[danholo]

You've replied by denying that what I see to be true is true. Which is your right, but hardly convincing. I can't decide if you are naive, or brainwashed, desperate to believe in a 'good' Israel, or part of the problem.

I never denied Israel having problems or not being part of the problem - I'm just not saying it's as bad as you make it out to be, and that there are two parties to this conflict. I certainly am desperate to believe in the 'good' of people in general, not just Israel. You can continue to direct your hate at a country you know little to nothing about, but I'll continue to believe in the good of my own and those that I'm supposedly an enemy of.

[danholo]

The reality is that some Israeli’s are willing to live with the reality Sploop is concocting, while others are not – and it is that dichotomy of balance between those who wish to be ethical and moral towards humanity while remaining loyal to Zionism, grinds against those who see violence against Arabs as ethical and moral towards the Jewish people and Zionism.

Every and all people, from left to right, that I've met, have only advocated violence against Arabs when they are engaging in violence, and only against those that actually engage in violence.

Who grants this right?

The rulers of the land. Palestine was granted to to the Zionist movement as a "National Home" for the Jews. Jews were building their homes under legal international mandate. That's how the world worked at the time... Of course the Arabs didn't buy it.

I think that anyone has the right to immigrate and join any community around the globe. Thus in its basic essence, I see no problem with Jews immigrating to Palestine. But the error was the movement of Zionism coerced Jews to immigrate to Palestine with no intention of integrating into the already existing community – but immigrating with the express purpose of creating a separate racial, religious, and political body to become a separate state – which is what has happened. This would obviously lead towards conflict with the already existing host population.

Of course it would, and it has. Sucks, huh? The Zionist Jews of that time, considered it their inalienable right. I would've done the same - I would've been brainwashed to believe that a) Eretz Israel is the home of the Jews b) Jews have a "right to return home" c) all nations have a right to build their own country. It all works from our point of view in an entirely legal, legitimate and moral manner.

On the other hand, Jews and Arabs live separately for obvious reasons, but it works fine.

And whom was this? The Ottoman Turks, the British, or the Arab land owners themselves?

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/m ... nglish.pdf

Or Abraham?

The Jewish connection to this place is, well, real, thanks to Abraham. What can I say? Palestinians, Arabs, the world, can say what they want but Jews will come here regardless to build their own communities. This is how communities work - we aren't working for a better world, we are working to better ourselves. At least I am.

Again this is a very generalised overview of the early life of Jewish immigration. In a good number of circumstances this analysis pans out to be true; in other cases it is incorrect. After the initial waves of Zionist immigration and the founding of the Kibbutzs, which did employ Arab farm workers for a while, but phased out Arab workers in preference for Jewish farm hands who saw working the earth of Palestine as a form of religious cleansing while also helping to provide jobs to immigrant Zionists as a means towards populating a Jewish Palestine.

I know; it's horrible and immoral to take in your own, clothe them, feed them and employ them, isn't it? Colonial ventures are cruel and immoral, to a point.

As to action of this nature taking place only after Israel’s existence was threatened, again this is questionable as Arab and Zionist militias were active years before the Arab army of Liberation marched against Israel in 1948. In fact Jewish and Arab espionage was thriving under the very nose of the British before and during the Second World War. In one incident, the SOE training school “Narkover” situated on Mount Carmel overlooking Haifa – setup to train SOE agents for operations in Crete against the German and Italian occupation forces. Was raided by Jewish youth’s intent on stripping the armoury of weapons in order to outfit Haganah (reference; Crete, by Antony Beevor, page 252).

So why don't you study the emergence and inception of the Jewish defense establishment ("HaHagana") and resistance groups (Irgun, Lehi)?

Yet those who advocate “transfer” are right wing members of the government, with right wing elements predicted to gain a greater share of seats at the next election.

But certainly, Arabs in Israel do seem to prosper in comparison to other Islamic states – but that is not to say there is no bigotry directed towards them ether.

Arabs aren't well liked in Israel, for reasons you might be aware of, but I commend the Israelis for at least trying to create some sort of co-existence. For Arabs, it seems less of a problem.

I’ll not comment on the rest of your text as that just seems to be a mud slinging match with Sploop… and I was only interested in the history aspect of the discussion.

I just can't stand the seething hate. I just can't. There are good people here all over the place, and he honestly pisses me off. Call the government what it is, but those that fight in the army ARE HUMAN, and have emotions and feelings of their own. He BELIEVES FOR NO GOOD REASON that the soldiers are hateful and malicious while I can say, from my own experience by knowing these people personally, that they do not hate nor do they have some racist drive to massacre Arabs like "barbarian army". Think, really, what would've happened in Gaza if soldiers in the IDF were barbarian. Yesterday I heard that most fighters are more leftists, and the actual problems are created in the occupied territories by soldiers, who are actually just bored kids who don't have anything better to do.

[sploop!]

Hypocrisy, danholo. Hypocrisy and lies

The rulers of the land. Palestine was granted to to the Zionist movement as a "National Home" for the Jews. Jews were building their homes under legal international mandate. That's how the world worked at the time...

This isn't true.

Of course the Arabs didn't buy it.

They didn't get the chance. And the Jews didn't even try to sell it. The Zionists couldn't wait, and started on a program of ethnic cleansing which has led us directly to where we are now.

I would've done the same

Not only would have. You'll probably do it.

The Jewish connection to this place is, well, real, thanks to Abraham.

So a 3000 year old fairy tale justifies ethnic cleansing? The Arab connection to Palestine is just as real and just as valid.

Arabs aren't well liked in Israel, for reasons you might be aware of, but I commend the Israelis for at least trying to create some sort of co-existence. For Arabs, it seems less of a problem.

Spot the Bigotry.

He BELIEVES FOR NO GOOD REASON that the soldiers are hateful and malicious

Maybe you just don't read the stuff that gets reported here? I have plenty of reason to believe that Israeli soldiers are hateful and malicious. Jesus! They even write of their spite on the walls of the homes they occupy whilst taking pot-shots at children.

nor do they have some racist drive to massacre Arabs like "barbarian army"

'Zey ver only following ze owders'. Is that your excuse?

[QatzelOk]

The Arab connection to Palestine is just as real and just as valid.

This is one of the times I disagree with sploop.

The Arab connection to Palestine is MORE real and MORE valid than the Jewish one. The Palestinians were living there - it was their home. This is reality. The physical presence of Palestinians.

The incoming invasion of Jewish foreigners is based on the perversion of a mythological text. It's hard to find anything less valid or real than that.

If self-interested perversions of mythology are more real than "the existence of humans," then we are DEFINITELY going to be extinct very soon - both Arab bad guys and Jewish superheroes. See, nature doesn't make the distinction between "heroic good guys" and "evil bad guys." Only texts make that distinction.

And texts are as valid as a car commercial during climate armageddon.

[Steel-Wolf]

We are one of the only species on the planet that kills outside of the necessity of survival or hunting instincts.

Self defence as a nation is survival.

[SkyCore]

Who are the main benefactors of the continued war?

[Maas]

Who are the main benefactors of the continued war?

Israeli politicians who get votes from a big mass of religious fruitcakes who are against giving an inch to the Palestinians no matter how kind they are

Self defence as a nation is survival.

and trying to starve your opponent in an area you drove them in, is the sick way to survive

but I commend the Israelis for at least trying to create some sort of co-existence / Colonial ventures are cruel and immoral / Jews will come here regardless to build their own communities

Them Israeli's increased the building process in the Westbank by 60% compared to 2007. That's not trying to co-exist, that's still busy with ethnic cleansing what they think should be all theirs. They demand peace in an impossible way.

the actual problems are created in the occupied territories by soldiers, who are actually just bored kids who don't have anything better to do.

them are conscription soldiers of the age of 18-something, who didn't choose to loaf around with a gun and oppress.

[Tailz]

Every and all people, from left to right, that I've met, have only advocated violence against Arabs when they are engaging in violence, and only against those that actually engage in violence.

What people say to in public and do are quite often two different things. It also depends upon what circles you ask the question as to the answer you get. I don’t doubt that the people you talk to these expose peace and cooperation, a number of my Israeli friends are the same. I also know veterans of the Vietnam and Pacific theatre of the Second World War who would not publicly admit they killed POW’s, but have admitted so in private.

The rulers of the land. Palestine was granted to to the Zionist movement as a "National Home" for the Jews. Jews were building their homes under legal international mandate. That's how the world worked at the time... Of course the Arabs didn't buy it.

I have to correct you a little here, Palestine (as a whole) was not granted to the Zionists. A plan was put forwards to carve Palestine up into two separate parts. One of those parts being a National Home for the Jews.

As you already know (or should by now as I have been posting here long enough), I see no problem with the area being declared the “National Home” of the Jewish people – but I do have issues with that declaration being used to create a state along religious and racial lines – such an act which can only, and has, lead to the conflict we have now which is racial and religious.

As for the Arabs not “buying it” as you write, I agree. But the Jews didn’t buy the idea of living with the Arabs ether. It is a pity the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine were too childish to share the region between them and coexist.

Of course it would, and it has. Sucks, huh? The Zionist Jews of that time, considered it their inalienable right. I would've done the same - I would've been brainwashed to believe that a) Eretz Israel is the home of the Jews b) Jews have a "right to return home" c) all nations have a right to build their own country. It all works from our point of view in an entirely legal, legitimate and moral manner.

On the other hand, Jews and Arabs live separately for obvious reasons, but it works fine.

It obviously does not work fine, hence the conflict. Are you really that naïve to this that Jews and Arabs are that alien to each other? How is it then that in other countries around the world today, Jews and Arabs live together – but yet in Israel there is conflict between Jews and Arabs. Why is this so? Could it be that the Zionist movement, like a parasite, twisted Jewish religious dogma, the holocaust, and created an ideology where Jews consider it vastly more important to be Jewish that a fellow human being!

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/m ... nglish.pdf

This document is quite incorrect (although it does have some good points, but taken out of context to prove Zionist aims). According to the writer of this document (written by Eli E. Hertz, who is Pro-Zionist Israeli lobbiest, obvious bias there) the whole territory of the mandate was originally signed over to be the Jewish homeland (as seen by the diagram on page 1: Map: 1920—Original territory assigned to the Jewish National Home. Next the document goes on to ascribe the whole of the territory of Palestine as being signed over to the creation of the Jewish homeland, as seen by page 1: Map: 1922—Final territory assigned to the Jewish National Home.

The documents information insists that the 1920 maps dictate that the whole region of the mandate will be the Jewish Homeland. But this is counter to the intention of the British as General Allenby was prepairing to conqure the terratory during the first world war, with Lord Balfour writing to Lord Rothschild in 1917:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

This became known as the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which became British policy towards the creation of a Jewish Homeland in the area of the mandate – but not the mandate terratory as a whole. But this has not stoped Zionists extrapolating this text out to mean the whole area would be designated as the homeland of the Jews.

The diagram (2nd map) listed in the document you have provided are those of the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state as outlined by the Zionist representatives at the 1919 Paris Peace conference. Unfortunately no accurate borders were ever accurately listed in the terms of the Mandate, thus the continued debate over which set of borders are legal. The only certainly is that recommendation for the establishing of a Jewish Homeland were accepted within the region, but never fully defined until negotiations passed to the United Nations with United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine of 1947 or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Future government of Palestine (map of designated borders). This plan was approved by the United Nations assembly and was to come into effect on the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine on the 1st of August 1948, to facilitate the creation of two states.

The Jewish connection to this place is, well, real, thanks to Abraham. What can I say? Palestinians, Arabs, the world, can say what they want but Jews will come here regardless to build their own communities. This is how communities work - we aren't working for a better world, we are working to better ourselves. At least I am.

Religious dogma is what connects foreign Jews to the biblical lands of Israel. The Jews who actually did live in the region had as much a link to the land as the other inhabitants who were also living there (be they Arab, Christian, or desert animals).

I know; it's horrible and immoral to take in your own, clothe them, feed them and employ them, isn't it? Colonial ventures are cruel and immoral, to a point.

Zionism was a bedrock of good intentions, but those good intentions paved the way to hell through unethical actions.

So why don't you study the emergence and inception of the Jewish defense establishment ("HaHagana") and resistance groups (Irgun, Lehi)?

In a round about way I do with my study of the Second World War. Although I am far more interested in the operational use of Second World War equipment than all the backstabbing that went on behind the scenes. But why such an answer to my rebuttal of your comment that Jewish resistance groups only came about as a reaction to Arab invasion, when my rebuttal proves that assumption to be false with Jewish resistance groups being active years before? Is that just misdirection upon your part?

Arabs aren't well liked in Israel, for reasons you might be aware of, but I commend the Israelis for at least trying to create some sort of co-existence. For Arabs, it seems less of a problem.

I can certainly understand, had young white artists been bombing trains and busses I’d expect a bit of animosity to be directed at me also. So I understand from that point of view, but also the ideology and aims of Zionism pit Jews against Arabs – for that ideology covets the land upon which their houses rest.

I just can't stand the seething hate. I just can't. There are good people here all over the place, and he honestly pisses me off.

I can understand Sploops point of view, he does provide some good points (as you do also sometimes), but yet the tone maybe could be less abrasive – but that also applies to you. Your just as stubborn about this topic as Sploop is, and just as willing to relax back onto rhetoric.

Call the government what it is, but those that fight in the army ARE HUMAN, and have emotions and feelings of their own. He BELIEVES FOR NO GOOD REASON that the soldiers are hateful and malicious while I can say, from my own experience by knowing these people personally, that they do not hate nor do they have some racist drive to massacre Arabs like "barbarian army". Think, really, what would've happened in Gaza if soldiers in the IDF were barbarian. Yesterday I heard that most fighters are more leftists, and the actual problems are created in the occupied territories by soldiers, who are actually just bored kids who don't have anything better to do.

Yes we could do with fewer generalisations in terms to label whole groups – there is good and bad in all groups. But like it or not there are quite a number of bad eggs in the Israeli Armed Forces because of the ideological driving forces behind the IDF (let alone the radical message perpetuated by the Chief Rabbi, or the issues young settler kids take with them into IDF service). I know this not from reading about it, but from experience of talking with IDF personal. I’ve known people in the IDF, and a very good friend of mine was an IDF combat instructor.

Your problem is, with Sploop directly, and more than likely also with me – is that we question that which you hold dear. And you can’t help but get insulted, especially when the words are written with passion.

He believes for good reason, just as much as you believe for good reason. But don’t place your faith in a lie.

Self defence as a nation is survival.

Do we eat nations? Self defence as a nation is defence of a political ideology, not survival. It still results in killing that is not required for survival. Obviously a soldier who kills an attacker is acting as a survival instinct, but the attacker is not attacking in order to hunt down the soldier to eat him.

Who are the main benefactors of the continued war?

The arms merchants.

[Steel-Wolf]

Do we eat nations?

So in todays technological state, your saying one nation is unable to destroy another with the push of a button. Glad to know if Korea goes postal, I have nothing to worry about but my ideals being jepordized....oh wait.

Yes in fact the world today CAN eat nations. I dont blame Israel one bit for not wanting people right next door who would gladly turn the area into glass if given the oppertunity. Now with Iran pursuing nuclear arms as well thats becomming more and more likely.

I hope Israel puts that issue to bed as well since our new president is rather naive concerning Iran.

[Tailz]

So in todays technological state, your saying one nation is unable to destroy another with the push of a button. Glad to know if Korea goes postal, I have nothing to worry about but my ideals being jepordized....oh wait.

No, I am writing that human beings don’t need to push buttons and destroy nations in order to survive. Certainly if threatened with weapons human beings may need to push buttons to stop things from killing us in order to survive.

Yes in fact the world today CAN eat nations. I dont blame Israel one bit for not wanting people right next door who would gladly turn the area into glass if given the oppertunity. Now with Iran pursuing nuclear arms as well thats becomming more and more likely.

So its fine for Israel to have nuclear arms and to threaten regional states, but unacceptable for them in turn? That’s just hypocrisy. Security is a double edged sword.

I hope Israel puts that issue to bed as well since our new president is rather naive concerning Iran.

I assume your writing about Obama. I think engaging them in dialogue can be far more fruitful than just threatening them with attacks.

[Steel-Wolf]

Certainly if threatened with weapons human beings may need to push buttons to stop things from killing us in order to survive.

Great!! So we agree that Israel had a right to defend itself from rocket attacks from Gaza, even if that means they "eat" them.

So its fine for Israel to have nuclear arms and to threaten regional states, but unacceptable for them in turn? That’s just hypocrisy. Security is a double edged sword.

Thats true, it WOULD be hypocricy if Iran and Hamas were mentaly stable and not going to hand over a suitcase bomb to the first dunderhead who could sneak it into a foreign country. Maybe I should let my four year old kid play with matches because I know how to use them......

I think engaging them in dialogue can be far more fruitful than just threatening them with attacks.

That worked so well the last time our president tried to have open dialog with Iran. Oh thats right, it led to over a year in hostage negotiations.

[SkyCore]

Does anyone really believe Attrition is the reason a rogue nuke hasn't been used? From my pov, it looks like the rhetoric has been astronomically increased to justify paranoia on the brink of suicide.

[danholo]

What people say to in public and do are quite often two different things. It also depends upon what circles you ask the question as to the answer you get.

I concur.

I have to correct you a little here, Palestine (as a whole) was not granted to the Zionists. A plan was put forwards to carve Palestine up into two separate parts. One of those parts being a National Home for the Jews.

Palestine was granted as a Jewish national home. Whatever plan was carved later, was still accepted by the Zionists. The failure of the plan retracted the Zionists to defend Eretz Israel, as a whole. I remember the maps in school: ALL OF IT WAS REGARDED AS ISRAEL, and Israel was just liberating more land in all wars directed at it.

As you already know (or should by now as I have been posting here long enough), I see no problem with the area being declared the “National Home” of the Jewish people – but I do have issues with that declaration being used to create a state along religious and racial lines – such an act which can only, and has, lead to the conflict we have now which is racial and religious.

The state runs along communal lines, as does the rest of the world.

As for the Arabs not “buying it” as you write, I agree. But the Jews didn’t buy the idea of living with the Arabs ether. It is a pity the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine were too childish to share the region between them and coexist.

It is childish to assume that these two peoples could coexist. They are different communities, in both character and culture. They have a right to evolve and live separately. We will not create a Utopia of coexistence because you wish it. On the other hand, the Jews did not kick the Arabs out of their homes, until they were actually under and victims of violence. I do not wish to kick the Arabs out of their homes.

It obviously does not work fine, hence the conflict. Are you really that naïve to this that Jews and Arabs are that alien to each other? How is it then that in other countries around the world today, Jews and Arabs live together – but yet in Israel there is conflict between Jews and Arabs. Why is this so? Could it be that the Zionist movement, like a parasite, twisted Jewish religious dogma, the holocaust, and created an ideology where Jews consider it vastly more important to be Jewish that a fellow human being!

Or could it be so, that it's an infidel country in the Middle of the "Arab heartland"? You don't get it... You'll never get it. :/ I'll be arrogant here, but this is your reality. Yes, Jews usually live in peace with their neighboring communities when they are minorities in countries. Jews, as families often do, take care of their own first, and considering how dysfunctional this family is, nothing good can come of it. Are you really that naïve to think that the West and Jews are alien to each other? Jews share similarities, as does Israel, with the West and the Middle East. It's like something in the middle, but something totally different. It is not that we don't know each other but you are proposing that we should "be each other". I'm glad Jews have their own quirky place Jews can do things Jewishly. That is what's nice about this place, for me, but all the rest is, well, not that great.

The Zionist movement has indeed twisted Jewish dogma; it has taken world Jewry and used a perverted Western idea of a nation state and tried to make one along those lines for Jews. It has worked for Jews as it does for Arabs; i.e. not at all. Israel's fate was never to have this place and take it for granted.

This document is quite incorrect (although it does have some good points, but taken out of context to prove Zionist aims).

Of course, but the fact remains that Jews had a right to settle in Palestine and create a national home there.

Religious dogma is what connects foreign Jews to the biblical lands of Israel. The Jews who actually did live in the region had as much a link to the land as the other inhabitants who were also living there (be they Arab, Christian, or desert animals).

Religious dogma is one of the things that connect us to Israel, yes, and is deeply rooted in our own mythology, which has been passed down generations, and is rooted in reality. All of us "have a connection" but Jews are the only nation to draw any uniqueness in this connection. The land has only been a national home for one people, and we still exist, no matter what sort of social organism you view us to be.

Zionism was a bedrock of good intentions, but those good intentions paved the way to hell through unethical actions.

I will feed my children before yours. I will not apologize for that. The Zionist movement only catered to selfish interests, but selfishness is human and moral, at times.

In a round about way I do with my study of the Second World War. Although I am far more interested in the operational use of Second World War equipment than all the backstabbing that went on behind the scenes. But why such an answer to my rebuttal of your comment that Jewish resistance groups only came about as a reaction to Arab invasion, when my rebuttal proves that assumption to be false with Jewish resistance groups being active years before? Is that just misdirection upon your part?

As far as I can tell, "the Defence" was created in part of a lack of trust towards the inability of Palestine's British rulers to protect Jewish communities from violence.

I can certainly understand, had young white artists been bombing trains and busses I’d expect a bit of animosity to be directed at me also. So I understand from that point of view, but also the ideology and aims of Zionism pit Jews against Arabs – for that ideology covets the land upon which their houses rest.

The ideology supports a Jewish state, yes, but it does not necessitate it to be homogenic. Any and all non-Jews are welcome here, and happen to actually live here, too.

I can understand Sploops point of view, he does provide some good points (as you do also sometimes), but yet the tone maybe could be less abrasive – but that also applies to you. Your just as stubborn about this topic as Sploop is, and just as willing to relax back onto rhetoric.

I am very reactionary when it comes to sploop's hateful comments about Israelis, and what he's concluded to be true by reading and watching media. Not very convincing.

Yes we could do with fewer generalisations in terms to label whole groups – there is good and bad in all groups. But like it or not there are quite a number of bad eggs in the Israeli Armed Forces because of the ideological driving forces behind the IDF (let alone the radical message perpetuated by the Chief Rabbi, or the issues young settler kids take with them into IDF service). I know this not from reading about it, but from experience of talking with IDF personal. I’ve known people in the IDF, and a very good friend of mine was an IDF combat instructor.

And thus you are able to create quite a broad and balanced view of the conflict, and don't throw wild accusations into air. We really don't view the reality on the ground differently, in my opinion, but our perceptions of the societies and what they want are different. You place emphasis and hope on compatibility, while I widely regard that to be a pipe-dream. Also, with my own bias and opinions, have a certain understanding that Jews want to live separately from Arabs, no matter their desire. Arabs could live in a totally bipartisan state with Jews, but Jews could not do so with Arabs.

Your problem is, with Sploop directly, and more than likely also with me – is that we question that which you hold dear. And you can’t help but get insulted, especially when the words are written with passion.

You don't question, but attack. You, as I, have a theory of what it is, and even without proving it, suppose it to be true.

But don’t place your faith in a lie.

You do know that you have a habit to start preaching. Humbling.

[Tailz]

Great!! So we agree that Israel had a right to defend itself from rocket attacks from Gaza, even if that means they "eat" them.

I’ve never disagreed Israel has the right to self defence. But the majority of Israel’s actions are not in the defence of its population, but the colonial aim of annexing territory with an ultimate aim of expanding the racial religious state. An example of this is the deployment of the IDF under the guise of defending settlers who themselves are supplanted into locations as a means of gaining a foothold and creating facts on the ground to void land exchange negotiations.

I defend Israel’s right to self defence by means of actions that actually are defensive and effective towards that goal. Israel’s previous operations, such as incursion into Gaza and the bombing campaign against Lebanon were not defensive and failed to preview the very attacks the operations were undertaken to stop.

Thats true, it WOULD be hypocricy if Iran and Hamas were mentaly stable and not going to hand over a suitcase bomb to the first dunderhead who could sneak it into a foreign country. Maybe I should let my four year old kid play with matches because I know how to use them......

This is an attempt at misdirection to avoid the argument and redirect into meaningless dribble.

That worked so well the last time our president tried to have open dialog with Iran. Oh thats right, it led to over a year in hostage negotiations.

During a time when Western powers were ether financing the Shah or in a confrontation with Ayatollah Khomeini – nether side was open to diplomacy at that point in time. But I agree that at that time in particular, Iran was indeed a rogue state – as I assume that you are referring to the 1979 Iranian student storming of the US embassy in Iran.

Does anyone really believe Attrition is the reason a rogue nuke hasn't been used? From my pov, it looks like the rhetoric has been astronomically increased to justify paranoia on the brink of suicide.

The populations are too closely mixed, deployment of such weapons would have major consequences for both sides no matter who uses them.

Palestine was granted as a Jewish national home.

The Balfour Declaration put forward a view, that a Jewish national home should be established in Palestine, but not all of Palestine. See…

”His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…

Whatever plan was carved later, was still accepted by the Zionists. The failure of the plan retracted the Zionists to defend Eretz Israel, as a whole. I remember the maps in school: ALL OF IT WAS REGARDED AS ISRAEL, and Israel was just liberating more land in all wars directed at it.

I’ve studied a number of maps, each labelled the area differently depending upon the organisation that commissioned the cartographers and the politics of the day and age the map was made. All the rest of your text is just conjecture – which I nether accept nor disagree with.

The state runs along communal lines, as does the rest of the world.

Discrimination is discrimination Danholo. I always find it curious Jews who complain about being discriminated against as Jews, yet consider discriminate a moral practice as long as its positive towards Jews. A strange Jewish hypocrisy no?

It is childish to assume that these two peoples could coexist.

Then the foreign immigrant Jews should not have moved to the region then if there was no intention to coexist with the already existing population.

They are different communities, in both character and culture. They have a right to evolve and live separately.

As much as I can agree to this, communities around the globe consist of different communities, intermixed and still maintaining separate identities. Although over the generations these communities often blur and mix into an amorphous union.

I do not agree that the two are so different as to not be able to share the region, maintain their own identities and coexist. It has happened before.

We will not create a Utopia of coexistence because you wish it. On the other hand, the Jews did not kick the Arabs out of their homes, until they were actually under and victims of violence.

It is difficult to pin down a particular moment in time in the conflict when people were evicted from their homes, in order to lay blame upon who did such an action first. One could easly claim it was the Arabs who did it first, but these claims can be countered by the actions of Jewish militias, so finger pointing in order to blame some group for doing it first is really unproductive in this debate. All we can really say is, it happened, upon both sides.

I do not wish to kick the Arabs out of their homes.

Delineation must be draw between your personal wishes, and those of the movement. I agree you personally my have a high level of scruples and morality against unethical action, this is not to say all of your fellow Zionists feel the same way.

Let us keep the debate impersonal. As I have no interest in debating what you as a person are may be like – akin to War Angel, I think you may be a nice guys, although we have ideological differences.

I also lose interest when debates degenerate into rhetorical mud slinging, as seems to be the norm of most PoFo middle-eastern debates.

Or could it be so, that it's an infidel country in the Middle of the "Arab heartland"? You don't get it... You'll never get it. :/ I'll be arrogant here, but this is your reality. Yes, Jews usually live in peace with their neighboring communities when they are minorities in countries. Jews, as families often do, take care of their own first, and considering how dysfunctional this family is, nothing good can come of it. Are you really that naïve to think that the West and Jews are alien to each other? Jews share similarities, as does Israel, with the West and the Middle East. It's like something in the middle, but something totally different. It is not that we don't know each other but you are proposing that we should "be each other". I'm glad Jews have their own quirky place Jews can do things Jewishly. That is what's nice about this place, for me, but all the rest is, well, not that great.

Doing things Jewishly does not appear to be much of a hindrance to international Jews outside of Israel. So why is there is since that one can only do Jewishly things in Israel, as if such is looked upon with distain elsewhere in the world? Certainly I can find instances of animosity towards Jews on racial and religious grounds, elsewhere in the world as well as I can find the same examples within Israel towards Gentiles.

But once again, I’m not arguing against the Jewish state. But the unethical context of a race state.

The Zionist movement has indeed twisted Jewish dogma; it has taken world Jewry and used a perverted Western idea of a nation state and tried to make one along those lines for Jews. It has worked for Jews as it does for Arabs; i.e. not at all. Israel's fate was never to have this place and take it for granted.

Israel’s fate was the destruction at the hands of the Romans, had the Zionists immigrated to Palestine and tipped the scales of balance in the same method as the Jews now fear of the Arab demographic – the political and conflict carnage may have panned out in a totally different (and maybe peaceful) plubacide towards the Jewish Homeland through population mass in a cohesive host population consisting of Jews and Arabs of Palestine. Instead we ended up with zealots intention on a race state, and the inevitable race conflict it generated.

Of course, but the fact remains that Jews had a right to settle in Palestine and create a national home there.

I have never disputed this. This was inline with the Balfour Declaration, but the error was that ultra-Zionist aims conflicted with an important element of the Balfour declaration:

… it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Religious dogma is one of the things that connect us to Israel, yes, and is deeply rooted in our own mythology, which has been passed down generations, and is rooted in reality. All of us "have a connection" but Jews are the only nation to draw any uniqueness in this connection. The land has only been a national home for one people, and we still exist, no matter what sort of social organism you view us to be.

No more or less than the same is rooted in Christian or Islamic dogma. No one faiths dogma is more or less important than that of another faith, but yet Zionists contend that Jewish dogma relating to “ownership” of Palestine is of higher value than the dogma of other religious orders.

As for religious dogma being rooting in reality, certainly the places may be tangible, but the reality of the stories is best left to theological debate.

International Jews have as much a connection to Israel, as I do to Scotland – the land of my ancestors. But as powerful or weak as that connection may be, it does not give me or International Jews the right to encroach upon those who currently call Scotland or Palestine home. Certainly we can immigrate, purchase a home, but we have no more a right to those places of our heritage than those who already live there.

It is at this point, you and I differ on our ideology. Where you propose that as a Jew, you do have a greater right to that land than those who live there and are not Jews. Where I propose you don’t – equality takes precedence.

I will feed my children before yours. I will not apologize for that. The Zionist movement only catered to selfish interests, but selfishness is human and moral, at times.

Yet the intelligence of the thinking species we are a part of is evolving beyond such simple conflict drive frames of thought.

As far as I can tell, "the Defence" was created in part of a lack of trust towards the inability of Palestine's British rulers to protect Jewish communities from violence.

I can understand this – the British were at first busy with the Second World War and troops were better employed against the Rommel and the Afrika Korps than policing towns. Yet we can not miss the mutual antagonism going on between Zionist leaders, vocal at the Western Wall and other ceremonies, proclaiming the coming rise of the Jewish state and the purge of the Arabs. While Islamic imams preached much the same in their halls. Each leading to riot, counter riot, revenge killings, etc. All while both groups agitated against the British occupation forces.

The defence was as much out of aggression as a need to defend against aggression – upon both sides.

The ideology supports a Jewish state, yes, but it does not necessitate it to be homogenic. Any and all non-Jews are welcome here, and happen to actually live here, too.

Certainly, but this comes back to what people say and do in public and the difference between laws and those laws being acted upon. We have already seen Jewish groups protesting against having Arabs in their towns, or giving Arabs jobs, the worry of the Arab demographic, or loyalty to the Jewish ideal. This comes back to the duel nature of Israel and Zionism as I have written before – of the population being torn between two halves, one that believes in equality, in rational thought and ethics – and the other half that puts Jewishness above and beyond all else.

I am very reactionary when it comes to sploop's hateful comments about Israelis, and what he's concluded to be true by reading and watching media. Not very convincing.

As I mentioned above, I don’t really want to get into character debates. But I say, at times you come across the same way as what you just wrote of Sploop. Take for example the document you offered up as a rebuttal that the whole of the mandate was put forwards for the Jewish homeland. That whole document was rhetoric, written by a biased hand aiming to claim everything for Zionism – surely you could see that?

But why then use it?

And thus you are able to create quite a broad and balanced view of the conflict, and don't throw wild accusations into air. We really don't view the reality on the ground differently, in my opinion, but our perceptions of the societies and what they want are different. You place emphasis and hope on compatibility, while I widely regard that to be a pipe-dream. Also, with my own bias and opinions, have a certain understanding that Jews want to live separately from Arabs, no matter their desire. Arabs could live in a totally bipartisan state with Jews, but Jews could not do so with Arabs.

I do see the pipe-dream within my thoughts of equality when overlaid upon the circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I do see the flaws within my utopian desire to make a better place. Which is why I acknowledge that a peace solution to the conflict will not come from forcing everyone to get along like some jolly dysfunctional familiy from a British sitcom. But rather that separation is a requirement towards both short term peace, and the holy grail of long term peace. Thus why I’d support a two or three state plan. But I’m still going to aim for something better, but rationalised against present needs of the moment.

I understand how the Jews want to live apart, I don’t really blame them, but I can see how those self segregation idea came into being – but also how detrimental to both internal and international relationships such a xenophobia frame of mind can be. And in essence, the Palestinian Arabs now aim for the same. But even so, I’ll never support such xenophobia, as much as I can understand its origins.

You don't question, but attack. You, as I, have a theory of what it is, and even without proving it, suppose it to be true.

You see it as an attack as it questions what you believe in. But I don’t use question marks, without expecting an answer to a question.

You do know that you have a habit to start preaching. Humbling.

Heh, really?

I do know I have a habit of rambling on a bit.