Pro- and anti-Israel activists

[moono]

I favour the internationally-accepted Green Line borders. Failing that, one State. You favour Israel keeping territories stolen after partition. You bad, me good. Spin away.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

i think if you go to something with a precribed set of questions you will get a prescribed set of answers.

which of these conclusions did you not have before going into the shop?

or in computing terms shit in shit out...

 

[astronaut]

I favour the internationally-accepted Green Line borders. Failing that, one State. You favour Israel keeping territories stolen after partition. You bad, me good. Spin away.

All or nothing, right? Quite an extreme perspective you have there.

So you would favor giving the Jewish holy sites to the Palestinians?

Would the Jews accept that?

Almos definately not.

Already there is already very considerable, widespread Jewish anger that the Muslims control the Temple Mount, even though it is the #1 Jewish holy site and only the #3 Muslim holy site.

The Green Line will not work in all cases, such as Jerusalem.

If you want the Green Line to work in other cases, then some compromise must be accepted on Jerusalem.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's probably hundreds of millions, or perhaps even a billion people, but without some real numbers, it's a guess.

Either way, "tens of millions" is a lot more than there are Jews/Israelis in the world. If "tens of millions" is "very few in anyone's book", perhaps you should consider how Israelis see their position?

How many of those tens (or hundreds) of millions are in a position to do anything about their "anti Israel" feelings?

I've family in Israel, so I "consider" people in Israel all the time, but that doesn't mean I'll slavishly follow the line of people like you, or indeed of either side.

So if you are opposed to the existence of Israel, why should an Israeli listen to what you have to say?

And you made the leap of imagination required to extrapolate from my point that I "oppose the existence of Israel" how exactly?

I'm perfectly fine with Israel's existence, that doesn't mean I support Zionism or the oppression of Palestinians, that also doesn't mean I prate a mealy-mouthed doctrine that would see the Palestinians (so much more often the Palestinians than the Israelis) having to concede land.

Your extremism is exposing itself.

Really? I think it's more that your extremism (your supposed even-handedness that demands Palestinians concessions, now where have I heard that before) is a lens through which you view the world which has the effect of making you perceive anyone who doesn't agree with you as an "extremist".

Irrelevant twaddle.

It's only "irrelevant twaddle" if you have some form of investment (whether that's financial or emotional) in your Israel being the hegemonic perception, because to actually take on board the idea that not all people see the same thing as you do would threaten your own position.

I think you are making far far far far more out of the edit than it is worth, which is of course an extremist method of debate.

Drop it - there are more important things to consider - such as how your extremism is perceived by people you should be engaging rather than alienating.

Ah, so anyone who doesn't conform to astronauts' ad hoc rules and regulations is an "extremist".
How very...well I'm sure anyone reading this who is slightly less intellectually dishonest than you gets the picture.

 

[astronaut]

which of these conclusions did you not have before going into the shop?

I developed these conclusions over the course of around 20 years.

At different times I have taken different positions.

Now I am quite convinced that my current solution is the fairest.

But I would expect extremists to disagree.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I favour the internationally-accepted Green Line borders. Failing that, one State. You favour Israel keeping territories stolen after partition. You bad, me good. Spin away.

Perhaps the irony of expecting so many more concessions from the weaker "party" than the stronger one doesn't occur to him.

Or perhaps it does and he just doesn't care.

Either way, I don't trust anyone who can be so blithe about depriving people of their homes and livelihoods in the name of "peace", because such actions can't possibly bring peace.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I developed these conclusions over the course of around 20 years.

At different times I have taken different positions.

Now I am quite convinced that my current solution is the fairest.

But I would expect extremists to disagree.

And there we have it again, the "if you don't agree you're an extremist" canard.

Such irony.

 

[astronaut]

How many of those tens (or hundreds) of millions are in a position to do anything about their "anti Israel" feelings?

Well if an Islamic government ever comes to power in countries close to Israel, things might get extremely messy

Egypt has a population of 78 million, most of whom are likely to be opposed to Israel's existence, and a very shaky regime.

Syria has a population of 19 million, and it's regime is also quite shaky recently.

Saudi has a population of 27 million, and it could also collapse.

Think human waves, like in WWI or the Iran-Iraq War.

The concern is not today, at this very moment, but next week, or next year.

I've family in Israel, so I "consider" people in Israel all the time, but that doesn't mean I'll slavishly follow the line of people like you, or indeed of either side.

Why not follow my line? I'm advocating a compromise that could lead to genuine peace, not an extremist POV.

And you made the leap of imagination required to extrapolate from my point that I "oppose the existence of Israel" how exactly?

Your tone.

I'm perfectly fine with Israel's existence, that doesn't mean I support Zionism or the oppression of Palestinians, that also doesn't mean I prate a mealy-mouthed doctrine that would see the Palestinians (so much more often the Palestinians than the Israelis) having to concede land.

Me neither. I think my proposal was for all the settlements to be withdrawn, and for Jerusalem to be internationalized - a third state, so to speak, like the Vatican perhaps - that would require Israel to give up land as well as the Palestinians, in addition to the settlements.

Really? I think it's more that your extremism (your supposed even-handedness that demands Palestinians concessions, now where have I heard that before) is a lens through which you view the world which has the effect of making you perceive anyone who doesn't agree with you as an "extremist".

If you have a fairer solution, one that considers both sides, then I'll adopt it.

So far, I've only seen you engage in bickering and extreme partisanship, so I can't see you coming with a better way.

Ah, so anyone who doesn't conform to astronauts' ad hoc rules and regulations is an "extremist".

That's right, because I'm one of the very few people who have tried to make a compromise that is fair to both sides -- the vast majority of other people have made proposals that are good for the Israelis or good for the Palestinians - I've tried to take both sides into consideration.

How very...well I'm sure anyone reading this who is slightly less intellectually dishonest than you gets the picture.

I would expect an extemist to reject / insult anyone proposal that was not extreme.

 

[astronaut]

Such irony.

Why?

Don't you like non-extreme solutions?

Can you only support a solution that shits on one side or another?

How are you different from a settler or an Islamic fundamentalist?

Does the act of pushing/proposing a non-extreme solution make the pusher/proposer an extremist? Of course it doesn't.

 

[moono]

Your talk of 'non-extreme' solutions is bollox. You even view the internationally-supported legal solution of withdrawal to the Green Line as extreme. You're a Zionist supporter, an expansionist. Quit this false 'mediator' nonsense, you're looking ever more stupid.

The legal route. Justice. There isn't another way. Accept it.

 

[TAE]

Would the withdrawal to the Green Line (and no more incursions) be enough for you Moono ?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well if an Islamic government ever comes to power in countries close to Israel, things might get extremely messy

Egypt has a population of 78 million, most of whom are likely to be opposed to Israel's existence, and a very shaky regime.

Syria has a population of 19 million, and it's regime is also quite shaky recently.

Saudi has a population of 27 million, and it could also collapse.

Think human waves, like in WWI or the Iran-Iraq War.

The concern is not today, at this very moment, but next week, or next year.

Paranoia.

The kind of paranoia that allows Palestinians to be reduced to ciphers, to problems to be dealt with.

You're touting the possibility, however slight, of a problem, as a justification for repression and oppression.

Nice one.

Why not follow my line? I'm advocating a compromise that could lead to genuine peace, not an extremist POV.

Here's why:

Because YOU have plainly stated the narrowness of your own vision, and your contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with you or tow your line.
That's not "compromise", that's absolutism.

Your tone.

In which case you must be tone deaf.

Me neither. I think my proposal was for all the settlements to be withdrawn, and for Jerusalem to be internationalized - a third state, so to speak, like the Vatican perhaps - that would require Israel to give up land as well as the Palestinians, in addition to the settlements.

You originally made a big deal about Palestinians having to make concessions. You allowed as how Israel would have to as well after you were called on your seeming partiality.
Your "proposal isn't new, it's standard "third way" stuff that's been mooted before, and is even fairly well-recieved in most quarters, with the usual fundamental stumbling block: The USA and its' foreign policy interests.

While the USA has any political or financial handle on the government of the state of Israel then the only debate you'll get will be that which is acceptable to those interests, which in turn means the continued oppression and repression of Palestinians, and the hegemony of a narrow set of Zionist objectives.
That's why "extremism" is the game du jour. Because when the only place at the table that rationality gets is "below the salt", then there's nothing to play for.

If you have a fairer solution, one that considers both sides, then I'll adopt it.

So far, I've only seen you engage in bickering and extreme partisanship, so I can't see you coming with a better way.

Again, such irony from one who has refined the single sentence insulting and derogatoy reply to almost an art form.

That's right, because I'm one of the very few people who have tried to make a compromise that is fair to both sides -- the vast majority of other people have made proposals that are good for the Israelis or good for the Palestinians - I've tried to take both sides into consideration.

How very egalitarian of you.
Doesn't mean a thing though, because you're ignoring the elephant in the room.

I would expect an extemist to reject / insult anyone proposal that was not extreme.

Hasn't it occurred to you that people might insult you because you're a crass and narrow-minded fellow wallowing in a vomit-pool of his own self-righteousness?

Thought not.

 

[astronaut]

Paranoia.

The kind of paranoia that allows Palestinians to be reduced to ciphers, to problems to be dealt with.

You're touting the possibility, however slight, of a problem, as a justification for repression and oppression.

Nice one.

Paranoia? So are you saying that we can ignore paranoia? That is extraordinarily short sighted, if yes.

Here's why:

Because YOU have plainly stated the narrowness of your own vision, and your contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with you or tow your line.
That's not "compromise", that's absolutism.

My solution is based on compromise.

The people who are opposing it would like me to make my solution more partisan to one side or another.

Compromising with extremists is like reducing sentences for rape because rapists might have been abused as children.

I would happily change aspects of my solution after balanced consideration, discussion, debate, but not because extremists see my solution as too moderate/fair.

You originally made a big deal about Palestinians having to make concessions. You allowed as how Israel would have to as well after you were called on your seeming partiality.

If I'm talking to pro-Palestinian supporters, I will address the need of the Palestinians to accept some compromise.

If I'm talking to pro-Israel supporters, I will address the need of the Zionists to accept some compromise.

Those questioning my partiality view any compromise as pleasing the "other" side rather than their own - that is what makes them extremists.

Your "proposal isn't new, it's standard "third way" stuff that's been mooted before, and is even fairly well-recieved in most quarters

I agree that is "third way" stuff. So what? I considered it from the different angles and decided that it was the best solution.

That's why "extremism" is the game du jour. Because when the only place at the table that rationality gets is "below the salt", then there's nothing to play for.

This is an extremely dangerous statement - it gives anyone the right to be an extremist, no matter what side they are one.

By this logic, we should all right now go out and buy weapons, and start shooting those who have none.

I would expect an extremist to be partisan, but I didn't take you for an extreme anarchist.

How very egalitarian of you.
Doesn't mean a thing though, because you're ignoring the elephant in the room.

You mean the extremists?

Hasn't it occurred to you that people might insult you because you're a crass and narrow-minded fellow wallowing in a vomit-pool of his own self-righteousness?

Thought not.

Pot, kettle, self-righteous !!!

 

[moono]

TAE;

Would the withdrawal to the Green Line (and no more incursions) be enough for you Moono ?

Well, it would certainly satisfy my sense of fair play. I'd understand that some Palestinians would still resent giving up even that territory, but that's the legal shape of it as far as I'm aware.

 

[invisibleplanet]

You mean the extremists?

He's too embarassed to talk about the Elephant in the Room because he's trying to hide a Camel in the Closet, (and thinks we have't noticed!)

 

[astronaut]

He's too embarassed to talk about the Elephant in the Room because he's trying to hide a Camel in the Closet, (and thinks we have't noticed!)

So what is the elephant in the room?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Paranoia? So are you saying that we can ignore paranoia? That is extraordinarily short sighted, if yes.

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that paranoia shouldn't be the motive force behind political decisions.

My solution is based on compromise.

Your solution is based on promoting your viewpoint as to what "compromise" comprises.

The people who are opposing it would like me to make my solution more partisan to one side or another.

Really, you know that for a fact?
I'd have thought most people just want you to cease your self-righteous wittering.

Compromising with extremists is like reducing sentences for rape because rapists might have been abused as children.

Which has to qualify as one of the most pisspoor and ill-informed analogies I've yet read on Urban.
Let's see if you can work out why.

I would happily change aspects of my solution after balanced consideration, discussion, debate, but not because extremists see my solution as too moderate/fair.

The point is that there won't be balanced consideration, discussion, debate, just the heavy-footed imprimatur of the US state dept.

If I'm talking to pro-Palestinian supporters, I will address the need of the Palestinians to accept some compromise.

If I'm talking to pro-Israel supporters, I will address the need of the Zionists to accept some compromise.

All very laudable, and something that has been done for 30+ years.
Where's it taken Israel/Palestine?

Those questioning my partiality view any compromise as pleasing the "other" side rather than their own - that is what makes them extremists.

Actually, people questioning you aren't necessarily extremists, they're just people who're questioning you.
Your (over)-reaction to any hint of criticism is however quite informative.

I agree that is "third way" stuff. So what? I considered it from the different angles and decided that it was the best solution.

Because "thrid way" politics rarely work. They're not amenable to the political process because if they are indeed "third way" (i.e. neutral, grounded, concerned with power as a means rather than an end) then there is little there for non-centred politics to interact with.
National politics is about getting the best deal for your state entity, and in an ideal world that would and should mean that everyone would enter discussion of the Israel/Palestine situation with an open mind an an open heart. However, we're contending not with "ideal types", but with entities with short, medium and long-term idealogical objectives that are driven by factors external to the problem. Until you analyse and neutralise these problems (which may indeed appear to be concessions to "extremists") then a neutral politics based on "what works" and on altruism won't work.

This is an extremely dangerous statement - it gives anyone the right to be an extremist, no matter what side they are one.

It doesn't "give" anyone anything of the sort.
It acknowledges that if you consistently abrogate the rights of an individual or a group, consistently place them in a position where they have the difference between the value placed on their lives and the lives of their oppressors, then you shouldn't expect them to be willing to participate in what could be their own doom.

I'm continually stunned by Jews who don't see the horrific irony of such acts.

By this logic, we should all right now go out and buy weapons, and start shooting those who have none.

No, by my logic we should acknowledge that what matters are the opinions of those who live in and on the land, Jew and Muslim, not the diktat of the state department.

I would expect an extremist to be partisan, but I didn't take you for an extreme anarchist.

You can take me for whatever you like, you'll probably be (as usual) inaccurate.

You mean the extremists?

No.

Pot, kettle, self-righteous !!!

Hardly.
After all, I'm not the person who expressed their belief in their right to ram their opinion down peoples' throats based on a conviction about how their opinion has more validity than anyone elses.

 

[astronaut]

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that paranoia shouldn't be the motive force behind political decisions.

I didn't say it should. I said it should be taken into consideration when formulating decisions that can be implemented. If you fail to consider it, and take a decision that provokes that paranoia, you should expect a negative backlash that will cause your decision not to be implemented.

Your solution is based on promoting your viewpoint as to what "compromise" comprises.

No, we disagree on what is an acceptable compromise. I believe you will not find any compromise acceptable.

Really, you know that for a fact?

I'm fairly sure of it.

Which has to qualify as one of the most pisspoor and ill-informed analogies I've yet read on Urban.
Let's see if you can work out why.

Why? Don't like me comparing extremists to rapists? I'm quite sure extremists have killed more humans than rapists.

The point is that there won't be balanced consideration, discussion, debate, just the heavy-footed imprimatur of the US state dept.

As opposed to the heavy-handed rigeur mortis of the pro-/anti-Israel extremists.

All very laudable, and something that has been done for 30+ years.
Where's it taken Israel/Palestine?

Since the agenda in Israel/Palestine has been hijacked by pro-/anti-Israel extremists, it has gone no-where as a consequence. We must either convert the extremists or remove them from the picture.

Actually, people questioning you aren't necessarily extremists, they're just people who're questioning you.

Why question me? Am I not extreme enough for people's liking? Would you prefer I foam at the mouth when I speak of the evils of Zionism (or alternatively the evils of anti-Zionism)? Can't people take it that I am proud to be a dumpty?

Because "thrid way" politics rarely work. They're not amenable to the political process because if they are indeed "third way" (i.e. neutral, grounded, concerned with power as a means rather than an end) then there is little there for non-centred politics to interact with.

Britain and Europe has done pretty well for itself with mostly "third way" style governments. No matter how much people complain about the government and public services in the UK, they are damned better here than in 95% of the world. Third way politics is the future - the extreme left and right might not like it, but even the likes of Cameron is having to appear centrist to gain votes.


Will respond to rest later. Falling asleep atm.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I didn't say it should. I said it should be taken into consideration when formulating decisions that can be implemented. If you fail to consider it, and take a decision that provokes that paranoia, you should expect a negative backlash that will cause your decision not to be implemented.


No, we disagree on what is an acceptable compromise. I believe you will not find any compromise acceptable.

What you believe is unimportant.
Haven't you worked that out yet?

I'm fairly sure of it.

While I admire your conviction, I find it disappointing that you found it on such a feeble base as your own intuition.

Why? Don't like me comparing extremists to rapists? I'm quite sure extremists have killed more humans than rapists.

Actually, I find your blithe assumptions about the nature of criminal justice offensive.
You're stating that you wouldn't take causal factors in a rapist's crime into consideration, you make clear that you consider that to be a "bad thing".
For someone constantly prating "compromise" I find that a very strange position. You expect people to look within themselves, address the roots of their behaviour and try to change, and yet here you are, appearing to deny the right of a judge to address the roots of a rapists' behaviour in his/her attempt to administer justice.

As opposed to the heavy-handed rigeur mortis of the pro-/anti-Israel extremists

"Rigour" or "rigor".
No, not "as opposed to". The "good works" the USA does foir and with Israel is mostly complementary to what the Zionists do.

Since the agenda in Israel/Palestine has been hijacked by pro-/anti-Israel extremists, it has gone no-where as a consequence. We must either convert the extremists or remove them from the picture.

You talk tough for a pacifist.
Planning to get someone else to do your dirty work?
Because sure as eggs is eggs some of your "removal" is going to mean human suffering.

Why question me? Am I not extreme enough for people's liking?

Mmmm, you see, to me the interesting thing is that you interpret your militant position as not being "extreme" because it isn't in what one could call the "main camps" that are party to the problem, and yet I believe it's fair to say that you're as extreme as any of them, maybe more so.

Would you prefer I foam at the mouth when I speak of the evils of Zionism (or alternatively the evils of anti-Zionism)?

Feel free to do or be whatever you like. I require nothing from you except an open mind.

Can't people take it that I am proud to be a dumpty?

Most people find it difficult to sympathise with a person who appears to revel in ignorance and arrogance.

Britain and Europe has done pretty well for itself with mostly "third way" style governments. No matter how much people complain about the government and public services in the UK, they are damned better here than in 95% of the world. Third way politics is the future - the extreme left and right might not like it, but even the likes of Cameron is having to appear centrist to gain votes.

Actually even with the most informed academics on "third way" politics, the judges are still out as to it's efficacy. Even Tony Giddens, the doyen of the field, has (reluctantly) agreed that militant centrism and a "what works" philosophy to policy has actually been less effective than old-fashioned binary politics, mostly because it attempts to be all things to all people (and in doing so fails more people than partisan politics has).

Will respond to rest later. Falling asleep atm.

I have that effect on people.

 

[kyser_soze]

I shouldn't worry too much about astronaut - he managed to take something I said about the situation being 6 of one and half a dozen of the other into 'It's all Israel's fault', and if he can get something that simple wrong then I'm sure that if he's just reading dust jackets that he'll get the meanings of those wrong too...

 

[rachamim18]

Astronaut: This is how far off you are. Your views are almost identical to mine, with one major difference. I too hopw that ALL "Settlements" are abandoned save for the Metropolitan Jerusalem Consolidation scheme. We differ though on the internationalisation of Jerusalem. Why do I disagree? Israel was more than willing to abide by that, the originial vision contained in the 47 UN Partition. Arabs of course were not. There will never be peace and stability unless firm and well defined control of the city is maintained. The UN cannot even run its own simplest endeavours without creating havoc and turmoil. Something of this scale is definitely beyond their expertise.

With Israel in control, for the first time in history, people of all three faith are able to visit their respective holy places and not fear for their safety, or the safety of their holy spots. Israel remembers when it walked into the plaza facing the Western Wall and found Christain Arabs, with Jordan's support, using the Western Wall as literal pig sty. Do you seriously think any Jewish government will EVER even leave that a consideration?

In Oslo I, Israel agreed to give all of Gaza, all of East Jerusalem, and more than 97% of the "West Bank." Arabs refused it . They want it all. Ergo, you think that under International Control that Arabs will just let the status of Jerusalem be decided byu Euorpeans and other foreigners?

I am in agreement that it makes no difference to me whether Israel has its capital in Jerusalem but differen whether both states could have it there as I feel Jerusalem is only secure [for all] in Israel's hands.

A demilitarised state is a pre-requisite for the Israelis as to any truly independant entity. I do not see the "Palestinians" EVER agreeing to that.

Again with labeling me an "extremist." Glad to see you have learned. OK, I'll take the biat. Please qualify the statement. Why am I an extremist?

Furthermore, why would ever label "Pro-Palestinians" as "extremists?" Just because they suport their right for independance, you think that they are extremists?

"Pro-UN Manadated Israel" means Israel in a 2 State Solution according to the 47 Partition Lines.

Moono: The only people among the groups who are "holding out" for a One State Solution are communists. They are a very marginalised group on both ends and have little bearing on anything. Noone wants it at all.

I have to say, you really do not know very much about this whole subject. The Green Line was not a Partition Line. Rather, it is an Armistice Line, drawn with UN Mediation in 49. You "support the Green Line but not lands stolen after Partition?" You mke no sense.

Panda" How can you have nothing against Israel's existence yet be opposed to Zionism?

Of course you are right in that most of the world could not care one way or another about Israel and tis problems. However, the nation and region at large definitely DO get an inordinate amount of attention.

 

[moono]

I have to say, you really do not know very much about this whole subject. The Green Line was not a Partition Line. Rather, it is an Armistice Line, drawn with UN Mediation in 49. You "support the Green Line but not lands stolen after Partition?" You mke no sense.

The international community supports a withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. That will do for starters. Makes sense to me.

 

[rachamim18]

Yeah? Guess what? Gaza is already back there and the "West Bank" [less between 3 and 7%] will be back there in less than 2 years. Keep up with the current events.

 

[moono]

Israel won't be retaining any of the West Bank. It was never mandated to Isreal. Neither was East Jerusalem. Move along please.