Jesus christ on a cracker, you give the arabs a pass for the most inflamatory possible behavior and then bugger the Israelies for not excercising the utmost restraint while gambling the fate of their country. Israel is a very very tiny country. In one hour tanks from Egypt and Jordan can meet up in the middle and bisect the country if they had attacked first. Syrian artillery located on the Golan Heights can pound northern Israel with impunity, and it did. There was not one ounce of diplomacy forthcoming from either of the 3 countries allied against Israel.

Oops, srry, I fumbled with the dates. Meir was elected in ‘69. It were Ben Gurion and then Eshkol who were at the helm between 56 and 67, of course.

Yup, I somewhat lost part of the sentence there. It should have been “If Israel would have tried to reach a better understanding with its neighbors”. I know that a peace treaty would have been unlikely before ‘67, but there’s exactly no evidence that Israel tried to dampen the tensions in any way. Isn’t this somewhat surprising if the nation’s leaders really thought their countries existance was in jeopardy? Imho this leads to two conclusions: Firstly, Meir et al. were quite confident that Israel was able to defend itself (and actually, 67 proved this) and secondly, there was no interest in reducing the risk because of strategical planning to use the next war as a chance to reconquer Jerusalem.

“I’m sorry, but in this post you seem to be going completely over the edge into the blame Israel for everything camp.”
I hope this post is clearer now. Besides, pls note that I don’t blame Israel for everything, I just pointed out that Israel bears some responsibility for the tensions in the region. Imho even the most enthusiastic Israel supporters can’t simply dismiss this.

What in heaven’s name do you mean by “If Israel would have tried to reach a better understanding…”? Understanding over what? I’m sorry, but in this post you seem to be going completely over the edge into the blame Israel for everything camp.

“If Israel had lost either in 1948, 1967, or the Yom Kippur war it wouldn’t be here today.”
If Israel would have tried to reach a better understanding, maybe the six day war (preemptively started by Israel!) and Yom Kippur (Egyprian/Syrian reaction on the defeat 1967) wouldn’t have been necessary. Fact is, Israel had no interest in avoiding war in 67 because it wanted to conquer Jerusalem. 73 is just a result of this.

Why do you refuse to address me? Afraid that I’ve called you out on numerous occasions? C’mon give me the time of day and I’ll buy you a drink (or put a a couple dollars in my local church’s collection plate in your honor if you’re of that ilk).

Laura said:
February 13, 2007 at 8:43 am

Presenting one sided positions is not moderate.

Laura – jdledell is one of those Jews who will join us Liberals in Hell at the Rapture. I will enjoy eternity with jdl before spending it with the likes of you. His relatives in Israel will join us in the Inferno – LOL.

What exactly do the Arabs have to do to appear unreasonable to you people?

Also, there are genetic differences. From wikipedia: “In recent years, many genetic surveys have suggested that — at least paternally — the various Jewish ethnic divisions and Palestinians, (and in some cases other Levantines) are genetically closer to each other than either is to the Arabs (of Arabia) or non-Jewish Europeans” which I’ve read in other sources as well. Most Palestinians are more closely related to the ancient tribes of Israel than the Bedouin Arabs that make up most of the Middle East (although to be fair there is a significant amount of intermarriage, but “native” Israelis are almost exactly the same as Palestinians).

To be fair, the Palestinian identity as a political movement was started (mostly) as a reaction to Israel. Again from Wikipedia:

Even before the end of Ottoman administration, Palestine, rather than the Ottoman Empire, was considered by some Palestinians to be their country. On 25 July 1913, for instance, the Palestinian newspaper al-Karmel wrote: “This team possessed tremendous power; not to ignore that Palestine, their country, was part of the Ottoman Empire.”

then it goes on to explain how most Palestinians didn’t see it this way, when the Ottoman Empire fell and France took over Syria there was the start of a greater movement

Similarly, the Second Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (December 1920), passed a resolution calling for an independent Palestine; they then wrote a long letter to the League of Nations about “Palestine, land of Miracles and the supernatural, and the cradle of religions”, demanding, amongst other things, that a “National Government be created which shall be responsible to a Parliament elected by the Palestinian People, who existed in Palestine before the war.”

Now I personally think that Israel has recently (since the early 90s) been a model nation concerning the circumstances — with a few exceptions like the stupid settlements that are red meat to the ultra-conservatives — and most of the blame is on Palestinians, but to pretend like they have no identity is not true in my (admittedly shallow) understanding.

But that’s certainly not my starting point for a debate. I accept that Israel exists and should continue to exist as long as it’s viable. I accept that the Israelis are occupying Palestinian territory. I accept that a Palestinian state created from the current occupied territories would not be viable. So how do we move forward toward a two-state solution that is fair and viable for both sides? How do we end the brutal treatment of the Palestinians? How do we end attacks on Israel from the occupied territories?

I think that there are some extremists on both sides, and that any fair solution has to marginalize those extremists. I do tend to think there are more of those extremists on the Palestinian/Arab side, but I do pay attention to those who are critical of Israeli policy and try to examine that evidence with an open mind. If Israelis truly are trying to “put the Palestinians on Indian reservations”, then this is not right and they should be criticized for such policies. I happen to think that some Israelis may have come to that type of thinking because they have felt threatened by Palestinian terrorism ever since the state of Israel was established. But this is really no different than American colonists feeling threatened by the “savages” and treating them immorally as a result of their fear. I honestly don’t know how much the situation in Israel today parallels that time in US history, but I think there’s room to believe that there is some comparison.

Ok, this is a valid point. But, sry, I didn’t get it form Michael’s story. This shows that it’s dangerous to quote other sources without clearly stating what the point is. Sry, Michael, if I jumped to the wrong conclusions.

When you see that this argument is not a substantial one against Palestine, you see why the Palestinians shouldn’t use that to criticize the existence of Israel.

That’s a fair point, but is anyone here actually arguing that Israel shouldn’t exist? Do most Palestinians even think that? (Probably more extremism now than 20 years ago I’m sure)

But that’s certainly not my starting point for a debate. I accept that Israel exists and should continue to exist as long as it’s viable. I accept that the Israelis are occupying Palestinian territory. I accept that a Palestinian state created from the current occupied territories would not be viable. So how do we move forward toward a two-state solution that is fair and viable for both sides? How do we end the brutal treatment of the Palestinians? How do we end attacks on Israel from the occupied territories?

This is suppossed to be a moderate site. Presenting one sided positions is not moderate. Of course I advocate pointing out errors on BOTH sides – you on the other hand seem to publish only the Israeli side. What that does is get people like me to try to balance your positions which portrays me, a huge Israeli supporter, as anti-Israel.

You notice that you appear to be a bit anti-Israel as well huh?

MvdG You are just a fanatical fan to the Israel soccer match, jdledell is an active player. Atleast you have some restraint, you don’t call him a Liberal self hating Jew, yet….

February 13, 2007 at 8:41 am
MvdG said: those Palestinians are Arabs and that is not what I am suggesting at all. I believe in a two-state solution as I have said before.
Chris responded:
But that was what that article was suggesting.

I think what MvdG was trying to point out in the post is that the arguments used by Palestinians and their supporters that Israel has no right to a state (due to not having a national identity in recent history) is no more valid than an argument that the same is true of Palestine. When you see that this argument is not a substantial one against Palestine, you see why the Palestinians shouldn’t use that to criticize the existence of Israel.

Do you want to deny that the illegal settlements actually were expanded after Oslo? Do you think a prime minister who violates against treaties to be trustworthy?

Presenting one sided positions is not moderate.

I suppose you would present pro-Israel voices if you were posting to this blog? And if you are such a moderate, why do you have such a one-sided anti-Israel view of the Middle East? Anyone who is objective and moderate would clearly be on the side of Israel. Being anti-Israel shows one lacks moral clarity. As to my own view, the so-called “palestinians” are not deserving of a state, which any truly moderate, objective person can see would be just another terrorist state. If anyone should be given statehood in the region, it ought to be the Kurds.