Now are you willing to believe the PA pays terrorists?

[Loren Pechtel]

A plan has been presented. It basically consists of Israel rolling over...

No.

It consists of Israel dismantling its settlements, ending the blockade of Gaza and retreating to the 1967 borders.

There's no "roll over" there except for Israel to give up on the annexation of the West Bank. NO ONE has claimed they give up their right to self defense if attacked, especially since it's extremely clear that Israel is FULLY capable of neutralizing any attack the Palestinians will be able to launch at them, conventional or otherwise (and they're getting better all the time).

But the "peace" agreements do nothing about the Palestinians bringing in heavy weapons.

And Israel is *NOT* capable of neutralizing an attack with modern weapons without an awful lot of bloodshed on both sides.

Even less has the plan involved the Palestinians "doing the exact opposite of what they said they will do." Abbas, for his part, has NEVER ONCE reneged on a peace agreement, nor has he ever negotiated in bad faith. He has been 100% reliable in keeping his agreements with Israel, even while Israel has been 100% reliable in breaking them.

Never once? The Palestinians shat on Oslo. They haven't made a peace agreement since because Israel won't accept such a front-loaded agreement again.

]You can say what you want about Hamas, their actions speak for themselves. But the claim that Mahmoud Abbas would deliberately break a peace deal with Israel just to placate the Islamists is an EXTRAORDINARY claim to say the least.

Look at the translations of what he says in Arabic.

When a perpetrator dies in a crime the lack of charges doesn't mean they continue to get benefits that would have been lost due to the crime.

It does for military officers.

I said a crime, not a war. Suicide-bombing civilians is a crime, not war.

- - - Updated - - -

Granted, nobody can tell either side in the Israel-Palestine dispute to do any at all...so long as the U.S. supports unconditionally one of the sides. We all know that is the case today. I would ask Loren however, what would he have the two sides do if they both agreed to listen to him....he must however abandon the notion that one side will never listen him...so HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH MAKING PEACE IN THE AREA?

I don't believe there is a path to peace there at this time.

We should focus on containing the Islamists. Once they are defanged we will see peace in Palestine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If all your neighbours want to kill you and destroy your home, surely there comes a point when you just move to a better neighbourhood away from the crazy people?

No piece of land is worth this; North America could easily accommodate a Jewish homeland with a similar climate. Give them Lincoln County, Nevada, for example - it's a bit more land than they claim right now, it has only a slightly drier climate, is handy to Las Vegas, conveniently close to the other religious nutter state, Utah - and only about 5,400 people need to relocate if they don't want to stay (The US Government could offer them four million bucks each in compensation, and it would still cost less than a decade of the status quo). Make Israel the 51st state of the Union, and Robert is your mother's brother.

(I know, I know "but God". Perhaps it isn't just the neighbours who are crazy. Look, God is notoriously geographically challenged - who is to say that the land He promised to the Jews is even on this planet? He gets pissed at gays in San Francisco, and wipes out Kansas with tornadoes as punishment, so I don't think He cares too much about the exact location of stuff).

The reason for the existence of Israel is the Jewish majority--they know they aren't going to be mistreated there. Lincoln County doesn't have this protection--while the US treats Jews reasonably now there have been times where Jews were heavily discriminated against.

And Lincoln County isn't a suitable place, anyway. Yeah, there's the land--but not the water. There's a good reason it has only ~5000 people!

 

[bilby]

If all your neighbours want to kill you and destroy your home, surely there comes a point when you just move to a better neighbourhood away from the crazy people?

No piece of land is worth this; North America could easily accommodate a Jewish homeland with a similar climate. Give them Lincoln County, Nevada, for example - it's a bit more land than they claim right now, it has only a slightly drier climate, is handy to Las Vegas, conveniently close to the other religious nutter state, Utah - and only about 5,400 people need to relocate if they don't want to stay (The US Government could offer them four million bucks each in compensation, and it would still cost less than a decade of the status quo). Make Israel the 51st state of the Union, and Robert is your mother's brother.

(I know, I know "but God". Perhaps it isn't just the neighbours who are crazy. Look, God is notoriously geographically challenged - who is to say that the land He promised to the Jews is even on this planet? He gets pissed at gays in San Francisco, and wipes out Kansas with tornadoes as punishment, so I don't think He cares too much about the exact location of stuff).

The reason for the existence of Israel is the Jewish majority--they know they aren't going to be mistreated there. Lincoln County doesn't have this protection--while the US treats Jews reasonably now there have been times where Jews were heavily discriminated against.

And Lincoln County isn't a suitable place, anyway. Yeah, there's the land--but not the water. There's a good reason it has only ~5000 people!

Meh, it would have a Jewish majority quick-smart if the current Jewish population of Israel (or even a small fraction thereof) moved there; And if Lincoln County has an unsuitable climate, I am sure there are other places in the US (or even just in other parts of Nevada for that matter) that would suit. If Uncle Sam will chip in with a few billion dollars in 'compensation' to be paid to the current inhabitants for their trouble, I expect a bidding war would break out for the right to host the new State of Israel. It would be a good deal cheaper than the current situation; paying say $40bn over 20 years for infrastructure plus direct payments to the current inhabitants would cost less than the current US aid to Israel, and would have the massive advantage of a defined end date.

The new State would be subject to the US constitution, of course, but they would have their own government that would be no more likely to discriminate against Jews as the government of Utah is to discriminate against Mormons. And nobody would be firing rockets at anybody, which compensates for quite a bit as far as I can see.

 

[tupac chopra]

The reason for the existence of Israel is the Jewish majority--they know they aren't going to be mistreated there.

Not like back in Egypt under that evil Pharaoh dude. Or when they had to be slaves in Babylon. No sir

 

[tupac chopra]

The reason for the existence of Israel is the Jewish majority--they know they aren't going to be mistreated there. Lincoln County doesn't have this protection--while the US treats Jews reasonably now there have been times where Jews were heavily discriminated against.

And Lincoln County isn't a suitable place, anyway. Yeah, there's the land--but not the water. There's a good reason it has only ~5000 people!

Meh, it would have a Jewish majority quick-smart if the current Jewish population of Israel (or even a small fraction thereof) moved there; And if Lincoln County has an unsuitable climate, I am sure there are other places in the US (or even just in other parts of Nevada for that matter) that would suit. If Uncle Sam will chip in with a few billion dollars in 'compensation' to be paid to the current inhabitants for their trouble, I expect a bidding war would break out for the right to host the new State of Israel. It would be a good deal cheaper than the current situation; paying say $40bn over 20 years for infrastructure plus direct payments to the current inhabitants would cost less than the current US aid to Israel, and would have the massive advantage of a defined end date.

The new State would be subject to the US constitution, of course, but they would have their own government that would be no more likely to discriminate against Jews as the government of Utah is to discriminate against Mormons. And nobody would be firing rockets at anybody, which compensates for quite a bit as far as I can see.

Nevada has been suggested. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/10/stephan-kinsella/want-to-end-middle-eastern-hatreds/

 

[bilby]

Meh, it would have a Jewish majority quick-smart if the current Jewish population of Israel (or even a small fraction thereof) moved there; And if Lincoln County has an unsuitable climate, I am sure there are other places in the US (or even just in other parts of Nevada for that matter) that would suit. If Uncle Sam will chip in with a few billion dollars in 'compensation' to be paid to the current inhabitants for their trouble, I expect a bidding war would break out for the right to host the new State of Israel. It would be a good deal cheaper than the current situation; paying say $40bn over 20 years for infrastructure plus direct payments to the current inhabitants would cost less than the current US aid to Israel, and would have the massive advantage of a defined end date.

The new State would be subject to the US constitution, of course, but they would have their own government that would be no more likely to discriminate against Jews as the government of Utah is to discriminate against Mormons. And nobody would be firing rockets at anybody, which compensates for quite a bit as far as I can see.

Nevada has been suggested. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/10/stephan-kinsella/want-to-end-middle-eastern-hatreds/

Yeah, it's a pretty obvious solution to move Israel to the US. I picked Lincoln County as it is a similar size to the current area of Israel, and as it has one of the lowest population densities in the US. There are other (perhaps better) options, of course. I am not surprised that others have had the same thought.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No.

It consists of Israel dismantling its settlements, ending the blockade of Gaza and retreating to the 1967 borders.

There's no "roll over" there except for Israel to give up on the annexation of the West Bank. NO ONE has claimed they give up their right to self defense if attacked, especially since it's extremely clear that Israel is FULLY capable of neutralizing any attack the Palestinians will be able to launch at them, conventional or otherwise (and they're getting better all the time).

But the "peace" agreements do nothing about the Palestinians bringing in heavy weapons.

Neither does continued occupation or occasional "mowing the grass" in Gaza.

The only difference between those two approaches is that Palestinians, like most people, are much harder to radicalize when they're fat and happy than when they're starving and furious. The Palestinians can bring in all the heavy weapons they want, but they would find it difficult to convince their GOVERNMENT to use them.

And Israel is *NOT* capable of neutralizing an attack with modern weapons without an awful lot of bloodshed on both sides.

Since when? The IDF's battle record is a history of spectacular achievements against numerically and in some cases technologically superior Arabs. You think the Palestinians are a more credible threat than Egypt or Jordan? They're not even on par with Lebanon (who, by the way, IS peace with Israel in exactly the conditions you describe, and yet it seems to be working just fine).

Never once? The Palestinians shat on Oslo.

Abbas didn't. Oslo was already dead by the time he took office (after Ariel Sharon took it for a ride in the woods).

They haven't made a peace agreement since because Israel won't accept such a front-loaded agreement again.

That's probably because their negotiators don't want to be murdered by radical Zionists.

Look at the translations of what he says in Arabic.

Are you referring to anything SPECIFIC or are you just assuming that Abbas is lying because that's what Palestinians do and therefore anyone who looked up what Abbas says in Arabic would see he's lying because that's what Palestinians do?

I said a crime, not a war.

I said "military" not war.

MILITARY officers continue to collect pensions even if they are killed while perpetrating a crime (in many cases, even war crimes). The only exception is if they survive long enough to be dishonorably discharged.

We should focus on containing the Islamists. Once they are defanged we will see peace in Palestine.

What THE REST OF US realize is that the only way to contain Islamism is to cut it off from its food supply. Islamism feeds on the rage and despair of disaffected Muslims facing poverty, oppression and marginalization by foreign and domestic oppressors. Were Israel to cease its aggressive annexation of the West Bank and its violent oppression of Palestinians collectively, Palestinian support for Islamists would begin to evaporate. Doubly so, if it was perceived that the one who finally got Israel off their backs was NOT an Islamist, but a pragmatist and statesman like Abbas.

If, on the other hand, you continue to allow Israel to run roughshod over the West Bank and sidestep Abbas like an ineffectual clown, the Palestinians will continue to back Hamas and other radical elements who have demonstrated at least that they're capable of getting Israel's ATTENTION (something Abbas cannot always do).

This means the only outstanding factor here is Israel. Withdrawing from the West Bank would provide room for the moderates to engineer a solution and consolidate Palestinian support behind them, forcing the more radical elements of their society to moderate themselves or face irrelevancy. Hamas CANNOT sustain its radicalism without the existential threat that Israel represents, and reducing the Israeli threat would force them to reconsider their agenda.

But Israel won't pull out of the West Bank because it has its OWN radicals to contend with, radicals who largely control the political discourse of their country and whose vote is needed to remain in power. Netanyahu knows on some level that every west bank expansion makes peace with Palestine that much harder to achieve, and every crackdown on peaceful activists makes the radical position seem that much more attractive.

Really, it's not only the Islamists that need to be contained. It's also the Zionists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason for the existence of Israel is the Jewish majority--they know they aren't going to be mistreated there. Lincoln County doesn't have this protection--while the US treats Jews reasonably now there have been times where Jews were heavily discriminated against.

And Lincoln County isn't a suitable place, anyway. Yeah, there's the land--but not the water. There's a good reason it has only ~5000 people!

Meh, it would have a Jewish majority quick-smart if the current Jewish population of Israel (or even a small fraction thereof) moved there;

But the US doesn't. We've screwed the Jews as recently as WWII. The discriminatory admissions policies of many of our universities were originally targeted against the Jews.

And if Lincoln County has an unsuitable climate, I am sure there are other places in the US (or even just in other parts of Nevada for that matter) that would suit. If Uncle Sam will chip in with a few billion dollars in 'compensation' to be paid to the current inhabitants for their trouble, I expect a bidding war would break out for the right to host the new State of Israel. It would be a good deal cheaper than the current situation; paying say $40bn over 20 years for infrastructure plus direct payments to the current inhabitants would cost less than the current US aid to Israel, and would have the massive advantage of a defined end date.

The population of Nevada is low because of a lack of water. We simply can't absorb millions of people from anywhere.

The new State would be subject to the US constitution, of course, but they would have their own government that would be no more likely to discriminate against Jews as the government of Utah is to discriminate against Mormons. And nobody would be firing rockets at anybody, which compensates for quite a bit as far as I can see.

And why would they trust that situation to persist?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the "peace" agreements do nothing about the Palestinians bringing in heavy weapons.

Neither does continued occupation or occasional "mowing the grass" in Gaza.

The only difference between those two approaches is that Palestinians, like most people, are much harder to radicalize when they're fat and happy than when they're starving and furious. The Palestinians can bring in all the heavy weapons they want, but they would find it difficult to convince their GOVERNMENT to use them.

Which is why Hamas does everything it can to ensure the people aren't fat and happy. They've managed to cut the GDP in Gaza to less than 1/3 of what it used to be.

And Israel is *NOT* capable of neutralizing an attack with modern weapons without an awful lot of bloodshed on both sides.

Since when? The IDF's battle record is a history of spectacular achievements against numerically and in some cases technologically superior Arabs. You think the Palestinians are a more credible threat than Egypt or Jordan? They're not even on par with Lebanon (who, by the way, IS peace with Israel in exactly the conditions you describe, and yet it seems to be working just fine).

Battles away from the cities. Gaza would be different--look at some of the cities Russia has shelled to get an idea of what it would be like.

They haven't made a peace agreement since because Israel won't accept such a front-loaded agreement again.

That's probably because their negotiators don't want to be murdered by radical Zionists.

They won't make a front-loaded agreement because they got screwed that way. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The Palestinians understand this, now the game is demanding preconditions and then not talking, letting the world pressure Israel into making such concessions. The whole name of the game is to get concessions without offering anything in return.

We should focus on containing the Islamists. Once they are defanged we will see peace in Palestine.

What THE REST OF US realize is that the only way to contain Islamism is to cut it off from its food supply. Islamism feeds on the rage and despair of disaffected Muslims facing poverty, oppression and marginalization by foreign and domestic oppressors. Were Israel to cease its aggressive annexation of the West Bank and its violent oppression of Palestinians collectively, Palestinian support for Islamists would begin to evaporate. Doubly so, if it was perceived that the one who finally got Israel off their backs was NOT an Islamist, but a pragmatist and statesman like Abbas.

Except Islamism exists even where we aren't doing anything.

 

[bilby]

Meh, it would have a Jewish majority quick-smart if the current Jewish population of Israel (or even a small fraction thereof) moved there;

But the US doesn't. We've screwed the Jews as recently as WWII. The discriminatory admissions policies of many of our universities were originally targeted against the Jews.

WWII?? So, far more recently than they have had any problems with the Palestinians then? Your objection here is insane. "We won't move from our current home in a warzone to a nice peaceful neighbourhood, because the people in the new place were mean to us sixty years ago". Do you even read the shit you write??

And if Lincoln County has an unsuitable climate, I am sure there are other places in the US (or even just in other parts of Nevada for that matter) that would suit. If Uncle Sam will chip in with a few billion dollars in 'compensation' to be paid to the current inhabitants for their trouble, I expect a bidding war would break out for the right to host the new State of Israel. It would be a good deal cheaper than the current situation; paying say $40bn over 20 years for infrastructure plus direct payments to the current inhabitants would cost less than the current US aid to Israel, and would have the massive advantage of a defined end date.

The population of Nevada is low because of a lack of water. We simply can't absorb millions of people from anywhere.

So find somewhere else. The USA is a big place.

The new State would be subject to the US constitution, of course, but they would have their own government that would be no more likely to discriminate against Jews as the government of Utah is to discriminate against Mormons. And nobody would be firing rockets at anybody, which compensates for quite a bit as far as I can see.

And why would they trust that situation to persist?

Why wouldn't they? Who is going to start firing rockets at them in the USA? Does anyone currently engage in such offensive tactics against anyone else in the US? Are there recular 'anti-Mormon' rocket attacks targeting Salt lake City? There are more Jews in New York City than in Israel; The last fatal attack on NY by Muslims was in 2001 - and that last fatal attack was also the first. (And that's before we even start on the fact that September 11 would likely not have occurred if Israel wasn't in the Middle East).

I am beginning to suspect that your worst nightmare would be an end to the violence - certainly you seem to be vehemently opposed to any attempt to find any kind of solution.

 

[laughing dog]

I am beginning to suspect that your worst nightmare would be an end to the violence - certainly you seem to be vehemently opposed to any attempt to find any kind of solution.

It is possible that LP is making a NIMBY argument in disquise.

 

[arkirk]

No.

It consists of Israel dismantling its settlements, ending the blockade of Gaza and retreating to the 1967 borders.

There's no "roll over" there except for Israel to give up on the annexation of the West Bank. NO ONE has claimed they give up their right to self defense if attacked, especially since it's extremely clear that Israel is FULLY capable of neutralizing any attack the Palestinians will be able to launch at them, conventional or otherwise (and they're getting better all the time).

But the "peace" agreements do nothing about the Palestinians bringing in heavy weapons.

And Israel is *NOT* capable of neutralizing an attack with modern weapons without an awful lot of bloodshed on both sides.

Even less has the plan involved the Palestinians "doing the exact opposite of what they said they will do." Abbas, for his part, has NEVER ONCE reneged on a peace agreement, nor has he ever negotiated in bad faith. He has been 100% reliable in keeping his agreements with Israel, even while Israel has been 100% reliable in breaking them.

Never once? The Palestinians shat on Oslo. They haven't made a peace agreement since because Israel won't accept such a front-loaded agreement again.

]You can say what you want about Hamas, their actions speak for themselves. But the claim that Mahmoud Abbas would deliberately break a peace deal with Israel just to placate the Islamists is an EXTRAORDINARY claim to say the least.

Look at the translations of what he says in Arabic.

When a perpetrator dies in a crime the lack of charges doesn't mean they continue to get benefits that would have been lost due to the crime.

It does for military officers.

I said a crime, not a war. Suicide-bombing civilians is a crime, not war.

- - - Updated - - -

Granted, nobody can tell either side in the Israel-Palestine dispute to do any at all...so long as the U.S. supports unconditionally one of the sides. We all know that is the case today. I would ask Loren however, what would he have the two sides do if they both agreed to listen to him....he must however abandon the notion that one side will never listen him...so HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH MAKING PEACE IN THE AREA?

I don't believe there is a path to peace there at this time.

We should focus on containing the Islamists. Once they are defanged we will see peace in Palestine.

Wake up, Loren...occupation and asymetrical warfare that is practiced in Palestine IS A CRIME. I believe you have made it clear that you only believe in overwhelming force and destruction to make a "path to peace." I would point out to you that is the ONLY PATH Israel has followed for more than 60years and it doesn't seem to be working. You seem to be dictating the killing of all of Hamas...leaving no man standing...but there it is, still resisting no matter how extreme your side's attacks become. Odd isn't it? All that energy spent and still no progress! Wake up! You are part of the problem.

To make matters worse, Israel is promoting attacking a country with more than ten times as many people (Iran). The driving force behind any Iranian aspirations for nuclear weapons resides in Israel with its illegal supply of nukes. Netanyahu has the potential to make Hitler look like a small time piker in the genocide department. The entire world knows this. That is why Israel is so isolated and our foreign policy being deeply influenced by Netanyahu is isolating the U.S. along with itself. There are two forces that no Arab or Muslim dare not trust in the region...the U.S. and Israel. We keep feeding the Islamists with our own brand of violence. You know this is true too. This conflict will end when Israel cleans up its act. That will happen when the U.S. ends its unconditional support for whatever regime is in Israel and demands it back down and make peace. Our politicians are so afraid of the money AIPAC represents, they are all just followers of AIPAC's policy dictates. That includes a good many so called progressives who also are attempting to access its political and financial support. Not mentioning names here, but it is obvious.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Neither does continued occupation or occasional "mowing the grass" in Gaza.

The only difference between those two approaches is that Palestinians, like most people, are much harder to radicalize when they're fat and happy than when they're starving and furious. The Palestinians can bring in all the heavy weapons they want, but they would find it difficult to convince their GOVERNMENT to use them.

Which is why Hamas does everything it can to ensure the people aren't fat and happy. They've managed to cut the GDP in Gaza to less than 1/3 of what it used to be.

Yes... HAMAS did all of that. Israel had nothing at all to do with it, it was all Hamas.

Battles away from the cities. Gaza would be different--look at some of the cities Russia has shelled to get an idea of what it would be like.

Or I could just look at the cities in northern Israel during their brief spat with Hezbollah a few years ago.

Hezbollah bombed Israel within an inch of surrender, right? And they had a huge army of militants at the border poised to march in and kill all the Jews?

Isn't that what happened?

They won't make a front-loaded agreement because they got screwed that way.

They got screwed in the front-loaded agreement they never implemented or abided by despite getting virtually everything they wanted from the Palestinian leadership?

You have an interesting definition of screwed.

Except Islamism exists even where we aren't doing anything.

And DOESN'T exist in places where Muslims live happy and productive lives in relatively stable and supportive societies.

Here's your big chance to convince me that the Palestinians will continue to cling to Islamism even when they have no social, political, economic or military or reason to do so. Hint: depending on what Israel decides to do in Jerusalem they may still have a RELIGIOUS reason.