Who’s afraid of autonomy?
Op-ed: New Mideast only has room for one state for Jews, another state plus autonomy for Palestinians
Elyakim Haetzni, YNET
The political map of the Middle East was drawn shortly after World War One and following 400 years of Ottoman rule. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and “Palestine” – the Land of Israel – were established out of nothing as “mandates” – territories that were administered on behalf of the League of Nations for the benefit of the local Arabs and to secure the establishment of the “national home of the Jewish nation.” This home stretched to the Iraqi border, from both banks of the Jordan River. Within these territories the world powers only recognized ethnic groups (apart from the Jewish nation) and secured their religious and civil rights. The south-Syria ethnic groups had no idea they were the “nation” known as “Palestinian.” Only when their king, Faisal, was expelled from Syria by the French and the Mandate for Palestine was established in the Land of Israel did they reinvent themselves as a “Palestinian nation” that has a right to a national home of its own.
The Palestinians substantiated this new identity with riots and pogroms that continue to this day. Way back in 1922, when the Mandate for Palestine was approved, the British tried to calm them down by dividing the land. About 3/4 of Palestine, the entire area east of the Jordan River – was handed to them, but to no avail. In the remaining area, west of the Jordan River, the attacks persisted. The lands east of the river were placed under the rule of Emir Abdullah, who would later turn them into the “Jordanian” – not “Palestinian” – kingdom, although Arabs also consider Jordan to be “Palestine,” and 70% of the kingdom’s inhabitants are Palestinians. So the British Mandate was actually revised for the benefit of another nation, the Palestinian nation, which received most of the territory.
Seemingly, this was the realization of the “two states for two peoples” vision, but the new nation demanded two countries – “Jordan” in the east and Palestine in the west – so far only in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
The new Middle East that was shaped during the 1920s is crumbling before our eyes. In Iraq, Syria and Lebanon the Sunnis, Shiites, Druze and Alawis are going their separate ways. And where will the Palestinians go? Two possible scenarios concern the Hashemite Kingdom: 1) After the Palestinian state in the West Bank gets the Jordan Valley it will ‘swallow’ Jordan, and this will be seen as a natural and legitimate unification of the Palestinian people. 2) The Palestinian majority in Jordan will revolt and cross the Jordan River from the opposite direction. The result of both scenarios will be the same.
But they would still be faced with a problem, because there is a Jewish country in this area, and as far as it is concerned, one Palestinian state is enough. Judea and Samaria are stuck between this state (which is the same state regardless of whether it will be called “Jordan” or “Palestine”) and the Jewish state in the west. Seemingly, this territory should be a part of Israel, as it is included in the one-fourth that was left for the Jewish people, who also have a historical right to the land. However, despite the settlement enterprise, thanks to which about a third of all of Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem’s residents are Jewish – the vast majority of Judea and Samaria’s residents are Palestinian.
The necessary compromise is autonomy: Israel will extend its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, and the Knesset will enact a law granting autonomy to Arabs living in areas A and B. The residents will vote once for their “local regime” and a second time in the state located to the east, which they will be citizens of. Meaning, the West Bank Arabs will be citizens of Palestine and residents of an Israeli autonomy. According to the UN’s Partition Plan for Palestine, the Arab residents of the Hebrew state would be allowed to obtain citizenship in the neighboring state and vote there. Even the Oslo agreement, which the Left is so proud of, calls for autonomy: Security, foreign relations, infrastructure, water, airspace, border crossings and the basic economic structure all remain under Israel’s control.
In the new Middle East there is room for one state for the Jews and a state plus autonomy for the Palestinians. Nothing more.
@ the phoenix:
the phoenix Said:
And i love compliments!
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Though it is the other side of the same coin, I agree with you. I certainly do not have the patience and/or inclination to ‘dwellerize’ this guy.
After two three rounds, it is not too difficult to realize that he’s a ‘Johnny one note’.
Comments “to” him should be made more for the sake of the others who comment here. I ALWAYS pick a few good nuggets of information that I didn’t know before (and usually it comes from the ‘usual suspects’…. 🙂 )
Btw, I LOVE your clever play on words.
@ the phoenix:
Kalimera phoenix!
the phoenix Said:
It’s fixation with you, the Jews, not with the Palis. Nobody really cares for the Palestinians, as the fact that the so-called refugees are being held in bad conditions in camps in order to be used as a poster for purported Israeli oppression.
In many cases the driving force is anti-Semitism. But in many other cases there is another obnoxious motive for this concentration of attention on Israel and the disregard of worldwide suffering that cannot be blamed on Israel. I greatly recommend the following:
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/08/08/from-the-archives-dr-jacobs-argument-on-msm-coverage-of-human-rights-abuses/
It addresses the question you posed. In a nutshell:
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Kalimera dionissis!
Should we hold our breath and wait for an honest reply to the simple question ‘ with soooo many true atrocities around the world (btw, almost ALL caused by musloids),
WHY this fixation with these invented people?’…
Naaah! It ain’t gonna happen…
🙂
My response to dweller’s comment # 30 in moderation.
@ dweller:
dweller Said:
Dweller, as you said, the theological beliefs are not necessarily the true explanation of the moral sadism that Curious American evinces in alluding to analogies of Jews with Nazis, but i think they are the best explanation, considering the past Christian animus against Jews.
But this is not as important as the fact that such moral sadism is present in Curious American: Nazi analogies constitute a blatant proof of such a psychological disposition.
Even misinformed about facts, no one would make the Nazi comparison against Jews – not if she does not derive some sort of glee from ethically downsizing Jews. It’s just too indecent to lump together Jews with Nazis for us to dismiss it as a factual ignorance that can be remedied with more facts.
And i think that this becomes obvious in his evading to answer the points that you make: he is not interested in facts (otherwise he would be acknowledging them), but in pretexts for degrading Jews.
And here is my take of the situation: unless you spot it to him, i can see no way he will come to an understanding of his inner motivations. I think that he misinterprets your gentle approach to be a moral exculpation of him, a license to keep on the Jew-bashing.
Of course, i have come to greatly respect your powers of psychological analysis of individuals, and i admit that, once again (and i refer to my error with Von Shark), your approach might be the correct one. But i am very sceptical in this instance.
My response to Curious American’s comment # 40 awaiting moderation.
@ CuriousAmerican:
CuriousAmerican Said:
Well, the one you chose to respond was definitely not an attack, it was a joke, and i wasn’t even talking to you, i was laughing it out with Yamit – at your expense, to be sure, but only because your comments are worthy of derision, not because i feel any need to “attack” you.
But feel free to consider all my other psychological profiling of you an ad hominem “attack”.
Truth hurts, you can stay in denial for as long as you wish. It can’t be easy to think of yourself as compassionate and, yet, to own up to evincing such malice as to pursue anti-Semitic moral equivalences of Jews with Nazis.
CuriousAmerican Said:
This, coming from you, who never brought a counterargument against my replies to you, on any of my past replies on your comments, is the definition of “cheap shot”.
But it’s also typical of your unbelievable intellectual dishonesty: just in this thread, in comment #37, i showed you how irrelevant your comment was: you diverted the discussion from Yamit’s alleged (by you) moral equivalence with terrorist children-murderers to a settler’s moral equivalence, as if the settler’s misdeeds could prove your point about Yamit – they can’t. sweetheart, try to inject some rationality in your blind Jew-hatred.
I didn’t see you responding to this “attack” of mine.
As you did not respond when, again in comment #37, i pointed out that murder with malicious intent is morally different from manslaughter due to negligence. And that, consequently, you were putting forth an inaccurate analogy (that of Arab terrorists with a settler who, according to the evidence you quoted, was not intending to kill).
Such logical blunders are so childish that are explicable only in terms of a heavy passion (read: your anti-Semitism) that inhibits your faculties of reasoning.
I also responded in comment #29 about your inane claim that Yamit’s labeling of terrorists as maggots somehow diminishes his moral status: i pointed out to you that the agent’s moral status has nothing to fear if she uses harsh language, provided that she is truthful. The fact that you missed this obvious truth is a sign that all you cared about was to bring a point against Yamit, no matter how irrational your point would be.
And, of course, you did not respond to the broader obvious philosophical point i made in response to you in comment #28, when i explained that there is no such thing as an a priori moral equivalence of all individuals, and that it is a moral truth that individuals can be morally superior to others depending on their actions.
So, who is the one evading the other’s arguments? You or me?
And who is the one whose arguments have “failed”?
@ CuriousAmerican:
CuriousAmerican Said:
I must have hit a nerve, considering that you never reply to any arguments that i have brought against you – and i mean never, from all the times i have replied to you in this fgorum this is the first time you ever responded.
For the record, i imagine you with shorter hair than Dr Strangelove’s in Yamit’s video.
Ad Hominem attacks.
Used when arguments fail.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Once again, my comment to you is in moderation, so hang in there american, hopefully Ted will release it soon.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Just two more things american, and then I’m done with you.
1.you bring a link to a piece of crap from the ‘al-guardian’ …and THIS is your little claim to fame, you lousy little antisemite!
To quote from that garbage first,
Did you catch the drift you bastard antisemite?
“To hunt”?..,,and that of course is ‘fair and balanced reporting…(spit!)
Next.
The group of ‘children’ (ooooh, pooowah wittle babies…they are sooooo. Cute!) WERE PELTING JEWISH CARS WITH STONES!!
A father and his daughter were lucky to escape alive …
“Silwan man who stoned Jewish vehicle gets 4 years
Judge says Mohammad Taha and accomplices ‘ruthlessly, mercilessly’ attacked father and daughter who entered village by mistake”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4167597,00.html
In another similar such attack, (itamar) another father and his baby daughter were not so lucky as they were killed by these MAGOTS, these KKKORANIMALS that you so shamelessly defend.
So once again, you and your friggin moral equivalence….
You bastard!
Stones thrown on a vehicle were homicidal, and following such an act….all bets are off!
So that was item #1.
Item #2, american, I am retrieving from yamit’ s reply…
Here it goes:
SO!
do not weasel out. Answer the question, you hypocrite antisemite!
@ CuriousAmerican:
CuriousAmerican Said:
Why do i have to call the Jewish settler anything?
I responded to a point you made about Yamit’s not being morally superior to the terrorists. And i said that he is obviously morally superior to them because, among other things, he does not target children – though i know you would love it if he did, since it would give you the pretext to engage in your usual moral mawkishness in accentuated intensity.
You could have cited as many settler murders as you wished, and, still, your point would be irrelevant to Yamit.
Well, not that irrelevant to your mind after all: Yamit is a Jew, the cited settler is a Jew, so actually you are going for guilt by association, a guilt that you seem willing to cast upon all Jews, and this became evident in the way you switched from Yamit to the Israeli (read Jewish) public in your remark below:
CuriousAmerican Said:
Since morose delectation has once again got the best of you, let me reply about Jews: I morally condemn anyone who kills children intentionally, be it Greeks or Jews or Arabs or Curious Americans.
But in your rush to find something to say against Jews, you just offered the example of a Jew who killed because of negligence, as your highlighted quote says – i hope you didn’t expect me to read the whole article of that anti-Semitic rag named “Guardian”.
Surely, you understand that a proper moral equivalence between Arabs and Jews requires to bring examples of intentional killings of children by Jews, don’t you?
That preoccupation of yours with Jewish morality!
If i were you i wouldn’t be shooting stuff that makes me so selectively malicious – don’t you feel the queasiness sometimes?
@ CuriousAmerican:
No. Far more correct to say that some of present day Arab terrorism is typically ‘excused’ as purportedly having been learned from what the Arabs saw in Jewish actions.
The truth is, the Arabs had nothing to learn from the Jews in the way of terrorism.
It’s been a standard part of Arab culture since time-out-of-mind.
It’s been the Jews who had to learn violence.
The chief difference is that, at least as to the War of Independence, the Arabs were less well organized, and often found themselves competing among themselves for resources & war materiel.
Beyond that, the primary difference was that the Arabs’ terrorism was S.O.P., and altogether deliberate, and never questioned.
My comment to yamit is in moderation.
@ yamit82:
Yamit, i swear, in the video you posted Dr Strangelove has exactly the face i have visualized for Curious American!
So what do you call this Jewish Settler then:
Everybody remembers the disgusting murder of Shalhevet Pass; but a few days later an Arab girl was killed in retaliation.
I admit the Arabs are more bloodthirsty; but do not think this is not found among Israelis.
@ CuriousAmerican:
CuriousAmerican Said:
If you have, then you did so because you were looking for your virtue fix.
You are a junkie Curious American, you are in a constant need to show that you are morally superior, that you are the good-hearted Christian that loves everyone, and that the others are deficient in the compassion department.
So, whichever blog you go, you need to find an opponent to ethically belittle by showing yourself to be more loving.
Trouble is, when they don’t appreciate your syrupy extravagance you can’t get high and, so, you start hating them.
At that moment, i would bet you alternate between feeling guilty and acerbic.
What a plight to be such a Christian!!!
It must feel like cruciFIXion.
@ yamit82:
The true nature of this antisemite, did not escape me , nor did the fact that what I quoted above,…had ‘folk’ added ….(in spite of being addressed to the phoenix)
Am I being overly sensitive?
🙂
@ yamit82:
You are conflating 2 different propositions:
A. The one which asserts that Jews as unreflective individuals are no better than other unreflective persons.
B. The one which asserts that Jews as a people are no better than their enemies who target them as a people.
I think Curio specifically opts for A, not B.
I grant you that his readiness to judge a few isolated incidents of the Underground killing Arab noncombatants as equivalent to the accepted terrorist behavior of Arabs is quite DISTURBING
— but I believe it’s grounded in ignorance more than malice, an ignorance that needs to be rectified with pertinent facts (and there are a torrent of them available).
But in any case, I remain unconvinced that this ignorance is ‘theologically’ based.
You simply cannot assume that because 2 phenomena exist side-by-side, that the one must be the ’cause’ of the other; that does not necessarily follow.
Syllogistic reasoning is the stuff of which demagoguerie is made.
So, you think that if I subscribe to the above 3 lines, that I also must sign on to option B ?
You’re snorting the wrong white powder, boychik; that Dutch Cleanser stuff will short out your synapses for sure.
@ CuriousAmerican:
CuriousAmerican Said:
Of course he is morally superior to the Palestinian terrorists who target children.
And the term “maggots” he used is perfectly ok to describe such terrorists.
The language used to describe people might be harsh, but, if it corresponds to reality, if it is truthful, it does not detract anything from the speaker’s moral status.
CuriousAmerican Said:
“Stupidity”!!!
And it clearly refers to Yamit.
Now, look who’s talking about language!
But i get it, a little bit of occasional righteous indignation must be indispensable for the role of the good Christian.
@ CuriousAmerican:
CuriousAmerican Said:
Oh my God!
Post modern Christian ethical relativism!
Just for the sake of young people who might read this thread, let me add that a serial pedophile, who is also a thief and a murderer, is morally inferior to someone who doesn’t do such things.
Are you sure your real name is not Judith Butler?
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Like this?
@ CuriousAmerican:
Still relying on Wikipedia, I see. (Lazy, dude.)
It is yourself, Curio, not I, who keeps bringing up the King David affair, apparently to establish your bona fides in re terrorism; I’m afraid you’ll have to do better.
There was a series of tit-for-tat activities at that juncture. Targeting civilians was thoroughly in character for the Arabs. It wasn’t in character for the Irgun.
Only if you can establish it as part of a general modus operandi. Isolated incidents do not bespeak a pattern.
— Otherwise you could characterize Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc, as ‘terrorism.’ (I don’t.)
What part of what I wrote in the post you responded to [here, repeated] do you not understand? —
“There’s nothing quite so sanctimonious as presuming to equate those for whom [the targeting, or permitted killing, of civilians] is very obviously an ABERRATION… with those for whom [the same] is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE…”
“There are some who say this was Irgun provoking the war into overdrive.”
“Some”? — be so good as to identify some of the “some” (so we’ll at least find ourselves on the same page).
“Prior to this”? — Look at the date, Curio: “Dec 30, 1947” — scarcely one month after the passage of the Partition Resolution [UNGA 181].
“Some riots”? — You think it all began quite spontaneously? just a few bruised feelings that got out of hand?
Said the Palestine Arab Higher Committee (AHC) spokesman, Jamal al-Husseini (cousin, deputy & confidant to its President & driving force, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini), on 24 Nov 1947
— five days before the scheduled vote on the measure:
“The partition line proposed shall be nothing but a line of fire and blood,” subsequently writing to UN Secty-General Trygve Lie, that “the Arabs of Palestine…will never submit or yield to any Power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman, and child.”
He would later admit, as well, to the Security Council [16 Apr 1948, 5 mos into the fighting]:
“The representatives of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world we were going to fight.” [Trygve Lie, In the Cause of Peace: Seven Years With the United Nations (Macmillan, NY, 1954), p. 165]
The very notion of their acceding to a Jewish presence in any but the Jews’ traditionally Islamic role of dhimmi — subjugated & disenfranchised under the ‘protection’ of Muslims — was a proposition utterly impossible of contemplation to them. “We would rather die,” the Mufti had flatly stated.
They got their wish.
A pity that the Mufti himself didn’t get to share their fate.
What arrogance!
Societies may be better; individuals are not. No one is superior.
You are no morally superior to anti-semites with language like that.
On other boards, I have defended Jews from people who considered Jews maggots; but rarely do anti-semites talk as insanely as you do. They confine themselves to hate and lies; and usually do not include stupidity.
You are as vicious as they are; but far more delusional.
They had a context, too. They were defending Palestine, to their mind.
I am not saying the Palestinians are morally equivalent. But they are functionally equivalent.
Both sides killed civilians.
Oh! C’mon, Yamit. We were bombing Nazis! If we had not bombed Dresden, or Berlin, or Munich, etc. you would accuse us Americans of even more imaginary anti-semitism.
For ex: The A-bomb was developed in order to fight the Nazis. Y’know, the guys you accuse us of not doing enough to fight.
Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.
Catholicism is NOT satanism. It is corrupted religion. Corrupted by priests, just as Judaism is corrupted by the rabbis. Protestantism is corrupted by ministers.
All religions are corrupt.
I am in favor of God, not clerics.
Are you insane?! Stealing souls?!
You are truly a bigoted, narrow minded, insane lunatic; no better than many of the mullahs.
@ dweller:
dweller Said:
It’s because you missed that one, dweller:
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/52018/comment-page-1#comments
I think he doesn’t realize it himself either, it’s an unconscious thing that can’t help coming up now and then.
@ the phoenix:
My comment on Curious is in moderation and if Ted sees fit to post it read the last part because it applies to dweller as well.
@ the phoenix:
I have asked a few times of CA why he cares specifically about the Pali maggots and not hundreds of other more deserving ethnic groups around the world. He has never replied directly to my question but I submit he is being deviously less than honest with you folk.
CA is a Christian Missionary with a strong mission connection to South America. S America is strongly Catholic which for him is the same a satanism and it’s not all that easy or simple for christian cultists who are not Catholic to make serious inroads in the Southern continent but they seem to have had some success with Arab immigrants once they get their grimy hands on them in Latin America because in such an alien society for these Arab Muslims they are open to bribes and coercion. CA sees a large Pali immigration to S. America as fertile fodder for his vulturous minions and believe they would have a high success rate in stealing the Muslim Arabs souls. They want us to do the dirty work they can’t and pay for it as well.
CA is a Jew hater who creates moral equivalence always out of historical context to justify and whitewash christian crimes against Jews just like those who bash Israel as Nazis. He never goes that far but it is not far from his constant attempts to draw moral equivalence between the victim and the victimizer. He is always searching for such examples and when he believes he has found some presents them always with out any context and from sources not exactly objective sources.
Nobody ever claimed Jews never killed civilians, we did but in what context were they killed and what were the numbers? The examples he cites are so few that murders in Chicago put them to shame and nobody claims the killing and murders in Chicago are acts of terrorism and the victims are all civilians there. When the Americans firebombed Dresden, and Tokyo killing hundreds of thousands of civilians nobody claimed those acts as terrorism or the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan as acts of terrorism, and I hardly need mention the A bombs on Japan killing hundreds of thousands, except maybe the victims.
CA searches to find possibly several dozens of Arab civilian killed by Jewish underground militants. He thus justifies himself in his antisemetic mind that Jews are no better than our enemies. he has to do that to justfy his christian theological beliefs:
This is what he believes and is the underpinning of his rejection as Jews being any different or morally and ethically superior to the gentiles:
“As it is written, there is none righteous; no, not one.” (Romans 3:10)
“Wherefore, as Sin came into the World through one man [Adam], and Death through Sin; and so Death spread to all men because all men sinned [through Adam].” (Romans 5:12);
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22)
@ CuriousAmerican:
You are BEYOND despicable, american!
dweller has given you a very generous benefit of the doubt, by point out that
In three separate posts, he is pointing out how wrong you are, and WHY .
This last post was totally over the top.
When thousands and thousands of our brethren were killed by the kkkoranimals, screaming ‘yitbach alyahood’ (and THAT is what bloodthirsty means, american!),and now you come with your four little despicable typical ‘curious american’ type of antisemitic garbage ….’ See? The Jews also, did this….’
Like I said in each of my comments to you…read the last line of the post…
I think you still don’t get it, american!
Truly awful, but it as not the Arab-Jewish war starting in 1947.
My point remains. I am not the only one to notice the Dec 30, 1947 Irgun attack on civilians
as a, if not THE, critical juncture beyond which war was inevitable. There were killings before, but the Haifa attack turned the battle into overdrive.
Again, I am not including the bombing of King David Hotel which was a guerrilla action; but the Irgun and Lehi were active in the 1930s also.
There was Jewish terrorism. And I am not including the King David Action which was a guerrilla action against a military target. Jewish groups were taking actions against civilians.
I know the Arabs were bad; but terrorism against civilians was NOT uniquely Arab nor British.
The sad fact is that Jews also used terrorism. In fact, sadly, some of present day Arab terrorism was learned from what the Arabs saw in Jewish actions. The chief difference is that Arabs are not as competent in their violence.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Have you heard of the 1929 Hebron massacre, American?
I do NOT consider the King David Bombing terrorism since it was aimed at a military target.
However the Dec 30, 1947 grenade attacks on the Arab workers in Haifa.
The Irgun struck first … AT CIVILIANS.
The Arabs overreacted …. AGAINST CIVILIANS.
Prior to this the Arab-Jewish war was mostly weak and confined to a some riots.
There are some who say this was Irgun provoking the war into overdrive.
This was terrorism.
@ CuriousAmerican:
my comment is in moderation.
CuriousAmerican Said:
🙂
hi! i am from the government and i am here to help you….
well, finally we agree on something, but not for the same reasons.
you are familiar i am sure with the pact of umar…which in itself and because of it, there should be retribution for 1400+ years of stealing, robbing humiliating and getting credit for what was never theirs, would be an immediate and obvious reason to humiliate the bastards, and put a very heavy boot to their neck.
but it is for security reasons, american, that i am advocating, what you call ‘a blood thirsty’ approach.
you see, these savages are laughing and truly enjoying when they are hurting you (9/11… american? dancing in the streets and giving out candy?….you understand what i’m saying, american?)and are howling when they are hurt…
when we turn the tables around, and use TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENTS to any and ALL musloids…
AND WHEN THEY KNOW THAT WE MEAN BUSINESS…do you really think that there will be any intifadas?
even with their subhuman i.q. it should not take them long to realize that when neighbourhood after neighbourhood gets evaporated, they would not dare look at fire let alone play with it…
what you did in your civil war is your business .
what, hopefully israel will be doing with its 5th column and the enemy outside(unfortunately, not likely…) is israel’s business .
you ARE aware of all the treasures looted from the jews in diaspora by the ‘enlightened europeans’ (spit!)…
you ARE aware of all the countless billios and trillions of realestate, businesses, moneys stolen by these accursed musloids and the ETHNIC CLEANSING of close to 800,000 jews that were living for hundreds of years in irak, yemen, egypt etc…
what reparations were done for THESE jews? (zero)
a few token pennies by the new nazi government of germany?
and now YOU come to suggest that on top of it all, ISRAEL SHOULD PAY???
i would recommend you reread the last line of my previous post.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Regrettably, that is the only kind of defeat the other side takes — indeed, has EVER taken — seriously.
Sure, it could be bloodlust you’re seeing.
OTOH, it could merely represent the conclusion of sad, undeniable experience — and long, long memory.
You cannot make the assumption that merely because one seeks to see the enemy “beaten, broken, and humiliated”
— that this necessary presumes one’s natural inclination.
For all YOU know, it might be a view adopted quite contrary to — in fact, altogether in spite of — his/her fundamental outlook.
For all YOU know, it might be a view grimly arrived at — and only in sorrow, exasperation, and regret for its necessity.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Sanctimony is about perspective, Curio.
There’s nothing quite so sanctimonious as presuming to equate those for whom terrorism is very obviously an ABERRATION (“Man Bites Dog!”)
— with those for whom terrorism is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (“Dog Bites Man!”)
Hamas & Fatah — both of them, products of Arab culture (and especially in that culture’s intersection with the Religion of Peace) — have each been, from Day One, unabashedly, insouciantly, terrorist.
In the ’47-’49 War of Independence, neither Lehi nor Irgun was truly terrorist, though Lehi — owing perhaps to its perspective — was somewhat less fastidious about it.
As a matter of sheer perspective, however :
Can you imagine Hamas or Fatah giving advance warning to civilians of their intent to assault a military installation so as to permit escape on the part of those who wished it?
The idea is absurd, ludicrous, bizarre.
And why? — because such a policy would be so thoroughly out of character for either of them.
— Yet it was STANDARD for the Irgun after Begin took over its leadership. He insisted on it.
Did innocent Arab noncombatants STILL get killed? — Damned right they did; because Arab terrorists KNEW of his policy and they exploited it.
But even before Begin became the Etzel Commander [late ’43], the debate over whether to retaliate in kind (after Arab outrages to Jewish civilians) — and not only as a matter of expediency but also as to the undergirding morality of it — was a STAPLE of discourse throughout the Hebrew underground; and had been for DECADES prior.
As a matter of sheer perspective:
Can you imagine such discussions among Hamas OR Fatah over the morality of targeting Jewish civilians? — or the morality of RISKING harm to Jewish civilians? — Come on, get real.
As a matter of sheer perspective:
Can you imagine such a thing — can you CONCEIVE of such a thing — as Fatah or Hamas killing innocent Jewish civilians by accident? — ROFLMAO.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Unlike some here, I’ve never thought you malicious, Curio, but I did notice quite some time ago that you think like a Westerner — and that makes you myopic in this matter.
Remember, Pali society is not civically organized, like the West — but tribalistic. Everybody’s related to everybody else (and intermarraige continues apace). You can’t just remove an individual & his nuclear family; the terror outfits will go after his cousins & other kin, etc.
— How much of a given individual’s extended family will you have to buy out at the same time to prevent familial reprisals against the person who takes the offer? And at what point will such protection of an individual’s distant relatives amount to empowerment of the distant relatives of the terrorists, etc?
It simply will not do to keep your head in the box created by acclimation to a civically oriented Western milieu.
I don’t think we’re in Kansas any more, Toto.
Well, they certainly can’t if they’re all permanently horizontal at constant room temperature. (Hence, “liquidated.”)
— Think THAT makes me ‘bloodthirsty’ too? Think what you like.
It takes more than your second statement above to make your first one conclusive. Innocent civilians have always ended up getting killed in war. But it takes a little something more than that simple fact to make the killing constitute terrorism.
The REAL question here is:
Does “Man Bites Dog!”
— equal “Dog Bites Man!”…?
But I’ll get to that, shortly.
Terrorism consists of the deliberate practice of targeting civilians for death — or of deliberately making no distinction between civilians & combatants as targets for death — and for the express purpose of pressuring those civilians’ govt (or their ngo representatives) into otherwise unlikely political action (or OUT of otherwise intended political action).
If any ONE of these elements is absent, it’s not terrorism. It may be regrettable, and (depending on circumstances) possibly even reprehensible — but whatever else it may be, it’s not terrorism.
Sure, the Brits (and the BBC) indiscriminately characterized each-&-every postWW2 anticolonial insurgency they had to deal with as “terrorism.” (And so doing, they effectively destroyed the meaning of the word.) And NOW — by way of reaction — the Brits (and the BBC) just as promiscuously REFUSE to designate any insurgency as terrorist.
But that only goes to show that they still haven’t learned their lesson.
The very fact that I suggest a buyout is proof that I appreciate your concerns.
You seem to be upset that I want to do it with a minimum of pain to both sides. The very fact that such a voluntary buyout would remove them – and the existential threat – from Israel does not please you? Is it not enough that I suggest ending the existential threat by buyout?
It is not enough for you that they GO, you want to humiliate them before they GO.
You seem to want violence.
Now, you know why I use “bloodthirsty.”
As for enfranchisement, you either have to pay them to go; or enfranchise them. That is fact. The present situation is not sustainable. Yoram Ettinger, who favors ennexation, also allows for enfranchisement, since he thinks their numbers are lower than officially stated. But you cannot keep them away from the vote unless you buy them out.
I would suggest a buyout as the preferable option.
If I was defending the “musloids” as you call them – and doesn’t your term suggest an arrogance on your part – I would not be suggesting a buyout; but I do suggest a buyout.
It seem to be not enough for you that Israel wins. You want the other side beaten, broken, and humiliated.
Hence my use of “bloodthirsty.”
Here is a clue:
Right before the American Civil War, the issue was state’s rights; but the only state right argued over was the right to own slaves, so the issue was really slavery. Some people suggested buying the slaves from their owners and setting them free, while forbidding new slaves.
No! Said the abolitionists. Slavery was evil. It should be ended by fiat. No one should be re-imbursed for owning human beings.
So we Americans went in to a Civl War. And the war cost more in money than the cost would have been to free the slaves; not to mention the loss in lives.
It might be cheaper to buy the Judean and Samarian Arabs out rather than go to war.
Use your head. Stop being a doctrinare “Kahanist” with your “THEY MUST OO!”
Even Kahane entertained the idea of a buyout.
Don’t be more Kahanist than Kahane.
That is why I use the term, “bloodthirsty.”
@ CuriousAmerican:
Look american, I have no intentions to start a LOOONG philosophical nitpicking discussion on this subject .
You call me (and others that share the same view) “blood thirsty”. Hey! Whatever floats your boat….
Understand this, though, american, I am not offended by this little remark of yours. I believe in dealing with things in the order of their priority.
First priority is the existential threat. This would include each and every one of the musloids whom you come so quickly and with a clock like predictability to their defense and pointing out in the most hypocritical and cowardly way “…..well no, you see, there is a complete equivalence here, since the Jews were doing the same thing…” (Not!)
And the way that it must be dealt with, is in a way that they will have no second chance to get up and fight again.
For their own good, THEY MUST GO! (That applies to those inside the land of Israel, which as of now it is still missing thousands of square miles to achieve its proper and rightful borders)
The enemies outside must meet their 72 virgins…
Never again should there be an equivalent of the surrounded Egyptian third army, let free by enlightened bleeding hearts bending Israel’s arm!!
A much lesser priority, that should be dealt with, nonetheless, are people like you, american.
Yes. You and your ilk, that pretend to have such high moral standards, to be preaching to the Jews ( not too subtle demonstrations of Jew-hate, pure and simple)
So yes, a time will come for retributions, but that time is not now.
Till then, foxtrot yankee, American!
Do you mean:
A) Why is ethnic cleansing not contrary to popular opinion here?
or
B) Why is it not an option?
The answer to
A) Ans: Cause the crew here seems bloodthirsty
B) Ans: Because it is bloodthirsty.
You buy them out piecemeal. One by one. IN SECRET and then send them out the same day. How can Hamas or Fatah prevent that?
If you offer to buy out Arabs on an individual basis, the terror groups cannot prevent it, if you fly them out when the sale is made.
=================
BTW: Irgun and Lehi were terrorist groups; and yes, they killed innocent civiiians.
So even though the Arabs are terrorists, sanctimony is not in order.
I am not talking about King David, either since that was a military target.
On 1947, December 30, Irgun threw grenades killing 6 Arab workers and wounding 42 others.
Lehi killed 40 civilians in a train bombing
@ CuriousAmerican:
And…why would that be so…american?
@ CuriousAmerican:
This is one of many times that you’ve made the suggestion. I’m still awaiting your response to numerous previous attempts at followup.
The following is taken verbatim [post #29] from a recent thread whose posting period will expire shortly:
You make this same proposal every time the subject arises, Curio.
But despite having been called on it several times, you’ve yet to respond by way of any followup that I’m aware of.
No sovereign country is obligated to offer BLANKET citizenship to everybody who comes within its governmental purview if this will endanger its existing populace.
OTOH, there is no reason it might not place those individuals who were interested on a “citizenship track” — to be considered for enfranchisement, and to be provided the opportunity to establish & demonstrate their readiness for it over a period of, say, 12-15 yrs. Needless to say, there might well be those who’d rankle under the prospect of finding themselves under a magnifying glass for that stretch of time, and would choose therefore not to opt for the proposition. Others would likely object to the very idea of becoming citizens of a country that explicitly & constitutionally declared itself to be a Jewish state. But that would be their choice to make.
This is pragmatically unworkable unless — and UNTIL — the terror groups (including the PA itself) are all . . . . liquidated.
— You up for that?
@ NormanF:
Arabic has always been an official language in Israel.
Are you suggesting that should be ended?
Why, specifically?
Another comment spammed, lets see, that make at least 7 today.
@ NormanF:
There is only one way and that is transfer and the longer we wait the more of them will need to be transferred. They will never give up on their hope of driving us out and even if some few resort to violence against us it’s a price I’m not willing to pay that amounts to Russian Roulette with our lives and after 64 years of fighting them why should anyone delude themselves that things will change for the better? The Young Arabs have been thoroughly indoctrinated and are not afraid of us and it will not get better. They will become more proficient like making their own missiles and acquiring other more lethal tools of warfare as time goes by.
Have more respect for our enemies. I wish the Jews were as committed and focused as they are.
@ CuriousAmerican:
I agree with Feiglin on many things but not this. Unless all Arabs including citizens of Israel and Gaza Arabs are included and if only some but not all take the offer we will have accomplished nothing except to enrich some Arabs at our expense. My point was not paying them to leave but to compensate them for legitimate personal assets that can be objectively assessed. Those who refuse will get nothing but a rife butt up his rear. Either way they all go. I would make exceptions only for the elderly beyond reproduction age. Once they die off there won’t be any replacements and are not likely to pose a security threat.
There is a way though and that is to use the revenues of Gaza off shore gas to pay them but it must be an all or nothing deal.
This is the solution offerred by Moishe Feiglin
I get hammered here by Yamit and others for suggesting $125,000 per Arab. Moishe Feiglin wants to offer 4x as much and he is right wing.
Yamit considers me a gutless liberal Arab-lover.
So what is Moishe Feiglin now: A generous, gutless liberal Arab-lover?!
Feiglin is right. In principle. Not amount. I would go with $125,000 per Arab, or $500,000 for a family of four (Not $500,000 per individual).
What you are considering is the solution temporarily offerred by the Republic of Hawaii (1894-98)
Voting was only given to whites and rich Hawaiians, while excluding Asians, and poor whites, and poor Hawaiians. The rest had the status of denizen: NON-Voting citizenship.
However it is not sustainable over time. No one will put up with it.
It is wishful thinking to think that Arabs will be quiesscent in non-voting status.
How will you differentiate between Israeli Arabs and Judean/Samarian Arabs, or will you withdraw the vote from Israeli Arabs?
This is not a solution.
Israel wants Judea and Samaria? Okay. I understand.
Israel does not want to enfranchise the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. Understandable for demographic and security reasons.
So Israel is trying every cockeyed manuver to keep the land without enfranchising the people. 45 years of violence should have taught Israel the futility of this arrangement. Hard decisions will have to be made.
1) Contrary to popular opinion here: ethnic cleansing is NOT an option.
2) Either enfranchise them or pay them to leave.
A commonwealth would be good for the Jews and the Arabs.
There is no need to incorporate formally a people with a different language and culture into Israel. The Arabs can be statutory Israeli citizens but not vote in Knesset elections.
They would have complete self rule, maybe even host foreign consulates but not independence. The choice isn’t between the a Jewish State and a Hamastan. It isn’t an all or nothing dilemma.