Israeli

[Art0ir]

Mrr T said:

I will not defend the settlements nor the Governments inaction in dealing with them. I do understand the Governments problem in that the settlers have votes and supporters so taking decisive action is controversial.

Such apologist doublespeak, I'm actually laughing!

[Rocksteadyeddie]

Mrr T said:

I will not defend the settlements nor the Governments inaction in dealing with them. I do understand the Governments problem in that the settlers have votes and supporters so taking decisive action is controversial.

Presumably what you meant was that the settlements are a disgrace. The political diffciulties in dealing with them are a legacy of a warped and immoral policy of successive Israeli governments.

[franki68]

Countdown said:

I wish you were right but I don't think it will. Your average Israeli appears to becoming increasingly more in support of the Settlers and the Israeli arabs won't be able to make much difference. This goes back to the thing about Israel being a "Jewish State" and a "democratic State". It can't be both.

whatever ones views on the conflict I think we can all agree a resolution looks a million miles away ,there is a sea of mistrust between both sides that is difficult to cross and even if they did manage to, imagine how easily any peace could be disrrupted by idiots form either side ?

[S 8 GRN]

Countdown said:

Mrr T said:

Back to Israel.

If Hamas declared an unconditional cease fire, agreed to Israel's right to exist, and renounced violence.

Then we might truly be on the road to peace.
.

I think what you mean is "If Hamas agreed to everything Israel wants the we "might" be on the road to peace".

The West Bank has been peaceful, Fatah HAS agreed to Israel's right to exist. And Israel has continued to build Settlements.

Israel doesn't want peace. It wants a "Greater Israel".

Genuine question - why do you believe that the Israeli gov are trying to achieve a 'greater Israel'? Fear of being overthrown without numbers/dominating the land? Driven by a desire to generally conquer? Irrational fear that someone will take it away from them? It must be driven by something? Right?

To be clear I don't agree with the settlements.

[s1962a]

S 8 GRN said:

s1962a said:

Lost soul said:

JuniorD said:

Funkycoldribena said:

s1962a said:

Apparently 43% of Gaza is unsafe for residents. Where in gaza can they go?

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-gaza...

The other 57%?

How flippant and ignorant but not unexpected.

Not at all flippant

I will ask again then, where is the map showing the safe 57%? Is it a static 57% or have there been examples of people being asked to flee their homes and then being bombed in their new location? Yes, that was a loaded question.

That would be for Hamas to provide for their people surely? The people that support them? Put them in power? It would be perfectly normal to expect your leaders that are taking your people in to battle to protect everyone else and get them behind the battle lines? But as we know it serves their purpose to maximise civilian casualties and their can be no doubt that is their tactic.

What is wrong is how the Israeli gov have gone about this in the first place. Such loss of life, specifically children, is totally unacceptable. How ever frequent the rockets it cannot justify those deaths.

I agree with you about Hamas using human shields and how sad it is for those poor children. What really gets me is that when you know or suspect a house contains a whole family, and you bomb it because you are targetting one individual.

I am no fan of hamas and they need to be taken out of power, but keeping the blockade of the gazans in place won't change that. Giving them free trade access and introducing customs to stop arms getting in seems like the better solution to get rid of hamas.

[Mrr T]

Countdown said:

I wish you were right but I don't think it will. Your average Israeli appears to becoming increasingly more in support of the Settlers and the Israeli arabs won't be able to make much difference. This goes back to the thing about Israel being a "Jewish State" and a "democratic State". It can't be both.

Really do not understand the comment about a Jewish state can not be a democracy.

The UK is a Christian state, with a state religion, the queen as head of the religion, bishops sitting in the House of Lords, the right to swear on the bible, but I suggest we are still a demoracy.

Some may refer to Israel as a Jewish state but other suggest it is better called a sate of Jews. I believe its an on going debate on this in Israel but for example there have been no attempts to to incorporate observance of Jewish festivals, or rights into law.

Just like in the UK where Easter is a bank holiday but no one forces you to fast.

While I am sure those on the Jewish orthodox side of the debate who would go much further, they remain a minority.

[Countdown]

S 8 GRN said:

Genuine question - why do you believe that the Israeli gov are trying to achieve a 'greater Israel'? Fear of being overthrown without numbers/dominating the land? Driven by a desire to generally conquer? Irrational fear that someone will take it away from them? It must be driven by something? Right?

To be clear I don't agree with the settlements.

Because the Zionists believe that the Israel that "God promised them" is greater Israel and therefore they are entitled to it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Eretz+Yisrael

http://www.ahavat-israel.com/eretz/future

[Mrr T]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

Presumably what you meant was that the settlements are a disgrace.

Yes

Rocksteadyeddie said:

The political diffciulties in dealing with them are a legacy of a warped and immoral policy of successive Israeli governments.

No.

The problems of dealing with the settlers are the result of a voting system based on proportional representation which means you get 13 parties in the Knesset of which 5 have more than 10 member. This means small parties, some who support the settlements, having power well beyond there relative size. This is one of the reasons FPP is a much better system.

[Countdown]

Mrr T said:

Really do not understand the comment about a Jewish state can not be a democracy.

The UK is a Christian state, with a state religion, the queen as head of the religion, bishops sitting in the House of Lords, the right to swear on the bible, but I suggest we are still a demoracy.

Ok - here's a question - if Israel is a democracy why not give all Palestinians (both In Israel AND the West Bank/Gaza) full voting rights?

[Countdown]

Mrr T said:

Rocksteadyeddie said:

Presumably what you meant was that the settlements are a disgrace.

Yes

Rocksteadyeddie said:

The political diffciulties in dealing with them are a legacy of a warped and immoral policy of successive Israeli governments.

No.

The problems of dealing with the settlers are the result of a voting system based on proportional representation which means you get 13 parties in the Knesset of which 5 have more than 10 member. This means small parties, some who support the settlements, having power well beyond there relative size. This is one of the reasons FPP is a much better system.

So you accept that the Settlements are a disgrace and they are the result of Israel's "democratic" system? Even if there was unconditional surrender from the Palestinians tomorrow why would the small "fringe" parties suddenly change their support for Settlements?

Can you understand why the Palestinians are frustrated?

[S 8 GRN]

Countdown said:

S 8 GRN said:

Genuine question - why do you believe that the Israeli gov are trying to achieve a 'greater Israel'? Fear of being overthrown without numbers/dominating the land? Driven by a desire to generally conquer? Irrational fear that someone will take it away from them? It must be driven by something? Right?

To be clear I don't agree with the settlements.

Because the Zionists believe that the Israel that "God promised them" is greater Israel and therefore they are entitled to it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Eretz+Yisrael

http://www.ahavat-israel.com/eretz/future

Thank you - I appreciate the respectful reply.

Not sure I agree though - I see the gov being more secular in their religious beliefs.

[Art0ir]

S 8 GRN said:

Thank you - I appreciate the respectful reply.

Not sure I agree though - I see the gov being more secular in their religious beliefs.

Can you define government?

Because Bibi is quoted as saying he will not entertain a Palestinian state, but he's not representative of the entire government for some.

His ministers have said they will not entertain a Palestinian state, but they're only lone voices amongst a sea of secularism.

His coalition partners have said they will not entertain a Palestinian state, but they're only the minority partners.

[Transmitter Man]

Countdown said:

I wish you were right but I don't think it will. Your average Israeli appears to becoming increasingly more in support of the Settlers and the Israeli arabs won't be able to make much difference. This goes back to the thing about Israel being a "Jewish State" and a "democratic State". It can't be both.

Count,

I thought the government had Christians, Arabs, Druze & Jews and that the country has siumilar elections to here in the west.

What's left to be democratic, you choose the party with the most votes, if there's not enough you enter into a coalition.

Phil

[Mr Snap]

Scuffers said:

not sure you have that the right way round?

Hamas will not accept Israel exists hence why Egypt usually has to be the go-between

Egypt is not a fan of Hamas. Don't believe me? Try the Jerusalem post http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Amid-p...

Why do you think Egypt is complicit in the blockade of Gaza?

[S 8 GRN]

Art0ir said:

S 8 GRN said:

Thank you - I appreciate the respectful reply.

Not sure I agree though - I see the gov being more secular in their religious beliefs.

Can you define government?

Because Bibi is quoted as saying he will not entertain a Palestinian state, but he's not representative of the entire government for some.

His ministers have said they will not entertain a Palestinian state, but they're only lone voices amongst a sea of secularism.

His coalition partners have said they will not entertain a Palestinian state, but they're only the minority partners.

There is more to the story than he simply wouldn't entertain it - he claims due to security - I wouldn't disagree.
gov = cabinet

[FredClogs]

S 8 GRN said:

Countdown said:

S 8 GRN said:

Genuine question - why do you believe that the Israeli gov are trying to achieve a 'greater Israel'? Fear of being overthrown without numbers/dominating the land? Driven by a desire to generally conquer? Irrational fear that someone will take it away from them? It must be driven by something? Right?

To be clear I don't agree with the settlements.

Because the Zionists believe that the Israel that "God promised them" is greater Israel and therefore they are entitled to it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Eretz+Yisrael

http://www.ahavat-israel.com/eretz/future

Thank you - I appreciate the respectful reply.

Not sure I agree though - I see the gov being more secular in their religious beliefs.

As we've seen latterly in this thread this debate/discussion/argument all gets a bit messy when religion and religious stereo typing gets banded about... BUT, Israel is a religious state, a Jewish state, it's not a theocracy but Judaism is not a theocratic religion, Jews have a specific cultural heritage and set of values and inherited customs which are related and specific to Judaism but not necessarily religious - if you know what I mean. The Talmud specifically is much more than just a religious text, you can be pretty Jewy and have a complete non belief in the existence of a super natural God, it's one of the defining traits of Judaism, and one of the reasons why a lot of Jewish schooled and Jewish raised people have a good intellect, study of the Talmud is a really good education. You can be a secular Jew is what I'm saying and still be both very Jewish and very secular.

[S 8 GRN]

FredClogs said:

S 8 GRN said:

Countdown said:

S 8 GRN said:

Genuine question - why do you believe that the Israeli gov are trying to achieve a 'greater Israel'? Fear of being overthrown without numbers/dominating the land? Driven by a desire to generally conquer? Irrational fear that someone will take it away from them? It must be driven by something? Right?

To be clear I don't agree with the settlements.

Because the Zionists believe that the Israel that "God promised them" is greater Israel and therefore they are entitled to it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Eretz+Yisrael

http://www.ahavat-israel.com/eretz/future

Thank you - I appreciate the respectful reply.

Not sure I agree though - I see the gov being more secular in their religious beliefs.

As we've seen latterly in this thread this debate/discussion/argument all gets a bit messy when religion and religious stereo typing gets banded about... BUT, Israel is a religious state, a Jewish state, it's not a theocracy but Judaism is not a theocratic religion, Jews have a specific cultural heritage and set of values and inherited customs which are related and specific to Judaism but not necessarily religious - if you know what I mean. The Talmud specifically is much more than just a religious text, you can be pretty Jewy and have a complete non belief in the existence of a super natural God, it's one of the defining traits of Judaism, and one of the reasons why a lot of Jewish schooled and Jewish raised people have a good intellect, study of the Talmud is a really good education. You can be a secular Jew is what I'm saying and still be both very Jewish and very secular.

100% agree though I normally use the word Jewy(sic) to describe the grass in the morning.

[Mr Snap]

Mrr T said:

Mr Snap said:

Saying you have limited self-knowledge is unfair, you have limited knowledge full-stop.

Should I be concerned about your views on me?

Mr Snap said:

Let's look at one of the other works of the acclaimed author Simon Dunstan. How about the one where he claims that there's 'overwhelming evidence' that Adolph Hitler escaped to and died in Argentina….? Now there's a chap whose opinions I would value highly.

Not seen or read the book so will not comment.

The Amazon description of the author.

Simon Dunstan is a well-established author, film-maker and photographer in the field of military history, with several titles already published with Osprey. He specializes in armored warfare, and has written on this subject for two decades. His books have covered topics such as helicopter and armored warfare in Vietnam, the Challenger main battle tank, the British Guards and armored warfare in Korea. Simon lives and works in London. The author lives in London, England.

Mr Snap said:

As for Michael B Oren, the author of the second book. He was the Israeli Ambassador to the US, a member of the IDF and an extremely active zionist since before the 1980's.

Despite your views the book does appear to be have been well received by others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/books/review/Rod...

Mr Snap said:

Only an ultra-zealous bigot with extremely poor research skills would cite bigots and fantasists.

How's that for QED?

Are you suggesting Simon Dunstan and/or Michael B Oren are "bigots and fantasists"?

I see you're a fan of the parsing ploy to shut down argument. That's two ploys, if you take into account you expecting others to supply citations yet fail to do the same yourself. You still haven't backed up your claims that I referred to earlier.

You have no reason to be concerned about my views of you. And yet it is you who returns to my observations like a clockwork toy. I'd suggest you ask yourself, not me, why. I can't supply answers to your apparent insecurities.

I don't care what else Dunstan has published or who he's published by. (Although, I note that Osprey specialises in 'illustrated books of military subjects', cough!, and none have ever been reviewed by a reputable scholar). Anyone who thinks that Hitler survived the bunker is a fantasist and not to be counted as an objective observer on any subject. The only creditable review of the book (The Australian) says "This book give conspiracy theories a bad name" Anyone who cites him is either a fool or mendacious.

Quoting Dunstan's blurb from Amazon is also ridiculous - you do realise he probably wrote it himself, don't you? As for his claim to be a photographer, that's my field of publication and Simon Dunstan is certainly not a reputable photographer. The man is a fantasist who writes comics for adults. I expect his film making - which as far as I can see is confined to the film of his Hitler book - is equally cutting edge.
I could go on regarding Dunstan's oeuvre but, to be honest, it makes me feel dirty.

Parts of Oren's book were well received by Rodenbeck, other parts less so (did you actually read to the end of the review?). However, what is not out of the question amongst many western commentators is Oren's hard-line support for zionism.

Here are two commentators who are far less than impressed by Oren:-

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/09/mic...
http://972mag.com/omissions-half-truths-and-lies-r...

The sad fact is that in the minds of many ultra-zionists Oren is a dangerous anti-zionist..
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article...

[Art0ir]

S 8 GRN said:

Art0ir said:

S 8 GRN said:

Thank you - I appreciate the respectful reply.

Not sure I agree though - I see the gov being more secular in their religious beliefs.

Can you define government?

Because Bibi is quoted as saying he will not entertain a Palestinian state, but he's not representative of the entire government for some.

His ministers have said they will not entertain a Palestinian state, but they're only lone voices amongst a sea of secularism.

His coalition partners have said they will not entertain a Palestinian state, but they're only the minority partners.

There is more to the story than he simply wouldn't entertain it - he claims due to security - I wouldn't disagree.
gov = cabinet

His reasons aren't the point, it's his intentions.

For civilians living in Gaza or the West Bank, all they hear are the intentions - under siege by Israel and eventually stateless.

[Mrr T]

Countdown said:

Ok - here's a question - if Israel is a democracy why not give all Palestinians (both In Israel AND the West Bank/Gaza) full voting rights?

The reasons are:

Gaza - Is not an occupied territory so why should it get to vote in Israeli elections. Should the Israelis be able to vote in Gaza.

West Bank - This is clearly political since the population would have considerable influence in Israeli elections. The issues of the West Bank tend to get overlooked because of the Hamas in Gaza. My own view is I cannot defend Israel's clear lack of progress in implementing the map for peace in the West Bank.