will agree with.

Were it to change its inherently racist exclusionary nature, it would, I suppose, no longer be the Israel you appear to be so in love with.

if only one of these peoples can thrive there, you prefer that be the Palestinians

I said nothing of the sort.

The ridiculous combination of words above, which you have managed to contrive in order to misrepresent what i have said, demonstrates nothing more than your inability to free yourself of narrow, reactionary, racist indoctrination. If the Israelis want peace, as they so frequently claim, they simply must grant the others the ability to live with dignity - otherwise there can and will be no peace. If history has taught us anything it has thought us that.

The notion that a one state solution simply must result in the extinction of the the Israeli-jewish population already living there, is a direct result of the paranoid racist indoctrination supporters of the Zionist entity of Israel so frequently find themselves in thrall to. There is no reason, other than racist paranoia, to automatically presume that a one state solution which allows for Palestinians to be treated with a modicum of human dignity, would automatically involve some sort of existential danger to the Jewish people who also inhabit any resultant state.

Well you can certainly have that preference

well, gee, thanks, that sure is nice of you, and all, but since it's not my preference you can have it back - it seems to suit you more than me, to be honest

So no, you hadn't any basis for concluding that what I said would be any reason why I had to support a "single state solution"

But you so obviously already do support a single state solution - it's just that in your case the single state solution you support is the current one: a single racist exclusionary state known as Israel

You've lost the basis for arguing that those who choose the other way around are wrong to do so.

No, dear. You have performed some astounding feats of logic-twisting in order to arrive at that ridiculous conclusion, and considering all your hard work I feel it would be mean of me to so simply dismiss the end result your arduous labours-in-logic by simply disagreeing with you, however given the completely flawed line of 'logic' you have followed in arriving at such a ridiculous conclusion, I am left with no other choice . .

by Mike Novack Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:33

a) How you use the term "racist".
We humans seem to manage to dislike our fellow humans for a number of reasons and "race", the notion that there is something special about skin color is ONE of those. But just one of several. We also divide ourselves (and have been known to kill each other) over differences in religion, that's called "sectarianism". We also divide over ethnicity and even tribes speaking languages of the same group and the same way of life might be traditional enemies.

So why did you use the term "racist" here? There's more racial diversity within the Zionist side than between the Zionists and the Palestinians. The Zionists don't define themselves in terms of "race".

b) If the Israelis want peace.
You apparently missed my subjunctive. But lets for the moment that as a remaining fault. Is that grounds for considering one WRONG? In other words, assuming that other than not caring whether we fight or not I am not OTHERWISE harming you. You are pissed with me, so you take your little .22 pistol and begin firing away at me wildly. I take my 12 gauge pump and cut you in two with a couple rounds of 00 buck. Now I am NOT arguing here that it would not be praiseworthy instead had I chosen to try to calm you down, tried to get you not choose such a suicidal action. But was I WRONG not to so choose?

I don't think the Israelis "want peace" THAT BADLY. But I would reject the notion that this makes them EVIL. Thye don't have to "want peace". They do have to stop occupying/oppressing the Palestinians. I have suggested that would not be enough (to result in peace) but so?

c) paranoid
Really? There's a saying we have over here "you're not paranoid if they are really out ot get you". Are you trying to suggest that the Jews are overly paranoid given their collective experience of the 20th Century? Perhaps you consider that irrelevant as "ancient history" but this is a tribal people whose sense of historical time is different and "several decades ago" still current history to them. While that may need explanation on some sites where most people see a few years ago as "ancient history" it shouldn't on this one!

Suggested exercise --- The initial independence agreement directly led to your civil war (no good alternative) and in effect the Biritsh were forcing this on you by pulling out of 3/4 of Ireland. Try to argue that this made the partial withdrawal bad/evil. That it was worse than not pulling out at all becuase it wasn't giving you peace. NOTE --- I am NOT arguing that keeping the remining 1/4 was justified on any of a number of other grounds. We would just be arguing whether in the absense of other grounds would be wrong because led to unpeace in the 3/4 (or between the 3/4 and Britain). I am arguing that they owed you independence but they didn't OWE you peace.

by donkylemore Wed Mar 24, 2010 14:18

To ''Me'' -
It strikes me that you have reduced the original proposition to something which serves merely to give you some kind of intellectual priapism.
Everyone's contribution is parsed and adjudicated as if you held the eternal and infallible wisdom ; the principal has been lost in the intrigue of intellectualism.
I am impelled to say that your own contributions serves only to give you some sense of urgent gratification and in this manner have succeed only in reducing something which was intended to be as absurd as the MAD concept in it's extreme form , to something which for your part is an idle exercise in the didactic .

I will posit the proposition once more ; simply.

IF THE NUCLEAR BOMB WERE GIVEN TO THE HIZBULLAH IN GAZA; WOULD THIS NOT STAY THE ISRAELI HAND MILITARILY IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT ANY AGGRESSION AGAINST GAZA WOULD RESULT IN A RETALIATORY NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST ISRAEL ?

Its as simple as that . Let the Hizbullah figure out the logistics and the Israelis consider the consequences .
Its intended to be absurd . But in its absurdity it might serve as an analogue for Israeli hegemony.
If you don't get it I can't help you.
But it is simple .
Einstein said '' every thing should be explained as simply as can be ; but no simpler .

by Me Wed Mar 24, 2010 17:43

I hate to be the one to break this to you . . . but 'the Hizbullah' are not based in Gaza.

IF THE NUCLEAR BOMB WERE GIVEN TO THE HIZBULLAH IN GAZA; WOULD THIS NOT STAY THE ISRAELI HAND MILITARILY IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT ANY AGGRESSION AGAINST GAZA WOULD RESULT IN A RETALIATORY NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST ISRAEL ?

Just so's ya know: shouting is not likely to elicit any reaction other than ridicule.

by donlylemore Wed Mar 24, 2010 19:59

The singular reason that I wrote the postulation in bold letters was in the blind hope that you might read it.
I have failed .
You not only missed it while being '' roared at'' .You just dont get ot or choose not to.
There is none so deaf as he who will not listen nor so blind as he who will not see.
I never suggested that the Hezbollah were headquartered in Gaza , But if you don't believe that there are Hezbollah elements among the Palestinian community in Gaza you are blind and deaf beyond help.
Now why do I suspect that you've interviewed 70% of Gazans in your diligent researches ? Why Do I suspect that ?

I do have a solution for you however . You could write your own article ab initio and keep adding to it every hour or so .
I suspect this may fill the massive void in your psyche .

by me Thu Mar 25, 2010 00:39

I already gave you my comments on your ridiculously absurd hypothetical situation, pointing out why it is ridiculously absurd and impractical, and probably even both Hezbollah and Hamas recognise that. Without the logistical framework I mentioned, 'the bomb' would be 'more of a hindrance than a help'

The fact that it's not the 'yes/no' answer which you appear to be very petulantly demanding is just very unfortunate for you, but nonetheless those just happen to be my thoughts on the subject. If you find that they don't meet your exacting standards of one-word brevity, well that's just tough, ain't it?

I never suggested that the Hezbollah were headquartered in Gaza

While it is true that you never actually used the word 'headquartered' you certainly appear to be implying that Hezbollah are a major force, with a powerbase, in Gaza. In fact your very next sentence more or less confirms this

"if you don't believe that there are Hezbollah elements among the Palestinian community in Gaza . . . . blah, blah, bah."

and your proof/source for this would be . . .? (You really are treating yourself to quite a bizarre little tantrum, aren't you - were you stamping your feet as you typed that?)

Unless you are going to now make the claim that your use of the word 'elements' refers to only one or two liaison-type individuals, you most definitely are making the hitherto unheard of claim that Hezbollah are a force to be reckoned with in Gaza

You do realise that you are probably the only person on the planet making this preposterous claim, don't you?

Even the Israelis have not made any ridiculous claims of this nature - probably because they rightly realise that they would be laughed at were they to do so, something you appear not to have realised as yet.

Now why do I suspect that you've interviewed 70% of Gazans in your diligent researches ? Why Do I suspect that ?

I truly have no idea why you would have any such bizarre suspicions like that. Honest . . .

Let me keep this real simple for ya:

YOU are the one making, what any level-headed person, with even the most rudimentary knowledge of the situation, would immediately recognise as, a preposterous claim, not me.

I don't have to provide any 'proof' that your claim is preposterous, since it so very evidently is so.

Not even the Israelis, posssibly the finest spinners of preposterous claims on the planet, have made claims that Hezbollah are a force to be reckoned with within Gaza itself.

Given that it is YOU who have made a preposterous claim, and despite your ridiculous demands and petulantly puerile posturing, it is YOU who would have to provide some reliable proof to confirm that your preposterous claim is anything other than preposterous

I do have a solution for you however . You could write your own article ab initio and keep adding to it every hour or so .
I suspect this may fill the massive void in your psyche .

Wow - you couldn't appear any more ridiculous if you tried. Throwing in a couple of words of school boy Latin doesn't do anything to help make you appears less ridiculous

by donkylemore Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:57

To Me

( I use upper case letters with your author name - does that hurt or should I use the meeker lower case lettering ? ME or me ?- I think the more aggrandized ME befits the hubris of the persona- but I'll change it if you wish -Its really no bother . I'm big like that .

you could have saved your self a lot of your hard work by quoting one line of mine ;

'''But in its absurdity it might serve as an analogue for Israeli hegemony.
If you don't get it I can't help you.''

But no . You just prattle on regardless.
Petulance , hubris , didactic self preening .... too much for me I'm afraid
Really, I think Cicero sums it up nicely and perhaps he should have the last epithet
- de gustibus non est disputantem

But I'm going to finish with the Roman Dictum
Roma Loquitor ; Causa Fineta est.

by me Thu Mar 25, 2010 16:35

Its really no bother . I'm big like that .

You're like the Israelis: they too thought that being big, in their case militarily, they'd kick Hezbollah's ass good and proper, but Nasrallah thought them that size isn't everything, it's what you do with it that counts , . . . . big-boy ;-)