rrright....

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
What an interesting metaphore.

I'm sure your country has never been called "Asher" ever before

[Pekka]

Well it is logical to name Israel if you think that a.) we are not looking for the ones that start things and b.) who has many enemies and will most likely be in some sort of a war

Israel has many enemies. Naturalyl Israelis might wonder, why not Syria or Iran first? Well, they all have common enemy. Israel. So you guys are the common dividor with these, though I'd say you're not to blame for this. And you have lots of firepower to really start leveling and make room for few shopping centers. So, that would be logical answer. Yes? I'm just trying to figure out.. we need to see how the questions were made too.

To say Israel is the biggest threat and it's their fault and they are rogue is naturally pretty much as wrong as you could get it.

[Heresson]

I don't understand people who are suprised.
Israel occupies foreign terrotories, send settlers there, is hostile towards every neighbour, has nukes or so it seems,
is a strong militarised state with support of world power and it proved it will attack its neigbours if it finds it necessary.
If it is its fault, it may be questioned, but still...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Dissident
a crazier leader than Israel has.

I wouldn't go that far. Bush is misguided, but Sharon is worse.

Originally posted by Dissident
I demand the U.S. be regarded as the biggest threat to world peace!

It is, by the Brits

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Well on the merit: Is Israel under Sharon a threat to world peace? I'd say yes, somewhat, indirectly - unfortunately a poll does not allow for further clarification.

I agree. Israel is only a thread because of the US support though. NK is a threat, but is not involved in any direct conflict, due to what the US would do if it did. Israel doesn't have those repercussions. Terrorism is a threat, but you cannot hold any single nation responsible for that. IMHO, the US is the biggest threat to world peace, since it will pre-emptively strike, and Israel is partly a threat due largely to US support. However the US also manages to passively keep other nations, such as NK, in check, because without the threat from the US, they could act aggressively far easier. That is why I believe a strong US military, doing what it does, but without the pre-emptive strike doctrine, is the way to have the least threat to world peace. The only way to reduce it further, is to alter it's foreign policy with regards to the middle east, which isn't going to happen, and to reduce the effects of globalisation that anger much of the developing world, which in many cases, shouldn't change IMHO.

The US is a bigger threat because of it's power, not it's intentions. India/Pakistan is pretty much contained between the two. NK is a threat to the US and East Asia, but will not spread further. Israel/Palestine is the only one that could possibly spill into Europe, apart from US actions. That is why they are regarded as more of a threat in Europe, if they are. It's partly newtime, partly the contraversiality of the conflict, and partly that the others will not affect Europe.

[Dis]

I still don't understand what you lefties expect Israel to do.

I'm listening.

[Drogue]

Create a Palestinian state. Go back to 1968/9 (around then ) borders, as set by the UN.

And it's not just lefties. In RL, I have never met a pro-Israel person, left, centre or right (or at least, no-one I've got to know well enough to know their opinion). Over here, the vast majority of people are pro-Palestine. It was a shock when i came on OTF first to see how far the other way most Americans were, actaually.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
As long as Israel exists, and there are animosities between Jews & Muslims, it is a threat to peace.

As long as People exist, there are going to be threats to world peace.

[Az]

Create a Palestinian state. Go back to 1968/9 (around then ) borders, as set by the UN.

a) It's 67'.
b) IT HAS BEEN OFFERED.

goddamn, do I have to explain it each time?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Azazel
I realize that it's the way-out-of-proportion TV coverage, but that raises the question, wtf is it that way?

A number of simple reasons:

It's in an area between three continents PLUS

Its in an area thats been in conflict for a long time PLUS

Compared to the countries surrounding it, it is a westernized country plus one with freedom of press, meaning that many news organizations base their region stations there

EQUALS a lot of reporters

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Azazel
b) IT HAS BEEN OFFERED.

Well with a couple strings attached... but still, Arafat should have taken the offer. And I'd have been extremely curious whether Barak would have followed through on it.

But at the moment, you have no Palestinian leadership to negotiate with, and Sharon who wants to kill what remains of the peace process.

[Ted Striker]

here is how we solve the problem:

1) relocate the entire population to New York City
2) Send the Palestinians to Egypt
3) Nuke the whole damn place

[Pekka]

Ted Striker, that should work.

[Az]

But at the moment, you have no Palestinian leadership to negotiate with, and Sharon who wants to kill what remains of the peace process.

If there is no palestinian leadership to negotiate with, what is there to kill?

[HershOstropoler]

Advancing the settlements and playing with Arafat's exile is good enough in the meantime.

[Az]

Well, seriously, It's like, what else can Israel do? Even if Abu-Allah says that he'll take our deal, there is no way in hell that he's going to do anything against IJ, and Hamas, since apparently the rule of law is a goddamn unknown concept over the other side.

And that's what WE really care about, ain't it? Heck, I think that if palestinians had a Saddam Hussein, we'd have a chance for a deal. at least he would be strong enough ( arab version of legitimate, it seems. ), to force a deal on anyone who wouldn't play along.

OTOH, he's a cunning bastard, and would stab us in the back like that, so that ain't a good deal, either.

[HershOstropoler]

Well the whole marginalise-Arafat plot was idiotic from the outset. Unless you wanted to create a palestinian leadership quagmire with no one to negotiate... ooops.

Maybe the fence isn't such a bad idea if it follows roughly the 1967 lines. But with the Likud, it won't.

You won't have a strong palestinian leader for a long time, Arafat and Sharon have made sure of that. I'd see unilateral withdrawal as the smallest evil.

[Nubclear]

backwords policies?

what would you have them do? lay down to the terrorists?

Diss: I'm trolling

which are more advanced that both the US of A, and the shithole that is currently mother Russia )

Maybe Russia, but I wouldn't go as far as to say your country is more socially advanced than the US :

And... Your jingoism is incredibly amusing, AZ. Almost on par with US jingoism, though they do have at least a few accomplishments to be proud of

[lord of the mark]

Ok. SUPPOSE Israel cuts a deal with the Pals. Pre-'67 armistice lines as borders, all settlements dismantled, Pals give up "right of return".

3 years later theres a change in Pal politics, and Pals start firing rockets and missiles into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

What then? Do you
A. Determine that its Israels fault, since Israels very existence is an act of racist imperialism
B. Rush in to mediate, call for ceasefires, call for Israeli "restraint"
C. Accept (grudginly) Israel return to territories, but warn against "changing the facts on the ground"
D. Determine that Israel was right, support punishing the Pals by changing the borders to make Israel more secure.


My suspicion is that something like 20% to 30% of euros would, in this hypothetical, support A. Most of the rest would support B. Pals have no incentive NOT to make a deal, since they can always go back on it with no consequences. Israel has little incentive to make a deal (or at least one as disadvantageous as above), since it buys them NO legitimacy in further conflicts.
The only country whose policy gives Israel any incentive to deal is the US.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Azazel
I realize that it's the way-out-of-proportion TV coverage, but that raises the question, wtf is it that way?

Because you're taking money from a certain someone.

[HershOstropoler]

LOTM:

"My suspicion is that something like 20% to 30% of euros would, in this hypothetical, support A."

I don't think so. No matter how much the likudnik lobby hammers along about supposed european racism, most people have a problem with occupation and settlements, not with Israel as such. I think broad support would rather be for C. in that case. D. is nonsense in itself - how does "changing the borders" make Israel more secure? Unless you want to do a little ethnic cleansing.

[Edan]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

D. is nonsense in itself - how does "changing the borders" make Israel more secure? Unless you want to do a little ethnic cleansing.

Well, larger borders (usually) add security - I assume you would agree with that statement.

There are a number of moves Israel could do to change the borders without ethnic cleansing. They could:

1. Annex the settlements that are next to Israel proper - In other words, annex everything that would have fallen to Israel according to the Clinton plan.

2. Annex parts of the territories where Palestinians don't live (for example parts of the territories next to the river) - this would make any Palestinian state smaller, in the end.

3. Annex all the settlements - this wouldn't be a good idea, since would cut through any future Palestinian state, dividing it up.

[Whaleboy]

Israel should be returned to '67 borders, settlements should be either shut down or incorporated into a new Palestinian state, which should be given equal funding by the USA as Israel, funding which should be reduced to enough to set up that Palestinian state. The USA should stop its arms deals to Israel and others. Israel must stop apartheid-like persecution of Arabs within and without.

The would-be terrorists should be given work in industry set up by the money used to regenerate the Palestinian state.

Peace.

[Pekka]

Whaleboy, That's what Israel could do, sure. But what about terrorists? They don't have to do anything?
So, the message is, if you suicidebomb enough civies, you get victory?

And what about the ideology of some of these terrorist groups, that threatens to drive Israelis to the sea? I don't think they care that much about 67 borders, or any borders.

[HershOstropoler]

Edan:

"Well, larger borders (usually) add security - I assume you would agree with that statement."

No, not in this situation. Under that logic, annexing Gaza would make Israel safer.

"1. Annex the settlements that are next to Israel proper - In other words, annex everything that would have fallen to Israel according to the Clinton plan."

That will happen anyway.

"2. Annex parts of the territories where Palestinians don't live"

Not much land, but make for long borders.

"3. Annex all the settlements"

Would create a very, very long border that is impossible to control.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, That's what Israel could do, sure. But what about terrorists? They don't have to do anything?
So, the message is, if you suicidebomb enough civies, you get victory?

Terrorists wont listen to anyone, so expecting them to do things for peace is something of a misnomer. They are a particularly nasty reaction to a sociological phenomenon caused by Israel and the West.

If you want peace, do what I said, and take measures to ensure you never again piss people off to the extent that they feel they need to blow themselves up in cafes and nightclubs.

As I have said a thousand times before, we do not succumb to the ideologies and the demands of these groups, their obviously absurd political aspirations, we take the measures necessary for them to stop. It would seem to be a pretty damn logical course of action to me, but then, I merely want peace. However, I am not a democratically elected leader whose popularity may depend on being "strong" in the face of this terrorism, leading his people to a mighty and valiant victory, perpetuating a war and indirectly causing more bloodshed of his own people, and directly causing the blood shed of the Palestinians. No, I want peace.

I have to go to a philosophy class, so I wont be able to respond until about 10pm GMT.. adios for now

[Pekka]

I think you're correct, that we can't expect terrorists to do anything for peace.

I disagree, that they'd stop if Israel would do those things. That would please lots of Palestinian people for sure, but the terrorists wants to kill Israelis and destroy their country, no matter what the borders are if they have anything to do with 67 borders. They hate Israelis and think they should be driven to sea. I fail to see how they'll be any more peaceful. They might celebrate for one day and then continue. 'Now we have the 67 borders, come on let's go for the whole nine yards and destroy them all' is what I see them thinking.

And I see the worrying trend of suicidebombing becoming even more popular around the world. After all, it makes countries do what they want.

[Az]

Because you're taking money from a certain someone.

How on earth does this have to do with anything?

Well the whole marginalise-Arafat plot was idiotic from the outset. Unless you wanted to create a palestinian leadership quagmire with no one to negotiate... ooops.

Nah. Noone on our side besides the very fringe is ready to deal with arafat.

Maybe the fence isn't such a bad idea if it follows roughly the 1967 lines. But with the Likud, it won't.

For the palestinians to get a fair deal, sure. For Israel to get more, I don't think so. The fence has the same defensive value no matter where it passes. Oh, and Israel can easily bite off a chunk of land without taking areas with palestinians: the whole Jordan valley has overwhelming jewish majority, and can easily be annexed. I wouldn't do it, and in case of a peace deal with the palestinians it won't be accepted, but we ain't talking peace deal, lately, are we?

You won't have a strong palestinian leader for a long time, Arafat and Sharon have made sure of that. I'd see unilateral withdrawal as the smallest evil.

Unilateral withdrawal to what lines? As I said, the defensive value of those walls will be the same, no matter where those walls will be, and the attacks will persist, no matter where those walls are.

Oh, and larger borders WILL add security in some areas. Don't give me the Gaza Strip bull, since this ain't the area.

Now give Israel a good cold geo-political reason to build that wall fairly: you won't find one. Support for more moral actions? If there is anything to be learned from the last half a century of the world's nations' relations to Israel, is that it never had anything to do with morality, and fairness. Countries support us only when it suits their interests.

[HershOstropoler]

"Nah. Noone on our side besides the very fringe is ready to deal with arafat."

I'd say a fringe representing about 20-30 % of the electorate. About correct?

"Oh, and Israel can easily bite off a chunk of land without taking areas with palestinians: the whole Jordan valley has overwhelming jewish majority"

Overwhelming? Depends on how you draw the border. Though what's the point of the exercise?

"As I said, the defensive value of those walls will be the same, no matter where those walls will be, and the attacks will persist, no matter where those walls are."

Ehm... it depends on how many palestinians you have inside the walls.

"Oh, and larger borders WILL add security in some areas. Don't give me the Gaza Strip bull, since this ain't the area."

In some areas - so you shouldn't endorse the bull that I responded to, that "larger borders" per se work that way. It depends what areas you include, some of the settlements around Jerusalem are pretty interwtined with palestinian areas, for example.

"If there is anything to be learned from the last half a century of the world's nations' relations to Israel, is that it never had anything to do with morality, and fairness. Countries support us only when it suits their interests."

Now cry me an ocean. How often does that happen in international relations?

So what is the point of gobbling up much of the westbank? On 1967 borders, there is a chance for peace. If you annex half of the westbank, there will never be peace. And consider one thing: how many wars can the arabs afford to lose against Israel? 10? 30? 100?

How many wars can Israel afford to lose against the Arabs?

[Kuciwalker]

How many wars can Israel afford to lose against the Arabs?

In any all-out war, Israel is going to win.

[HershOstropoler]

Now, yes. In 10 years, yes. In 50 years, who knows.