The Israeli-Palestinian issue

[BaalChatzaf]

No, I don't 'do' forgiveness or charity - nor hatred, as AV has accused me of. Let's call it good will... until more is revealed.

However, I know full well what you mean, (it's cost me in the past) but I'll just have to go on taking that chance!

Tony

Good will toward bad people is doubly bad. Bad for you, in that it increases your risk and bad because it enables evil doers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 15, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Leonid]

Actually, not.. Israel has been created as home for Jews and Arabs. " THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations...WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." (THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL May 14, 1948). Unfortunately this appeal has been rejected by Palestinian Arabs and all Arab States. It still rejected by them even today. Two-state solution which is racism and apartheid and which you support is American and Arab initiative. As a matter of fact we have to deal today with three-state solution-Israel, West Bank and Gaza. Also, Israeli Arabs today represent majority in the Northern Israel. According to the current political trend they are also entitled to their own State. That would be four-state solution. The one glance on the map will prove the total absurdity of this idea from the geo-political point of view. From the philosophical point of view nation has the right for self-determination only if it strives to achieve freedom from oppression and prosecution. I don't say that Israel is epitome of freedom, it is mixed economy. But it is much better than oppressive regime of PLO or religious fanaticism of Hamas. The fact that Palestinians themselves voted for them doesn't justify their atrocities. Hitler also had been democratically elected.

I'm sorry, but Israel is in no way a home for Jews and Arabs, I mean the racial and religious identity of the state, regardless of what the declaration states at that point are clearly Jewish and I mean how would you feel being made to sing a national anthem of how great it is being Arab or Muslim or Christian? Your flag a giant crescent or cross? It doesn't sound very inclusive to me. And it isn't very inclusive, Arabs are treated like second class citizens in Israel. One example you can look at is the fact that Arab-Israelis are legally forbidden from purchasing much of the majority for sale because they are not Jewish, and you call that equal?

It has always been my position to support a one state solution there. An identity of the state not based on religious or ethnic lines, rather based on the identity of all citizens being human beings, equal in rights and free to practice their religions as they pleased (or didn't please). If someone wants to live under and be accountable to Islamic or Jewish law, then so be it, if however they choose to live under regular civil law, then that's fine too.

Unfortunately however, due to the last 60 years of hostility the above is impractical. Therefore, for the foreseeable future I do support a two state solution that allows both nations that are obviously quite suspicious of each other to build their nations up in peace, taking care of their people's primary needs first and over time, build their relationship up to be so strong that they don't need walls to separate each other, nor watch towers etc and can freely mix amongst each other.. And God Willing, when such a day does come that Palestinians and Israelis see each others as brothers once more, and vote through referendum to reunify as one nation, then I'll be happy.. But these things take time and require it to be done in stages.

Also, I'm sorry but comparing Israel to other Arab nations for the purposes of demonstrating freedom isn't really a good standard. I'm the first to call these places police states and dictatorships.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, I don't like Hamas. But then again, why would I? They were created by Israeli intelligence.

I do however support the Palestinian people's right to resist the occupation of their land whether it is Hamas or any other organization doing it. All I say is that the attacks should not be targeted at non-combatants. I don't think that Hamas' rockets are sophisticated enough that they could aim them specifically at schools either. Most are so unguided, primitive and full of fuel which burns out that burns out on the way to the target, that they barely have any bang to them. Their rockets are, in my opinion, more of a psychological weapon which is reflected in the lack of casualties on the Israeli side.

Israel however targets Palestinian schools, mosques, hospitals, water treatment and sewerage facilities, power facilities etc, all whilst having perhaps the most advanced targeting systems in the world.

The Israeli military was also found to have directly targeted civilians who even had white flags waving in the air.

Israel also used white phosphorous munitions on civilian areas, an act against the rules of war and also seems to have used Tungsten coated Dense Inert Metal Explosive or DIME munitions in the conflict which explodes into incredibly small pieces and tears the target into shreds. DIME weapons are still experimental and in all cases that these types of shrapnel were tested by the US military, it was found to cause cancer in 100% of those wounded by it.

Adonis,

Supposing this account were not lopsided.

Sorry to call it lopsided, but I have noticed that both sides tend to present lopsided accounts and interpretations. The theme is always pointing a finger and saying, "It's all their fault."

But supposing...

Do you really think the Hamas atrocity of shooting thousands of rockets at civilians (and schools) is justified because they have poor aim? Come on. That doesn't make any sense.

That kind of question makes discussing these details useless. To be fair, I have read things just as bad on the Jewish side, too.

Here's how I see it. I look at all that hate on both sides. And it spews. It's ironic, but all the hate-based arguments start out by saying they do not hate, but they are entirely self-serving in their hatred.

I look at the people who keep all that hatred alive at all costs. And I say, "It's all their fault."

The haters.

They all hate because they want to hate.

They like it.

Every damn bit of their arguments boils down to this: "These arguments show how my hatred is justified, but their hatred is not. It's all their fault."

There are some reasonable people on both sides, but their voice always get drowned out by the haters.

Here's a reality check. People who want to stop hating find ways to stop hating. People who like hating find ways to hate.

It's time to stop hating and pretending that this is the best way to serve Allah and Yahweh.

Here in Rand-land, we also have people who hate because they like it. And they pretend they hate because of reason.

But to repeat, haters like to hate. They choose to hate. They think hatred as a way of life is the good.

They will see the whole world burn in the name of their hatred, but they will not give up their hatred. On the contrary, haters work to make the world burn.

Here's another reality check. Look at history. Notice that when haters actually do destroy their object of hatred, look at what they do. They find something else to hate.

Excuse the vulgarity, but I think that's really fucked up.

Michael

EDIT: I don't consider you to be one of the haters, although I do believe you adopt some of the spite-filled arguments imagining that good will is behind them.

In Objectivism there is a phrase that is in constant use: false dichotomy. Haters use this all the time. The only cure is to say, "I don't accept either argument. They are both wrong (or incomplete at best) and they are not the only alternatives."

[Libertarian Muslim]

And the U.S. used fissile uranium and plutonium on civilian areas. So what? In wars people are killed and property is destroyed. If the Japanese or the Germans got nuclear weapons first they would have used them on us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Targeting unarmed people is never okay in a war. Sure, I can to an extent understand Israel's assassination programs, it's about eliminating the threat from militant groups. But deliberately attacking unarmed civilians who aren't in any way combatants is wrong.

1)And if Hamas was not created by Israeli intelligence you would approve of them? [in point of fact Hamas was not created by the Israelis, but it did receive enough support in its early years from Israel that your wording is only an exaggeration.]

I wouldn't approve of them either way because I don't like the tactic of suicide bombing. If they drop that and got more libertarian in their ideas I'd happily support them. Would you care to elaborate for everyone how Hamas was helped by Israeli intelligence?

2) Hamas rockets are lethal enough, and their inaccuracy is merely another indication that Hamas doesn't adhere to any civilized mores.

Preposterous, they don't have the military technology that the Israelis have so they use primitive rockets that are unguided, yet Israel with all of its advanced technology still manages to kill a majority of civilians including by using weapons that are illegal.

3)Another indication of that is their use of schools, mosques, etc, as supply depots and command centers. They also wave white flags around and then attack Israeli soldiers who come to investigate. That way when Israel properly targets their weapons and command centers they can get useful idiots like yourself to complain that Israel is targeting civilians, when in fact, it is Hamas who is purposely putting civilians in danger.

Oh please, the Israelis always use this excuse, how come the people who do die then are civilians and Hamas is rarely amongst the wounded? Why is it that the Israelis bomb the mosques during prayer time when there are a lot of people there rather than when they know it is vacant to destroy the 'command centres' and 'weapons caches'

When the Palestinians give Hamas the treatment it deserves--meaning, hanging them all from the nearest streetlight or tree as murderous thugs--then we can talk about Palestinians wanting peace. But as long as they don't oppose Hamas, it can be easily deduced that Palestinians don't want to live in peace with Israelis, under any conditions.

Hamas is wanting to live in peace with the Israelis and wants a political solution, that's precisely why they're negotiating and have abided by previous truces when it was the Israeli's that broke them. They adhered to the truces even when they were under attack by the Israelis which was so clearly demonstrated by the Gaza conflict last year.

[Leonid]

Adonis" "I'm sorry, but Israel is in no way a home for Jews and Arabs, I mean the racial and religious identity of the state, regardless of what the declaration states at that point are clearly Jewish and I mean how would you feel being made to sing a national anthem of how great it is being Arab or Muslim or Christian? Your flag a giant crescent or cross? It doesn't sound very inclusive to me."

You mean that thousands over thousands of Jews and Arabs have been killed and maimed over the issue of national anthem and flag? If this was a case I'd gladly discard them both. But it isn't. My Israeli passport is written in Hebrew and Arabic since Arabic is Israeli official language. Very slight changes would make Israeli anthem suitable for every Arab, and if addition of crescent to Israeli flag could bring everlasting peace, Israelis would do it yesterday. You and I know only too well that this is not the heart of conflict. The real reason for the conflict is that this ongoing war is the only justification for existence of the brutal oppressive Palestinian leadership which is unable to accept ideas of freedom, individual rights and prosperity, unable to develop Palestinian economy and can only profit by exchanging Jewish and Arab blood for Saudi and Iranian petrodollars. Without conflict PLO and Hamas leaders would never dream to achieve any significance or recognition. That why they rejected time and again any reasonable solution of this conflict. That would render them useless.

Adonis "Arabs are treated like second class citizens in Israel. One example you can look at is the fact that Arab-Israelis are legally forbidden from purchasing much of the majority for sale because they are not Jewish, and you call that equal?"

I regret that you repeat this piece of cheap propaganda. I was living in Israel for 14 years, have many Arab friends and I never saw or heard that Israeli Arab was legally forbidden to buy or sell anything. Actually, only Jews are legally forbidden to buy land in Judea and Samaria. According to Jordanian law which is still applicable, the seller of land to Jew is punished by death. Israeli Arabs have full civil rights, they are equal before law and protected by it; they are represented in Israeli parliament by 4 different political parties, Israeli government has two Arab ministers. Israeli Arabs have their schools, newspapers, radio and TV stations, their culture is thriving. In the recent Eurovision competition Israel was represented by Jew and Arab singers.

Adonis "Unfortunately however, due to the last 60 years of hostility the above is impractical. Therefore, for the foreseeable future I do support a two state solution that allows both nations that are obviously quite suspicious of each other to build their nations up in peace, taking care of their people's primary needs first and over time, build their relationship up to be so strong that they don't need walls to separate each other, nor watch towers etc and can freely mix amongst each other

I must disagree. Two-state solution will perpetuate conflict and hostilities. After Israeli withdrawal from Gaza Hamas immediately took over and that was the cause of escalation of hostilities. Under current leadership Palestinians are not free, they are brainwashed with vicious anti-Israeli anti-Jewish propaganda which includes items imported from Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany; their children as young as three years old are learning that all Jews are dogs and have to be killed- I saw it myself on Palestinian TV children program.

Adonis "It has always been my position to support a one state solution there. An identity of the state not based on religious or ethnic lines, rather based on the identity of all citizens being human beings, equal in rights and free to practice their religions as they pleased (or didn't please). If someone wants to live under and be accountable to Islamic or Jewish law, then so be it, if however they choose to live under regular civil law, then that's fine too."

I fully agree. That should be the basis of the future state which doesn't interfere with people's religious, cultural and economical affairs and only serves as protector of their inalienable rights.

Adonis: “... And God Willing, when such a day does come that Palestinians and Israelis see each others as brothers once more”

Inshalla, from your mouth to the God’s ears.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

I have a PS to my hate stuff.

Here is the acid test for ideologue haters, as opposed to people who strongly disagree with each other.

The ideologue haters don't just kill the other side, they kill their own.

A good example of a Jewish ideologue hater is Yigal Amir, the creep who murdered Yitzhak Rabin.

When you hear an Israeli-Palestinian argument, regardless of who it is from or what it states, it is a good idea to look to the source of that argument. If there are people at that source who hate and kill their own, it is a good idea to rethink the argument, or at least find another source.

When I look to the people who surrounded and supported Amir, even when they later distanced themselves, I tune them out. I look elsewhere for sources. I look to people who do not kill their own over ideology.

Now here's a question. Do people in Hamas kill their own? It's something to think about.

I personally made a pact with myself. In contentious issues, I don't want to be allied to bigots and haters, even when they argue for what I do.

I made this choice as a kid growing up in the South and the bigotry was about blacks. But my attitude is identical with the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

3)Another indication of that is their use of schools, mosques, etc, as supply depots and command centers. They also wave white flags around and then attack Israeli soldiers who come to investigate. That way when Israel properly targets their weapons and command centers they can get useful idiots like yourself to complain that Israel is targeting civilians, when in fact, it is Hamas who is purposely putting civilians in danger.

Oh please, the Israelis always use this excuse, how come the people who do die then are civilians and Hamas is rarely amongst the wounded? Why is it that the Israelis bomb the mosques during prayer time when there are a lot of people there rather than when they know it is vacant to destroy the 'command centres' and 'weapons caches'

Adonis, do you know how a member of Hamas is visually differentiated from a civilian? By the fact that he has a weapon and ammunition, and they do not. Take a dead member of Hamas, remove the gun and bullets from his body, and no one can prove he's not a civilian. Take away the weapons caches before the outside observer arrives, and who can prove that the mosque was not a weapons depot? This sort of game has been going on for a long time, but when one side habitually propagandizes and outright lies about civilian casualties (as was done, provably, by Hezbollah during the "War between the Straits" and the PLO during the Second Intifada), treating their claims with intense skepticism should be the obvious course. Unfortunately, most people actually trust them to be honest sources.

When the Palestinians give Hamas the treatment it deserves--meaning, hanging them all from the nearest streetlight or tree as murderous thugs--then we can talk about Palestinians wanting peace. But as long as they don't oppose Hamas, it can be easily deduced that Palestinians don't want to live in peace with Israelis, under any conditions.

Hamas is wanting to live in peace with the Israelis and wants a political solution, that's precisely why they're negotiating and have abided by previous truces when it was the Israeli's that broke them. They adhered to the truces even when they were under attack by the Israelis which was so clearly demonstrated by the Gaza conflict last year.

Negotiating for what? Negotiating for a truce they will break at their pleasure, in which they promise not to fire rockets--in other words, to do what they shouldn't be doing in the first place. Real negotiations, which result in Hamas honestly and overtly recognizing the reality and rightfulness of Israel to exist, and Israel would recognize an independent Palestinian state--Hamas doesn't even go there. In fact, they keep saying no to that, and of course there's their charter, which forbids them to ever recognize Israel. Hamas' peace is of the variety of which it was said, "they make a desert and call it peace".

Jeffrey S.

[jeffrey smith]

Actually, only Jews are legally forbidden to buy land in Judea and Samaria. According to Jordanian law which is still applicable, the seller of land to Jew is punished by death.

Which is why, I suppose the settler movement simply grabs whatever land it wants and builds illegally on it, knowing the Israeli government is so weak in the knees that they will never be forced out.

The behavior of the religious settlers is actually just as bad and brazen as anything Hamas does, perhaps because of a similar mindset.

Jeffrey S.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

Supposing this account were not lopsided.

Sorry to call it lopsided, but I have noticed that both sides tend to present lopsided accounts and interpretations. The theme is always pointing a finger and saying, "It's all their fault."

But supposing...

Do you really think the Hamas atrocity of shooting thousands of rockets at civilians (and schools) is justified because they have poor aim? Come on. That doesn't make any sense.

That kind of question makes discussing these details useless. To be fair, I have read things just as bad on the Jewish side, too.

Michael

Michael, are you suggesting that Hamas is intentionally targeting schools with their rockets? Sorry I'd just like to make sure about this before I respond..

Thanks,

Adonis

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis, do you know how a member of Hamas is visually differentiated from a civilian? By the fact that he has a weapon and ammunition, and they do not. Take a dead member of Hamas, remove the gun and bullets from his body, and no one can prove he's not a civilian. Take away the weapons caches before the outside observer arrives, and who can prove that the mosque was not a weapons depot? This sort of game has been going on for a long time, but when one side habitually propagandizes and outright lies about civilian casualties (as was done, provably, by Hezbollah during the "War between the Straits" and the PLO during the Second Intifada), treating their claims with intense skepticism should be the obvious course. Unfortunately, most people actually trust them to be honest sources.

Hold on a second, are you saying that the very fact that you can't prove that a person is not a civilian, is justification enough for their killing? Are you sure you want to go there?

At the very least there were, according to Amnesty International more than 300 children, 115 women and 85 men aged over 50 that were killed by Israeli's. If you now want to rule out adult males under 50 just to be sure that they weren't militants then the same standard could be applied to any Israeli male aged above 18 and under 50.. Is that where you want to go? I certainly hope not..

My religion and morals forbid me from defending the murder of any person who is an unarmed, regardless their age, race, sex or religion.

Negotiating for what? Negotiating for a truce they will break at their pleasure, in which they promise not to fire rockets--in other words, to do what they shouldn't be doing in the first place. Real negotiations, which result in Hamas honestly and overtly recognizing the reality and rightfulness of Israel to exist, and Israel would recognize an independent Palestinian state--Hamas doesn't even go there. In fact, they keep saying no to that, and of course there's their charter, which forbids them to ever recognize Israel. Hamas' peace is of the variety of which it was said, "they make a desert and call it peace".

So, who broke the truce then that led to the war at the beginning of 2009?

How long was the truce?

Did Hamas abide by it?

What were the conditions on the ground there for Palestinians?

Also, I have some questions for you that I'd really like you to answer, what Israel should Hamas recognize? Israel pre-1967? Israel 1948? Etc.. Recognition must come with specific borders if they are to recognize the state does it not? Does Israel recognize Palestine's right to exist?

[Brant Gaede]

What Hamas should Israel recognize? Death to all the Jews? Death to some of the Jews? Expulsion to all the Jews? Expulsion to some of the Jews? Various mixtures of the preceding?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Hamas as a moral agent? Israel as an immoral agent?

Pretty strong premise, whatever it is.

--Brant

a few doubts

[Libertarian Muslim]

What Hamas should Israel recognize? Death to all the Jews? Death to some of the Jews? Expulsion to all the Jews? Expulsion to some of the Jews? Various mixtures of the preceding?

--Brant

Now whilst I don't agree with Hamas, I don't think you're being very honest.

Hamas' charter calls for Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together under an 'Islamic State' because it is the only religious system that provides for the beliefs of all groups. Neither the political system Judaism nor Christianity (if there really is one) provides such considerations for adherents of other faiths. I agree with that, but my definition of an Islamic State differs greatly to that of Hamas' because I believe the Islamic State should be more like it was during the time of Muhammad peace be upon him, rather than of the Caliphs that took power after he died. EDIT: To clarify this so I'm not misunderstood, I don't believe that it could be exactly the same as during the life of Muhammad because he was the Prophet of God and we could not elect a man that would have been like him and so, to protect the people from tyrannical rulers and dictators there must be a separation of powers and accountable government in addition to leadership through the elections by the majority of citizens of the state.

Whenever Hamas or any other organization do mention Jews in their cartoons or other speeches and rhetoric, they are specifically talking about Zionists that are occupying their homeland and not Jews as a whole. Their word usage is appalling but at the same time I don't believe they are referring to all Jews at all because if they were, there would be no provision in their charter for Jews to live in Palestine under an 'Islamic State'.

If this were not the case, why would they have the support of Orthodox Jewish organizations like the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta?

Edited January 16, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, are you suggesting that Hamas is intentionally targeting schools with their rockets? Sorry I'd just like to make sure about this before I respond..

Adonis,

That's a good question.

I don't know.

Because of your question, I did some skimming around on Google about Hamas rockets (Grad and Qassam rockets). One of the better articles I found (and I admit my skim was not deep) was at Global Security: HAMAS Rockets. The Wikipedia article, Qassam Rocket, also has a good list of sources at the end, but I only went to a few of them since I don't have much time right now.

Here is what I do know.

1. These rockets have a low destructive capacity, probably due to most of them being made with household agents like sugar, fertilizer, etc., but they do destroy and they do kill.

2. I have read conflicting accounts of the numbers of these rockets launched into Israel, but it appears to be well over 5,000.

3. They appear to be launched at an "out there somewhere" target, meaning what they hit is what they hit. So although the people launching the rockets may not specifically target schools for destruction, they must know that they might hit schools. I admit that this is not the same thing as targeting a school, but the line is a thin one.

4. I have seen pictures of bunker-like bomb shelters built because of these rockets at Israeli schools, soccer fields and the like, along with loud-speaker warning systems.

5. I have seen a video of a Palestinian launching one of these rockets into Israel from the front of a Palestinian school. (I have only seen one video of this, but I have little doubt I will encounter more if I look.)

I will research this more, but those are the facts I have seen so far. I knew some of this before I started looking just now and some I did not.

Incidentally, I have an idea for setting up a website giving a timeline of major events in the Israeli-Palistenian hostilities. My idea is to present Jewish arguments, Muslim arguments, what it looks like to the outside (including me), and sources. The focus will be on the facts, then an outline of the controversies.

Stylewise, I am thinking about presenting short factual entries, not long-winded passionate diatribes. People not involved in this mess have lives and they usually regret it once they ask a question in public. I want them to have a place where they can look quickly and think, "Oh, so that's what's happening. Those people think this and those others think that."

As to things like presenting the victims of the hostilities (which is a major component of many of the arguments and diatribes I have read and viewed), I don't want to present them on the timeline unless one specifically sparked an event. I think links to factual places on both sides is a better thing. I realize there will be biases at many of the sites, so the presence of different options will help to keep matters objective for the timeline visitor.

It's a modest idea right now, but I think it will be important for normal people (like me) to be able to look at the major events from the different perspectives, go to outside sources if they want to read more, and judge for themselves without getting sucked into the biased intellectual pushing and shoving that typically goes back and forth in things of this nature.

My only problem with doing this is that I have a spirit that absorbs external hatred like a sponge, internalizes it and tries to understand it. I don't end up hating, but the inner turmoil wears me out and depresses me like little else in life.

There is so much hatred surrounding this issue that I will have to go slow.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

That's a good question.

I don't know.

Because of your question, I did some skimming around on Google about Hamas rockets (Grad and Qassam rockets). One of the better articles I found (and I admit my skim was not deep) was at Global Security: HAMAS Rockets. The Wikipedia article, Qassam Rocket, also has a good list of sources at the end, but I only went to a few of them since I don't have much time right now.

Here is what I do know.

3. They appear to be launched at an "out there somewhere" target, meaning what they hit is what they hit. So although the people launching the rockets may not specifically target schools for destruction, they must know that they might hit schools. I admit that this is not the same thing as targeting a school, but the line is a thin one.

I don't believe that the line is a thin one at all Michael. I think that there is a very big difference between deliberately targeting a school and just launching a rocket and hoping to hit something. Hamas' military technology at this stage isn't advanced enough that they can use guidance systems in their weapons and is even in very accurate comparison to other weapons systems like the Katushka rockets that Hezbollah uses which is also unguided. The question is however, should Hamas cease fighting simply because it doesn't have guided weapons systems? If so, which other pretext could we find for this type of decision in the world?

4. I have seen pictures of bunker-like bomb shelters built because of these rockets at Israeli schools, soccer fields and the like, along with loud-speaker warning systems.

Yes, this is correct. If only the Palestinians had similar structures to flee to when the Israeli military bombs them.

5. I have seen a video of a Palestinian launching one of these rockets into Israel from the front of a Palestinian school. (I have only seen one video of this, but I have little doubt I will encounter more if I look.)

Yes, unfortunately this does happen. Not often but it does. It has to do with finding free space to launch the rockets from which I'm sure you can imagine requires a great deal of space and in a place like Gaza City which is one of the densely populated cities in the world, any area big enough to launch a rocket from gets used.

Incidentally, I have an idea for setting up a website giving a timeline of major events in the Israeli-Palistenian hostilities. My idea is to present Jewish arguments, Muslim arguments, what it looks like to the outside (including me), and sources. The focus will be on the facts, then an outline of the controversies.

That is a good idea

My only problem with doing this is that I have a spirit that absorbs external hatred like a sponge, internalizes it and tries to understand it. I don't end up hating, but the inner turmoil wears me out and depresses me like little else in life.

There is so much hatred surrounding this issue that I will have to go slow.

Michael

I think going slow is a great idea Michael, hatred is a hard thing to deal with and once we're surrounded by it, it becomes hard to escape it.

I have another question for you though Michael. What do you understand are the reasons that Hamas started firing rockets on the Israeli cities like that of Serdot in Israel from Gaza??

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have another question for you though Michael. What do you understand are the reasons that Hamas started firing rockets on the Israeli cities like that of Serdot in Israel from Gaza??

Adonis,

That's easy.

They choose to do it.

They think firing rockets on civilians is a proper thing to do.

They hate.

The rest is politics.

I'm not going to play the game of one atrocity against civilians justifies another atrocity against different civilians.

A is A.

Hatred is hatred.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

That's easy.

They choose to do it.

They think firing rockets on civilians is a proper thing to do.

They hate.

The rest is politics.

I'm not going to play the game of one atrocity against civilians justifies another atrocity against different civilians.

A is A.

Hatred is hatred.

Michael

No Michael, I'm referring to the series of rockets that were launched from the Gaza strip in late 2008 before Operation Cast Lead. Are you aware of the series of events that led to it? And if so, what would you have done differently if you were in their shoes?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

From what I read on the Internet, firing rockets on Israeli civilians started in 2002. That means in 2008, this practice was not something new.

As to how I would resolve the hostilities in the time period you mentioned, I would have to study this before I can make a responsible answer.

My expertise does not cover conflict resolution on this scale.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

From what I read on the Internet, firing rockets on Israeli civilians started in 2002. That means in 2008, this practice was not something new.

As to how I would resolve the hostilities in the time period you mentioned, I would have to study this before I can make a responsible answer.

My expertise does not cover conflict resolution on this scale.

Michael

That is correct, the tactic had been used before. But for a period of time there had been a truce declared between the Israeli government and Hamas which was largely abided by. I know you're quite busy but once you do get the chance to read about it I'd like to know your thoughts regarding the situation and your opinions as to what you would have done differently.

[anthony]

Adonis,

Here's a 'boot on the other foot' scenario: a loosely-held Jewish State is disrupted by an international agreement to create an Arab homeland within it.

The Jews attack it militarily three times over several years, and lose. They continue with a long spate of terror attacks, targeting Muslim civilians. They now resort to firing a few thousand rockets into it.

You see where I'm going?

The question is, firstly, would that Arab State even consider giving back ANY territory won in those wars? Secondly, at what stage (not if, but when) would the Arabs strike back and eliminate the Jewish State entirely?

Answer this honestly,please, without any self-serving rationalisation.

The benevolence shown, mainly, by Israel is the result of a life-affirming morality; until the Palestinians can equal this, and for the first time ever, behave with self-respect, and rational self-interest, rather than demanding "Justice" (ie honour, and reparations), you will not convince anyone that they desperately desire peace.

Even if you've convinced yourself.

In an article I wrote during the Gaza conflict, I said that this was not only an imbalance of military, but an imbalance of morality, between the two sides. With all the disgusting double-standards that are implied and applied by the Gazans, and the world media.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

Answer this honestly,please, without any self-serving rationalisation.

Ho. Ho. Rots of Ruck.

The Palestinians are Death Worshipers, made more so by their insane religion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know you're quite busy but once you do get the chance to read about it I'd like to know your thoughts regarding the situation and your opinions as to what you would have done differently.

Adonis,

I will.

I sense you are truly interested in my thoughts.

I sense there will be interaction, not canned questions or canned answers.

I was worried you might only be interested in pushing a party line. (I know you are not that way about Islam, but your discourse changes tone when we discuss the Israeli-Palestinian issue.)

After all the yelling and mocking that surrounds these things, I feel pleasure at the prospect of this level of discussion on such a heated topic.

Even if, at the worst, we continue disagreeing, I sense both will be the better for the discussion. Things will be learned.

Also, I am behind, but I have not forgotten the documentary. I will not only finish it before too long, I also intend to watch the YouTube videos you posted on Islam and libertarianism. (I suspect links to all this material will be included in my timeline site.)

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

Here's a 'boot on the other foot' scenario: a loosely-held Jewish State is disrupted by an international agreement to create an Arab homeland within it.

The Jews attack it militarily three times over several years, and lose. They continue with a long spate of terror attacks, targeting Muslim civilians. They now resort to firing a few thousand rockets into it.

You see where I'm going?

The question is, firstly, would that Arab State even consider giving back ANY territory won in those wars? Secondly, at what stage (not if, but when) would the Arabs strike back and eliminate the Jewish State entirely?

Answer this honestly,please, without any self-serving rationalisation.

The benevolence shown, mainly, by Israel is the result of a life-affirming morality; until the Palestinians can equal this, and for the first time ever, behave with self-respect, and rational self-interest, rather than demanding "Justice" (ie honour, and reparations), you will not convince anyone that they desperately desire peace.

Even if you've convinced yourself.

In an article I wrote during the Gaza conflict, I said that this was not only an imbalance of military, but an imbalance of morality, between the two sides. With all the disgusting double-standards that are implied and applied by the Gazans, and the world media.

Tony

Tony, you're getting a bit ahead of yourself there.. Let's backtrack to the first sentence and my response will show you how the rest is inconsequential, if it was a loosely held Jewish state and the whole world decided to just 'give' that land to the Arabs and make an Arab homeland there without the Jewish people's consent to create a state, and forced the Jews to give up those lands and give them to the Arabs then not only would I be against it. I'd speak out against it, not only would I speak out against it but I'd openly defend the right of the Jews to resist the occupation of their country.

Who are the rest of the world (which at this stage was mostly White people of European background) to decide to give away someone elses land? If they wanted to create an Arab state let them give away pieces of their own countries to form an Arab state.

I have no problem with bringing in the Jews into Palestine, they're always welcome because they are people of the book and were persecuted in Europe. They are our brothers. But creating another state there and giving other people's homes and lands to the Israeli's is not right.

I would have been happy if they brought all of the Jews from Europe made a Libertarian state there and allowed Jews, Christians and Muslims to practice their religions there under their own laws but were one nation I'd have been happy. I don't agree with making it a 'Jewish' state with a distinct Jewish identity, a Jewish flag etc, just as I don't agree with making it a distinctive Muslim or Christian Identity. It has to be inclusive of all.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Libertarian Muslim]

I know you're quite busy but once you do get the chance to read about it I'd like to know your thoughts regarding the situation and your opinions as to what you would have done differently.

Adonis,

I will.

I sense you are truly interested in my thoughts.

I sense there will be interaction, not canned questions or canned answers.

I was worried you might only be interested in pushing a party line. (I know you are not that way about Islam, but your discourse changes tone when we discuss the Israeli-Palestinian issue.)

After all the yelling and mocking that surrounds these things, I feel pleasure at the prospect of this level of discussion on such a heated topic.

Even if, at the worst, we continue disagreeing, I sense both will be the better for the discussion. Things will be learned.

Also, I am behind, but I have not forgotten the documentary. I will not only finish it before too long, I also intend to watch the YouTube videos you posted on Islam and libertarianism. (I suspect links to all this material will be included in my timeline site.)

Michael

It's okay Michael, I know you're quite busy. You are right, I am truly interested in your thoughts because I know it's easy for us to say this group should do this and this group shouldn't do that etc, but I think we need to study it more and then see what we would do differently. I think that is far more helpful.

I have no interest in pushing a particular party line, nor mocking or yelling, I will condemn all actions I see wrong and I would say, that I am one of the biggest critics of today's Muslim world.

I am all for discussion on the issue because there can be no harm. I just don't like when people feel the need to insult.

[jeffrey smith]

Adonis--there are a few things you don't seem to comprehend.

1)The Jews were already there, on their own property; no one brought them in except themselves.

2)It was Arab resort to violence that produced the "Nabka" [do I have that word correct?]. Had the Arabs not resorted to violence in 1947-9 (and in preceding and following years) there would be no Occupied Territories, no Intifada, no Hamas and there would be a Palestinian state. There might even have been in the course of time one unified state with Jews and Arabs living together more or less harmoniously. It was Arab violence that made that impossible, nothing the Jews did (except of course, insisting on their right to stay alive).

3)Hamas has never kept a truce or fulfilled an agreement except in the very shortest term; for instance by violating the truces by bringing in weaponry and ammunition

4) Hamas' definition of an Islamic State would be one in which Jews would not have civil rights and might not even be allowed to live in Eretz Yisrael.

4a) Under Jewish law, a non-Jew in a Jewish state would have full civil rights, and none of the deprivations of rights or status which is found in the "dhimmi" system are possible. I realize you think a real Islamic state would not have the "dhimmi" system as it is now practiced, but the point here is that it would be impossible to put an equivalent system into use in a Jewish state which bases itself on Jewish law, unlike those Muslim countries which are able to impose "dhimmi" systems under their interpretation of shariah.

5) When Hamas says "Zionists" it means Jews. Meaning me, Neturei Karta and every other Jew now alive. Hamas would gladly kill me. Why would you be surprised to find that I don't think very highly of Hamas in those circumstances.

And a question to you:

Why is violence and force Hamas's only method for dealing with Israel? Why not non-violent methods?

Jeffrey S.