Withdrawals
-
K(arl) wrote: Because Israel has claims to the territory, but Syria doesn't? AFAIK, Syria does. Seen from Damascus, isn't Lebanon part of the "Greater Syria"? It's theoretic colonial ideas, not concrete claims and were never official. K(arl) wrote: Because Lebanon doesn't exercise terror against Syrian civilians? Would be interesting to know what Palestinians think about Israeli policy towards them, and if they consider is as a terror policy. It's not like Mofaz sits now and plans to bomb Gaza sea-food restaurant. K(arl) wrote: Because (some? most?) Lebanese want Syria out of Lebanon, not out of existance Some (most?) of the Palestinian want a country and are ready to compromise with Israel (or Abbas wouldn't have been elected with such a huge margin, right?) Palestinian presedential elections were nice show, with no real competition. When Hamas participated it won 80% to 20%. Anyhow, Palestinian ideas of a compromise is a non-starter for any future Israeli government. K(arl) wrote: Don't expect withdrawals or fence removal any time soon I've got no problem with the fence as long as it follows the Green Line and isn't used as an expansionist tool to seize foreign land. Unfortunatelly green line is military undefendable in many areas, as usually happens with arbitrary borders.
Felix Gartsman wrote: It's theoretic colonial ideas As are settlers claims. Felix Gartsman wrote: were never official Are now claims on West Bank and Gaza an official policy from the State of Israel? :confused: Felix Gartsman wrote: it's not like Mofaz sits now and plans to bomb Gaza sea-food restaurant. Oh, it would be some kind of collateral damage, I presume. Felix Gartsman wrote: Palestinian presedential elections were nice show, with no real competition Yeah, legitimity of elections under a military occupation by a foreign power is disputable. Felix Gartsman wrote: Anyhow, Palestinian ideas of a compromise is a non-starter for any future Israeli government. Then the only solution Israel has is now to genocide the palestinian people. Isn't that great? Felix Gartsman wrote: Unfortunatelly green line is military undefendable in many areas, as usually happens with arbitrary borders. Then build the fence inside the internationally recognized borders of Israel.
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck, doch Seh' ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links!
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: It's theoretic colonial ideas As are settlers claims. Felix Gartsman wrote: were never official Are now claims on West Bank and Gaza an official policy from the State of Israel? :confused: Felix Gartsman wrote: it's not like Mofaz sits now and plans to bomb Gaza sea-food restaurant. Oh, it would be some kind of collateral damage, I presume. Felix Gartsman wrote: Palestinian presedential elections were nice show, with no real competition Yeah, legitimity of elections under a military occupation by a foreign power is disputable. Felix Gartsman wrote: Anyhow, Palestinian ideas of a compromise is a non-starter for any future Israeli government. Then the only solution Israel has is now to genocide the palestinian people. Isn't that great? Felix Gartsman wrote: Unfortunatelly green line is military undefendable in many areas, as usually happens with arbitrary borders. Then build the fence inside the internationally recognized borders of Israel.
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck, doch Seh' ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links!
K(arl) wrote: It's theoretic colonial ideas As are settlers claims. Not really, the territory was British, the way it was partitioned is disputed. K(arl) wrote: Are now claims on West Bank and Gaza an official policy from the State of Israel? On parts of West Bank, absolutelly. K(arl) wrote: it's not like Mofaz sits now and plans to bomb Gaza sea-food restaurant. Oh, it would be some kind of collateral damage, I presume. Collateral damage is not direct intention. That's why there are different levels of death cause charges in court. K(arl) wrote: Felix Gartsman wrote: Anyhow, Palestinian ideas of a compromise is a non-starter for any future Israeli government. Then the only solution Israel has is now to genocide the palestinian people. Isn't that great? Genocide? Are you serious? K(arl) wrote: Unfortunatelly green line is military undefendable in many areas, as usually happens with arbitrary borders. Then build the fence inside the internationally recognized borders of Israel. There are no such borders. Palestine is not a country (yet). Behaving as the green line is a border is accepting Palestinian claims without agreement, that would be stupid negotiating technique.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Oddly enough I include the US in the "International Community". I may have you confused with another Mike, sorry :-D;)
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck, doch Seh' ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links!
Either that or you just not giving him the benefit of the doubt. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
K(arl) wrote: It's theoretic colonial ideas As are settlers claims. Not really, the territory was British, the way it was partitioned is disputed. K(arl) wrote: Are now claims on West Bank and Gaza an official policy from the State of Israel? On parts of West Bank, absolutelly. K(arl) wrote: it's not like Mofaz sits now and plans to bomb Gaza sea-food restaurant. Oh, it would be some kind of collateral damage, I presume. Collateral damage is not direct intention. That's why there are different levels of death cause charges in court. K(arl) wrote: Felix Gartsman wrote: Anyhow, Palestinian ideas of a compromise is a non-starter for any future Israeli government. Then the only solution Israel has is now to genocide the palestinian people. Isn't that great? Genocide? Are you serious? K(arl) wrote: Unfortunatelly green line is military undefendable in many areas, as usually happens with arbitrary borders. Then build the fence inside the internationally recognized borders of Israel. There are no such borders. Palestine is not a country (yet). Behaving as the green line is a border is accepting Palestinian claims without agreement, that would be stupid negotiating technique.
Felix Gartsman wrote: Collateral damage is not direct intention. That's why there are different levels of death cause charges in court. Glad that you used the death cause charge analogy, but didn't it strike you that it renders the 'Collateral damage is not direct intention.' argument invalid? When you fire a missile at something in a crowded area, it is almost certain that you hit something 'unintended' like children and such. You may call it collateral damage, I call it cold blooded murder. Karl wrote: Then build the fence inside the internationally recognized borders of Israel. Felix Gartsman wrote: There are no such borders. Erh?, yes there is. And how would you react if your neighbour started building a fence in your garden because there were shrubs in the split?, wouldn't you tell him that he should build the damn fence behind the shrub in his own garden? Felix Gartsman wrote: Behaving as the green line is a border is accepting Palestinian claims without agreement, that would be stupid negotiating technique. Terrorizing a population is a stupid negotiating technique, to avoid infuriating the other side is common sense. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
K(arl) wrote: It's theoretic colonial ideas As are settlers claims. Not really, the territory was British, the way it was partitioned is disputed. K(arl) wrote: Are now claims on West Bank and Gaza an official policy from the State of Israel? On parts of West Bank, absolutelly. K(arl) wrote: it's not like Mofaz sits now and plans to bomb Gaza sea-food restaurant. Oh, it would be some kind of collateral damage, I presume. Collateral damage is not direct intention. That's why there are different levels of death cause charges in court. K(arl) wrote: Felix Gartsman wrote: Anyhow, Palestinian ideas of a compromise is a non-starter for any future Israeli government. Then the only solution Israel has is now to genocide the palestinian people. Isn't that great? Genocide? Are you serious? K(arl) wrote: Unfortunatelly green line is military undefendable in many areas, as usually happens with arbitrary borders. Then build the fence inside the internationally recognized borders of Israel. There are no such borders. Palestine is not a country (yet). Behaving as the green line is a border is accepting Palestinian claims without agreement, that would be stupid negotiating technique.
Felix Gartsman wrote: On parts of West Bank, absolutelly. Could you please specify which ones? Is there any map of Israel's territorial claims? :confused: Felix Gartsman wrote: Collateral damage is not direct intention Are you some kind of lawyer? ;-P Some could argue collateral damages are a-priori tolerated homicides, and not manslaughters. Felix Gartsman wrote: Genocide? Are you serious? Partly. I know Israel won't ever do that, however: There's already a "quiet deportation" of East Jerusalem Palestinians [^], not that far from ethnic cleansing. Some extremists are also calling to "kill ‘em all right now"[^]. If Israel isn't able to settle peacefully with the palestinians, what are the other options? Israel won't be able to military dominate them forever, it's a colonial situation, and democracies can't stand that for long. Peace through conpromise is the only way out the circle of violence. Felix Gartsman wrote: There are no such borders Tue, but they are accepted de facto. Imagine that during the 30's France was building the Maginot Line in Saar[^] territory. Wouldn't other countries have considered that as an annexion? Felix Gartsman wrote: that would be stupid negotiating technique. Doing otherwise is an imperialistic technique of taking an advance ("prendre des gages", I don't know how to translate this expression). ----- Slightly OT, what do you think about this current controversy[^] between our countries?
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: On parts of West Bank, absolutelly. Could you please specify which ones? Is there any map of Israel's territorial claims? :confused: Felix Gartsman wrote: Collateral damage is not direct intention Are you some kind of lawyer? ;-P Some could argue collateral damages are a-priori tolerated homicides, and not manslaughters. Felix Gartsman wrote: Genocide? Are you serious? Partly. I know Israel won't ever do that, however: There's already a "quiet deportation" of East Jerusalem Palestinians [^], not that far from ethnic cleansing. Some extremists are also calling to "kill ‘em all right now"[^]. If Israel isn't able to settle peacefully with the palestinians, what are the other options? Israel won't be able to military dominate them forever, it's a colonial situation, and democracies can't stand that for long. Peace through conpromise is the only way out the circle of violence. Felix Gartsman wrote: There are no such borders Tue, but they are accepted de facto. Imagine that during the 30's France was building the Maginot Line in Saar[^] territory. Wouldn't other countries have considered that as an annexion? Felix Gartsman wrote: that would be stupid negotiating technique. Doing otherwise is an imperialistic technique of taking an advance ("prendre des gages", I don't know how to translate this expression). ----- Slightly OT, what do you think about this current controversy[^] between our countries?
K(arl) wrote: Could you please specify which ones? Is there any map of Israel's territorial claims? As I understand it (there is no official map because of politics), Israel will claim the major settlements areas like Ariel. K(arl) wrote: Are you some kind of lawyer? No, just part-time hobby. K(arl) wrote: Some could argue collateral damages are a-priori tolerated homicides, and not manslaughters. In the end it is a lose-lose situation - dead Israeli or dead Palestinians. First priority for a goverment is to protect its citizens. K(arl) wrote: There's already a "quiet deportation" of East Jerusalem Palestinians [^], not that far from ethnic cleansing. The issue is reunions. One marries someone from territories and brings them to Israel. This is done systematically to facilitate the "right" of return. Given the fragile Jewish-Arab balance,any movement that unnaturally tips it will provoke resistance. Not pretty, maybe unfair, but Israel without Jewish majority is like France without the French. K(arl) wrote: Some extremists are also calling to "kill ‘em all right now"[^]. There are always such people, luckily most of the time they just talk. K(arl) wrote: Peace through conpromise is the only way out the circle of violence. I don't see Palestinians come even close to acceptable terms. The population needs de-extremenation period after Arafat. K(arl) wrote: Tue, but they are accepted de facto. By who? Both sides dispute them. K(arl) wrote: Doing otherwise is an imperialistic technique of taking an advance ("prendre des gages", I don't know how to translate this expression). The fence path is temporary, and its creation is a result of Palestinian attacks. Unfortunatelly full justice during war is a rare creature. K(arl) wrote: Slightly OT, what do you think about this current controversy[^] between our countries? Weapon industries export is economically important. And usually it's not misstreated, this incident was obviously not such case. Arms dealing is a dirty business.
-
K(arl) wrote: Could you please specify which ones? Is there any map of Israel's territorial claims? As I understand it (there is no official map because of politics), Israel will claim the major settlements areas like Ariel. K(arl) wrote: Are you some kind of lawyer? No, just part-time hobby. K(arl) wrote: Some could argue collateral damages are a-priori tolerated homicides, and not manslaughters. In the end it is a lose-lose situation - dead Israeli or dead Palestinians. First priority for a goverment is to protect its citizens. K(arl) wrote: There's already a "quiet deportation" of East Jerusalem Palestinians [^], not that far from ethnic cleansing. The issue is reunions. One marries someone from territories and brings them to Israel. This is done systematically to facilitate the "right" of return. Given the fragile Jewish-Arab balance,any movement that unnaturally tips it will provoke resistance. Not pretty, maybe unfair, but Israel without Jewish majority is like France without the French. K(arl) wrote: Some extremists are also calling to "kill ‘em all right now"[^]. There are always such people, luckily most of the time they just talk. K(arl) wrote: Peace through conpromise is the only way out the circle of violence. I don't see Palestinians come even close to acceptable terms. The population needs de-extremenation period after Arafat. K(arl) wrote: Tue, but they are accepted de facto. By who? Both sides dispute them. K(arl) wrote: Doing otherwise is an imperialistic technique of taking an advance ("prendre des gages", I don't know how to translate this expression). The fence path is temporary, and its creation is a result of Palestinian attacks. Unfortunatelly full justice during war is a rare creature. K(arl) wrote: Slightly OT, what do you think about this current controversy[^] between our countries? Weapon industries export is economically important. And usually it's not misstreated, this incident was obviously not such case. Arms dealing is a dirty business.
Thanks for your answers. Felix Gartsman wrote: Israel without Jewish majority is like France without the French. That's a tough subject. The first question I would have is, "what is a jew"? For me, it isn't related to any ethnic consideration but to the religion, a jew is somebody believing in the judaic faith. Cant't I become a jew tomorrow if I adhere to this religion? Next, is Israel a theocracy or a democracy? Is Religion the base of the state? Also, if there's an ethnical consideration for being an Israeli, isn't then Israel similar to apartheid-era South Africa? IMO, being French is being born French or accepting the values of the French Republic. No "blood rights" (jus sanguinis) there, there's no "French ethnic group", "we" are a mix of population for centuries: celts, romans, germanic tribes, vikings, arabs, italians, spanish, polish, black africans, flemish...the list is long. For me a French jew is first a french citizen, as is a french muslim, a french christian or a french atheist. It's also what the Republic is for, to separate Secular from Religious.
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck, doch Seh' ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links!
-
Thanks for your answers. Felix Gartsman wrote: Israel without Jewish majority is like France without the French. That's a tough subject. The first question I would have is, "what is a jew"? For me, it isn't related to any ethnic consideration but to the religion, a jew is somebody believing in the judaic faith. Cant't I become a jew tomorrow if I adhere to this religion? Next, is Israel a theocracy or a democracy? Is Religion the base of the state? Also, if there's an ethnical consideration for being an Israeli, isn't then Israel similar to apartheid-era South Africa? IMO, being French is being born French or accepting the values of the French Republic. No "blood rights" (jus sanguinis) there, there's no "French ethnic group", "we" are a mix of population for centuries: celts, romans, germanic tribes, vikings, arabs, italians, spanish, polish, black africans, flemish...the list is long. For me a French jew is first a french citizen, as is a french muslim, a french christian or a french atheist. It's also what the Republic is for, to separate Secular from Religious.
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck, doch Seh' ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links!
K(arl) wrote: The first question I would have is, "what is a jew"? For me, it isn't related to any ethnic consideration but to the religion, a jew is somebody believing in the judaic faith. Cant't I become a jew tomorrow if I adhere to this religion? Tomorrow? No. Converting to Judaism is a really long process. Israel officialy recognizes Orthodox conversion only, which is really unfortunate. It causes deep rift with American Jews that have large Reformistic communities. "Who is a jew?" is a huge controversy. K(arl) wrote: Next, is Israel a theocracy or a democracy? Is Religion the base of the state? Israel is a Jewish and Democratic state. You can marry only through religious institution, Saturday is the official off day (not many work Fridays). It's not theocracy, but you wont miss Jewish markings either. Being democracy in this neighborhoud is tricky. K(arl) wrote: IMO, being French is being born French or accepting the values of the French Republic. No "blood rights" (jus sanguinis) there, there's no "French ethnic group", "we" are a mix of population for centuries: celts, romans, germanic tribes, vikings, arabs, italians, spanish, polish, black africans, flemish...the list is long. And how long it took? Centuries. Israel has mixed Jewish population that were separated for at least 2000 years. And Arab population that don't exactly share common values or goals. Israel is two wildly different nations sharing one land. K(arl) wrote: For me a French jew is first a french citizen, as is a french muslim, a french christian or a french atheist. It's also what the Republic is for, to separate Secular from Religious. Do the Muslims in the poor neighborhoods think so too? Do they really embrace French values? I'm afraid Europeans are in illusion regarding their growing Muslim populations, and soon it'll blow up. Being a part of the Israeli left I can tell you that when you discover your views were an illusion, it's not a warm fuzy feeling. K(arl) wrote: Also, if there's an ethnical consideration for being an Israeli, isn't then Israel similar to apartheid-era South Africa? No ethnical differentiation by purpose. There are Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Druze and others that have Israeli citizenship. But Israel for Jews it's more than a country where you live. Again, being perfect democracy in this neighborhoud is tricky. Democracy must not allow
-
K(arl) wrote: The first question I would have is, "what is a jew"? For me, it isn't related to any ethnic consideration but to the religion, a jew is somebody believing in the judaic faith. Cant't I become a jew tomorrow if I adhere to this religion? Tomorrow? No. Converting to Judaism is a really long process. Israel officialy recognizes Orthodox conversion only, which is really unfortunate. It causes deep rift with American Jews that have large Reformistic communities. "Who is a jew?" is a huge controversy. K(arl) wrote: Next, is Israel a theocracy or a democracy? Is Religion the base of the state? Israel is a Jewish and Democratic state. You can marry only through religious institution, Saturday is the official off day (not many work Fridays). It's not theocracy, but you wont miss Jewish markings either. Being democracy in this neighborhoud is tricky. K(arl) wrote: IMO, being French is being born French or accepting the values of the French Republic. No "blood rights" (jus sanguinis) there, there's no "French ethnic group", "we" are a mix of population for centuries: celts, romans, germanic tribes, vikings, arabs, italians, spanish, polish, black africans, flemish...the list is long. And how long it took? Centuries. Israel has mixed Jewish population that were separated for at least 2000 years. And Arab population that don't exactly share common values or goals. Israel is two wildly different nations sharing one land. K(arl) wrote: For me a French jew is first a french citizen, as is a french muslim, a french christian or a french atheist. It's also what the Republic is for, to separate Secular from Religious. Do the Muslims in the poor neighborhoods think so too? Do they really embrace French values? I'm afraid Europeans are in illusion regarding their growing Muslim populations, and soon it'll blow up. Being a part of the Israeli left I can tell you that when you discover your views were an illusion, it's not a warm fuzy feeling. K(arl) wrote: Also, if there's an ethnical consideration for being an Israeli, isn't then Israel similar to apartheid-era South Africa? No ethnical differentiation by purpose. There are Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Druze and others that have Israeli citizenship. But Israel for Jews it's more than a country where you live. Again, being perfect democracy in this neighborhoud is tricky. Democracy must not allow
Felix Gartsman wrote: Converting to Judaism is a really long process However I could convert, right? Felix Gartsman wrote: And how long it took? Centuries. And the process is still occuring! Recently, two friends of mine, one from Peru and the other from Algeria acquired the French citizenship. Felix Gartsman wrote: Do the Muslims in the poor neighborhoods think so too? Not many of them. But as you mention it, the problem is less about religion than about poverty. However, the situation is evolving slowly, and I don't think it will last more than one or two generations. France is a country with a high capacity of "integration": the critics made against these guys were the same made in the 70's against the spanish and portuguese immigrants, the same made in the 30's against the italian and polish immigrants...whose descendants are now villifying today's immigrants! These critics will disappear as soon as the "mix" of population will increase (and it does: in France 1/4 of muslim girls get married with an "old-time" frenchman, cmpared for example to Germany where 2% of the "turkish" girls marry a German...). I bet that in 20 or 30 years, these problems will be over. Felix Gartsman wrote: soon it'll blow up It might, because of external elements trying to radicalize the "hot neighbourhood" and enlist them in some kind of Djihad. But first, I'm quite confident in the capacity of the Police and other services to counter them (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Kelkal[^]) , and next, I believe that the cumulated effect of Education and attraction of the "Western" way of life and values will finally be the strongest for the vast majority. What I fear most is a violent reaction of the majority of the population to the delinquence and criminality plaguing these neighbourhoods, and an even bigger rise from the fascist Far-Right than now. Felix Gartsman wrote: There are Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Druze and others that have Israeli citizenship. Felix Gartsman wrote: Democracy must not allow self destruction. Heard in a documentary, the comment of an Israeli policeman: "how do you recognized Israeli arabs? Easy, they are the ones with the eyes of p
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: Converting to Judaism is a really long process However I could convert, right? Felix Gartsman wrote: And how long it took? Centuries. And the process is still occuring! Recently, two friends of mine, one from Peru and the other from Algeria acquired the French citizenship. Felix Gartsman wrote: Do the Muslims in the poor neighborhoods think so too? Not many of them. But as you mention it, the problem is less about religion than about poverty. However, the situation is evolving slowly, and I don't think it will last more than one or two generations. France is a country with a high capacity of "integration": the critics made against these guys were the same made in the 70's against the spanish and portuguese immigrants, the same made in the 30's against the italian and polish immigrants...whose descendants are now villifying today's immigrants! These critics will disappear as soon as the "mix" of population will increase (and it does: in France 1/4 of muslim girls get married with an "old-time" frenchman, cmpared for example to Germany where 2% of the "turkish" girls marry a German...). I bet that in 20 or 30 years, these problems will be over. Felix Gartsman wrote: soon it'll blow up It might, because of external elements trying to radicalize the "hot neighbourhood" and enlist them in some kind of Djihad. But first, I'm quite confident in the capacity of the Police and other services to counter them (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Kelkal[^]) , and next, I believe that the cumulated effect of Education and attraction of the "Western" way of life and values will finally be the strongest for the vast majority. What I fear most is a violent reaction of the majority of the population to the delinquence and criminality plaguing these neighbourhoods, and an even bigger rise from the fascist Far-Right than now. Felix Gartsman wrote: There are Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Druze and others that have Israeli citizenship. Felix Gartsman wrote: Democracy must not allow self destruction. Heard in a documentary, the comment of an Israeli policeman: "how do you recognized Israeli arabs? Easy, they are the ones with the eyes of p
K(arl) wrote: Converting to Judaism is a really long process However I could convert, right? Yes, absolutelly. K(arl) wrote: Not many of them. But as you mention it, the problem is less about religion than about poverty. I thought so, but not any more. Islam is radicalizing out of control, there is no solid Muslim moderate philosophy. Poverty is only partial factor. The Al-Qaeda leadership, the Wahabbist are not poor. K(arl) wrote: When a democracy is persecuting a part of its citizen, is it a democracy anymore? There is no planned policy of persecution. There are non-Jews in all fields. You cannot expect full integration between foreign people during war. Democracy is hard to maintain with so heterogenic society, there will be mistakes.
