15 Things I don't understand about the peace process

[Gamblor]

1) If Palestinians want to live side-by-side with Israel, then why do all government logos and websites show Palestine encompassing all of Israel, with Israel nonexistent?

2) If a primary point of the road map is "confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure," then why do the Palestinians demand that Israel release thousands of terrorists from prison, an item not even included in the road map? Instead, shouldn't the Palestinians be arresting terrorists themselves? And shouldn't we be outraged that the two suicide bombers who murdered 15 Israelis on Sept. 9, 2003 Hillel Cafe and Tzrifin bus stop) were among a group of Palestinian prisoners released by Israel this year? (Jerusalem Post, Sept. 12)

3) If Israel is supposedly allowed to "take all necessary steps to defend its citizens," then why is Israel condemned for building bypass roads so drivers can avoid ambushes, condemned for building a fence to keep suicide bombers out, condemned for targeted killings of terrorist leaders, condemned for operating road blocks to screen for suicide bombers, condemned for clearing areas used for launching rockets, and condemned for keeping terrorists in jail?

4) When the PLO first demanded a state in 1964, it wanted every part of Israel except the West Bank and Gaza (which were then in the hands of Jordan and Egypt). Is it reasonable to assume that they now want only the West Bank and Gaza, or is that more likely a Trojan Horse-- as Palestinian leader Faisal al-Husseini described it in 2001 as a first step to destroy Israel.

5) Why is the targeted killing of terrorists and their supporters lauded when done by the United States in Iraq, but not when done by Israel whose civilians face a daily threat of terror attacks?

6) Why has the United Nations passed far more condemnations against Israel than any other country -- including Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Liberia, North Korea, and China combined -- while millions were massacred in these other places? And then how does the UN expect Israel to accept it as an impartial mediator?

7) Why -- if the Palestinian Authority has little freedom of speech and freedom of the press, little religious tolerance, is oppressive of Christians and other minorities, is corrupt at all levels of government, and is rife with vigilantism -- is the creation of a Palestinian state a favorite "liberal" cause?

8) Why -- after Yasser Arafat has proven for 40 years to be one of history's most incorrigible terrorists, while loyally backing dictators like Saddam Hussein -- does the European Union still strongly support Arafat's leadership?

9) Why does the media call it "terror" when Al Qaeda strikes at Western targets, but not when Hamas strikes at Israelis (or even American citizens in Israel)?

10) If the Palestinians truly want peace, why do their school textbooks vilify Israel and glorify suicide bombers? Why does the government-controlled TV station broadcast virulent anti-Jewish messages? Why do mosques regularly incite followers to jihad? Why are (UN supported) children's paramilitary training camps -- masquerading as summer camps -- named in honor of the most "successful" Palestinian terrorists (an indoctrination process that has resulted in 60-80% support for suicide bombings)?

11) Why does the world call the West Bank "occupied" if it never belonged to the Palestinians? [Jordan controlled the West Bank for 19 years after conquering it in a war of aggression. It previously belonged to the Mamelukes, the Crusaders, the Ottoman Turks, and then Britain.]

12) What other country would give control of its holiest spot (the Temple Mount) to another religion (which arrived 1,500 years later), and then permit them to systematically destroy ancient remains (to eliminate evidence of a 3,000-year-old Jewish presence) and allow that religious body to prohibit access to non-Muslims for three years?

13) Why does anyone doubt Israel's sincerity for peace, after offering 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza in the Taba Talks 2001, and having given back the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt -- a territory three times the size of Israel constituting 91 percent of the territory Israel took control of in the 1967 war?

14) Why does the world demand the uprooting of Jewish settlements -- effectively making those areas "Judenrein" (empty of Jews)? Would anyone tolerate a similar form of ethnic cleansing whereby Israel does not allow Arabs to live in areas under Israeli control?

15) If, during Oslo, Israel gave tens of thousands of machine guns and 40% of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians (giving them control over 97% of their population), in return for the promise that "all future disputes would be handled without violence," and instead Israel got 18,000 terrorist attacks that killed 845 and wounded 4,898 people, a collapsed economy, intolerable daily life for its citizens, and its holy sites desecrated, why is Israel again being asked to negotiate with that same Palestinian leadership, trust their future promises, and place its security in their hands?

[brad]

as far as US interests, i dont see any islamic nation citizens in the highest circles of US government. i do see israeli dual-citizens.

since i believe israeli and US values are incompatible to some extent, this is why i think israeli atrocities need to be spoken about. because if it flourishes there it will end up here. case in point torture, dershowitz advocating torture warrants, etc. no islamic fanatic has that power.

[Gamblor]

You don't see any terrorists in Jordan do you?

Jordan has the most effective means of combating terror:
they torture relatives.

Now what do you civil rights advocates have to say?

[brad]

i just mean i could care less i know other countries are s***holes, i used to live in san diego and mexico is total filth.

i just dont want our country to go that way.

[Ray Zee]

the only reason the world doesnt support israel openly to the fullest is that most arab--(read oil)-- countries have a soft spot for their breathern. and are afraid they may be toppled if they come out against any arab for any reason. so the world must put a face on israel of being too radical and secretely supporting them. plus giving them money and access to arms.

[Chris Alger]

Violating some two dozen security council resolutions, all of which have been approved by the US, might have a little to do with it.

[Gamblor]

Violating some two dozen security council resolutions, all of which have been approved by the US, might have a little to do with it.

It would follow that from Ray's argument, the only reason the US would support those resolutions was not to raise the ire of Arab (read: oil exporting) countries.

[Chris Alger]

I guess it's not suprising that someone who militantly avoids "books" and "academics" about this topic would have to ask questions this basic or tendentious. It is surprising, however, that you stopped at 15. Egotist.

You want answers? They hide them in books. Get one.

[Gamblor]

Books, I like.

But no reputable books hold the answers to these question.

[ACPlayer]

You could start with "The Battle for God" or "The history of God" by Karen Armstrong. Perhaps then you will realize why I am a free-lance monotheist (a phrase I frst read in one of her books). Among her qualifications on this subject: she is a former Roman Catholic nun and instructor at London's prestigious Leo Baeck College for the Training of Rabbis.

You may also see then the world can be seen by other than those of a zionist.


An article about her (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0293/9302038.htm)

[Chris Alger]

But the US (and only the US) prevents those resolutions from being enforced. Therefore, the inability of the UN to enforce its resolutions against Israel undermines Ray's argument that the Arab exercise meaningful power over the UN. Moreover, it isn't reasonable to assume that any much less most or all UN resolutions directed at Israel resulted from Arab oil blackmail in the absence of some evidence that it actually occurs.

[Ray Zee]

no, no, the arab oil does not blackmail or have any power. what they have is the oil. and no one wants to make any long term threats to the source. so they step carefully. thats all that there is to it. let some other energy source come forward and watch how the world changes.

but you are certainly correct that the u.s. is the 500 pound gorilla in the u.n. and they directly keep israel in the chips.

[Cyrus]

"No reputable books hold the answers to these questionS."

I could direct you to books that do address these "questions", however misinformed and loaded these "questions" are, but then you'd dismiss them out of hand for being "anti-Israel propaganda", as you already did (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=347469&page=10&view=e xpanded&sb=6&o=14&fpart=) when I recommended a book written by a corn-fed, Bible-thumbing, Israel-supporting GOP congressman, of all persons.

You are not here to listen. You are here to hear (yourself talk).

[MMMMMM]

""But the US (and only the US) prevents those resolutions from being enforced. Therefore, the inability of the UN to enforce its resolutions against Israel undermines Ray's argument that the Arab exercise meaningful power over the UN."

You are sort of comparing apples and oranges here. Getting Resolutions passed is one thing; getting them implemented is another.

The Arab world does have lot of direct votes, and sympathizers in the U.N. when it comes to its positions against Israel, so it is easy for them to get such Resolutions passed. However nothing the U.N. passes can be enforced without the U.S. because the U.S. provides almost all the true military power the U.N. has.

So the Arab world has a lot of influence over the U.N. by virtue of the hidden power of oil politics as Ray alluded to, plus the fact that the Arab world has many votes in the General Assembly. However getting any resolutions implemented pretty much depends on the U.S.

As an aside, on a separate point, it is rather amazing that the U.S. is not only the only true "teeth" in any U.N. resolutions, but that the U.S. is by far the largest contributor to the U.N.'s budget. Why we should keep paying most of the bill for the continuation of an organization that is mostly inimicable to our interests is a bit baffling to me. We did (or still are?) withholding payments but I'm not sure of the current status. Anyway the U.S. essentially hosts and largely funds the U.N. and provides the only true military mechanism for enforcement of U.N. resolutions, but the U.N. in turn does the U.S. more harm than good. Perhaps it's time for us to withdraw from the U.N., or for the U.N. to be abolished. And on moral grounds too I have a lot of trouble with the concept of regimes that won't allow their own people to vote having a vote in the U.N.

[Chris Alger]

There are about 190 member states in the UN. The UN Organization of Islamic Conference identifies 57 members and 3 observers, which include all the Arab countries. You and Ray claim that oil politics accounts for the dozens of resolutions against Israel.

This is implausible because <ul type="square"> (1) I've never seen any evidence for it, and you haven't pointed to any;
(2) no country, to my knowledge, has ever admitted to casting a UN vote as a result of Arab oil, much less the many other countries the Arab states would need to pass any resolution;
(3) if Arab oil power can't keep prices artificially high (by restricting or threatening to restrict supplies), it seems hardly likely that it could neverthelss create near-unanimous UN votes;
(4) the Arab world has many international interests yet only the anti-Israel resolutions obtain widespread support, proving that any Arab oil doesn't manifest itself in the UN except regarding Israel;
(5) Arab oil power less powerful over actual importers of Arab oil like the US and more powerful over those countries that don't need it, like Russia, Mexico and Venezuela; and
(6) the nature of the alleged power is inexplicable, even bizarre: it is latent, never truly exercised and "hidden" (as you say) but extremely precise: it's always powerful enough to generate tons of votes against Israel, but never powerful enough to get any Security Council Resolutions enforced. [/list]
BTW, how do you know about it if it's "hidden?"

The US spend less than .03% of its GDP on the UN. A small price to pay to keep the most powerful congress of nations from solving problems that the US doesn't want solved except on its own terms.

[MMMMMM]

I don';t claim that the hidden pressure of oil is the only reason; just that it's a contributing factor. Another contributing factor is the very lopsided fact that there are over 1 billion Muslims in the world and only about 15 million Jews.

I think the U.N. is an organization that, in its current form, has significantly outlived its usefulness.

And why the U.S. should spend even .03% of GDP on an organization that is largely inimicable to our interests is still baffling to me.

[ACPlayer]

You are sort of comparing apples and oranges here. Getting Resolutions passed is one thing; getting them implemented is another.

THere is now a precedent for one way to get them implemented. Perhaps the Palestinians are trying to establish another way, non?

[MMMMMM]

Terrorism as a means of getting things implemented is the most morally reprehensible method imaginable. Terrorists should simply be crushed.

[Gamblor]

Why then, is it fair for you to label all of my sources as right-wing Zionist Propaganda?

[Chris Alger]

Your recommended newspaper, the Jerusalem Post, published an editorial last week calling for the murder of Yassir Arafat, perhaps a first for any major newspaper. Your recommended websites debka and Memri are, respectivley, a conduit for Israeli intelligence disinformation and an anti-Arab site founded by former Israeli military and intelligence officers. You've also cited "HonestReporting" as a source for objective information, when that site openly advocates a totalitarian rightest media (e.g., demanding the media omit all references to "East" Jerusalem, the annexation of which is almost universally regarded as illegal; declaring that the terms like "current unrest" and Palestinian "rage" unacceptably connote "Israeli aggression;" objecting to photographs of stone-throwing Palestinians on the grounds that they look "Poetically surreal...heroically silhouetted on a mountaintop, their stones floating triumphantly through the majestic clouds;" a headline that Israel "threatens new raids" although accurrate, is unfairly "ferocious").

[ACPlayer]

Ultra rational?

[Gamblor]

Once again, simply because you claim a newspaper, media outlet, or website is propaganda doesn't make it so.

To illustrate the stupidity of your argument, I believe you are a representative of a left wing Palestinian propaganda media outlet.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, quite.

Terrorism is morally abysmal.

Terrorism must not be rewarded or it will simply spread. In fact, that's one reason it has become more popular over decades: it was never sufficiently punished. In fact it has been accorded an air of respectability almost. As Kasparov said, in Europe it is common to allow terrorists the luxury of a political cause. The terrorist acts of the 70's, 80's and 90's were never sufficiently punished. Terrorism came to be seen as something that could be gotten away with.

If terrorists want to fight against policies or militaries or politicians, let them do that rather than blowing up children.

So yes: I think terrorists should absolutely be crushed...and then buried in pigskins. That is the price they should pay for taking their war to the children and families instead of to those they ought (if a war is even called for, that is). And that miserable fruit, instead of political concessions, should be what terrorism reaps. It would thus die out as a tactic soon enough, if it never gained concessions, and instead only brought the hammer down. And since it is imperative that terrorism be defeated, the hammer is the best policy for dealing with it.

Why must terrorism be defeated, generically speaking?
Because otherwise it will simply become ever more popular as a method of being heard, or of expressing dissent--and such a method civilization cannot handle well on a widespread basis. If you are mad at your neighbor, you don't go punch his kid. If you are mad at your mayor, you don't go blow up a train station. That isn't the way civilized people deal with things, and it would simply lead to more chaos, the more widely it is adopted.

Take away any possibility of political concessions for terrorists, and terrorism would essentially end. But the resolve of the world's decent people must be firm, to not cave in to the blackmail of attacking the innocent, which is the terrorists' primary weapon.

[ACPlayer]

Ultra radical: the inability to see beyond one's own perspective.

Complete with the moralistic arguments and permanent solutions.

[MMMMMM]

Irrelevant.

[ACPlayer]

Precisely.

[MMMMMM]

Your post was what was irrelevant; my points and arguments you did not refute.

In fact, if you actually think there are often multiple--(16, lol)--correct answers to a poker problem I would say that you are generally deluded as to what extent things are relative vs. definite.

[ACPlayer]

Well, given the moralistic viewpoints espoused in your notes, it is not surprising that you missed my reference to a joke about the 16 poker players. As I have mentioned before, I am a mostly retired, successful engineer and business person, and am, likely better schooled in Mathematics and formal logic than most on this forum. Unlike some of the other mathematicians in the forum, i understand its short comings specially when applied to the areas of human interactions.

You made no new points in the post you made. All you said was that which you consider to be bad is bad and therefore not good and should be exterminated. Demonstrating that you can prove anything if you assume it.

[MMMMMM]

Actually, I did make at least one new point in that post, since you've been here anyway, but perhaps you missed it.

Anyways, I suppose when it comes to moral issues, I suppose some things must be considered axiomatic, so to speak.

Anyone who believes that it is OK to murder innocents in order to draw attention to a particular political cause does not have moral judgment anywhere near the level which I consider decently human.

Here's a general moral axiom (not relating this to the terrorism issue, just speaking in general): Deliberately inflicting great and needless cruelty on others is evil. Maybe that axiom can't be "proved," but I have no doubt that it is true and that almost everybody would agree with it.

[adios]

"The US spend less than .03% of its GDP on the UN. A small price to pay to keep the most powerful congress of nations from solving problems that the US doesn't want solved except on its own terms."

Explain please. I'm assuming you had a typo and meant to type in spent instead of spend. So if the US would withdraw from the UN the problems that the US doesn't want solved except on it's own terms will be solved on some other terms? I mean if the US UN payments are benefitting the US then removing them will not benefit the US right? So if the US pulls out of the UN the payments go away and the impediment to solving world problems goes away. Ok I can deal with that. More of the world's problems will be solved I think it's great.

[ACPlayer]

Well, I condemn terrorism as evil too. It is not OK too murder children.

I condemn all violence, I am against death penalty, the use of force in wars, and terrorism.

I dont think you can fix the problem by force. You have to understand the causes (and no, I disagree with the thesis that Islam is a violent religion, it is no more or less violent than any other monotheist religion). The Israeli and, the present (as opposed to some of the past) US efforts of fixing terrorism by "crushing them" will not work IMO. I would be happy if it did and would eat crow with a smile.

I further condemn the Israeli objective of pushing out the Palestinians from their homes. I condemn them for being dishonest in their roles on the peace process and for targeting and executing unindicted and unconvicted terrorist and their willingness to inflict collateral damage. Actions that you seem to believe are acceptable.

[MMMMMM]

Well, you are quite wrong if you think the scriptures of Islam do not enjoin its followers to violence more so than do the scriptures of Christianity or Judaism. I'll post some references later on this. You cannot just presume such an equality without reading the actual texts to see what is actually written. In fact, why on Earth would you presume that there were NOT significant differences between these three religions in such matters? They're NOT the SAME....jeez. Things that are different usually have different attributes too, don't you think?

"I condemn all violence, I am against death penalty, the use of force in wars, and terrorism."

Heh, that's what I thought when I was 19.

But it is impossible to rationally condemn all violence.

What about necessary violence in defense of self or others? Are you against violence if some nut should come into your house and attack you or your family? Would you just let him beat everyone? Your statement above is the vacuous sort of statement that the left often employs. What about if Mexico attacked us? We should not defend ourselves because that is "war"???

And no I don't support everything Israel does or has done. But above all, terrorism must be stopped.

[ACPlayer]

Well, history has shown that at various periods christianity at least has used its interpretation of scripture to murder non-christians, ironically specially the "Jesus killers". If the christian population loses its present general economic advantages over the others, it will go back to the same violent interpretations. Specially if a right wing nut gets into a position of power -- see Hitler and his use of the economic privations caused partially by the treaty of versailles to go after non-Aryan and non-christians.

It is rational and moral to condemn all violence. Anything less is totally immoral.

I agree that above all terrorism must be stopped - so what almost everyone here does. Only a few posters bother to even question why it exists in the first place - nicky, chris and cyrus come to mind. The rest rant about Arab Snots and Islam the evil religion and get them before they get us -- treating a symptom rather than a cause.

Well, I am glad you have grudgingly said that you dont support everything Israel does or has done.

I would love to read the Quran but dont understand Arabic. I would love to read the Bible but dont read hebrew or aramaic. All you can find is someone's interpretation and there are plenty of people who would interpret it as you do and others who would interpret it otherwise.

[MMMMMM]

"It is rational and moral to condemn all violence. Anything less is totally immoral."

So you believe that ALL violence is immoral regardless of circumstance? If your home were invaded by a knife-wielding homicidal psychopath, it would be immoral of you to use violence to save your family and yourself? Just trying to get this straight. And if your neighbor's home were similarly invaded, you would condemn him for using violence in self-defense and defense of family, because "anything less (than condemnation of all violence) is totally immmoral"?

"I would love to read the Quran but dont understand Arabic. I would love to read the Bible but dont read hebrew or aramaic. All you can find is someone's interpretation and there are plenty of people who would interpret it as you do and others who would interpret it otherwise."

Well if I provided you a link to three translations of the Koran by three Muslim scholars, you might guess that their renditions were somewhat close, at least. You can't completely discount evidence just because the original isn't written in your native tongue.

[Chris Alger]

I agree the US has no business in the UN, at least not with veto power in the Security Council. The US should be expelled. My point was whether the US gets what it pays for, and it does.

The US is the modern day Security Council veto champion. According to the BBC:

"Seven of the last nine vetoes at the Security Council have been by the United States, and six of these have been of draft resolutions criticising the Israeli Government in some way.

The most recent, in December 2002, was a draft resolution criticising the killing by Israeli forces of several United Nations employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme warehouse in the West Bank.

In total, the US has blocked 35 draft resolutions on Israel.

Washington first used its veto in March 1970. Along with the UK it blocked a draft resolution on what was to become Zimbabwe.

The US has vetoed 10 resolutions criticising South Africa, eight on Namibia, seven on Nicaragua and five on Vietnam.
It has been the lone voice in blocking a resolution 53 times."

The US has also stymied efforts to get Turkey out of Cyprus.

[Chris Alger]

I didn't merely "say" it was propaganda, I pointed out examples of crude propaganda and the sources of the information used. If you can't grasp the propaganda nature of the reports produced by the organs above then you don't know what propaganda means.

[ACPlayer]

So, given your example it is perfectly reasonable for the Palestinian to fight back, having had their homes invaded by homicidal religiousopaths wielding 5000 year old titles of dubious provenance (except that it says in some book that their people own the land, not even their direct ancestors). Your example is ludicrous - if someone invaded my house with a gun intent on killing me, there is nothing I could do about it, as I dont have a gun to fight back (and no intention of buying one).

But I will say, that if I was a victim of a violent crime my preference, which is not legal binding -- as my research has shown, would be that the perp be locked up rather than executed (preferably with a big brutal guy looking for a "girl friend" - a little light humor in case you dont recognize it).

I would love to read the referenced materials. But does it change the fact that a) the reason that violence has become a problem over the past few (historically) years has little to do with the scripture (it had not been much of a problem before) and b) that other religions like Christianity have had at various times interpretations that make the Islamists look just as bad. Again historically, people have used fundamentalist interpretations when they are stuggling to get something and not when they have plenty (which is why Christianity at the moment is relatively peaceful)

Regarding the statement that these are Muslim writers - let me remind you that there are plenty of non-zionist, religious Jews who fervently believe that according to their reading of the same scriptures, the state of Israel should never have been created. So, once again, reality is in the eye of the beholds and whether to bet or raise the turn is a matter of opinion and not fact.

[MMMMMM]

Wait a minute, slow down, you're not following precisely, please.

First of all the example I gave you is a home-invading perp wielding a knife, not a gun. Are you saying you would let him slaughter your family--and you--rather than pick up a golf club or baseball bat or lamp or something and try to whack him with it? Are you saying it would be immoral for you to crack him over the head with a heavy metal lamp in order to stop him?

Regarding the parallel you are trying to draw to the Palestinian/Israeli matter, that's quite a leap indeed.

I'll try to organize some translations for you over the next few days.

[ACPlayer]

And why exactly is it a leap? They were happily living there. Their villages were attacked and the were "encouraged" to leave by terrorists like Begin and Sharon. They did not like the encouragement, the grabbed a golf club and fought back. Their political leaders then took their interpretations of the Quran to persuade them that they would get virgins to commit the terrorist atrocities.

I look forward to the references. You have an organization dedicated to this effort?? Is this your full time occupation? Just curious.

[MMMMMM]

Well you still haven't answered the question I posed, nor commented on whether violence in self-defense is immoral--though your umbrella statement certainly seems to indicate that you think it is.

Regarding the Palestinian leap, it's a leap for many reasons. One reason in particular is that the terrorists are not always targeting the aggressors but frequently are targeting children. If that home-invading perp with a knife managed to escape your aim with the lamp, but stubbed his toe and ran off howling, saying he'd get you tomorrow instead, you wouldn't go hunt down his kids would you? If you were going to hunt someone down it would be him, not little Cindy and Isabel. But the depraved terrorists see literally no difference.

[ACPlayer]

Thats what you are not seeing, the terrorists were after the fact. They were pushed out of their houses in 48. They have found a weapon that hurts the enemies and some morons telling them that this will help them with the virgin crapola. But the point is that they are fighting just as you recommend with whatever weapon they can find. This is exactly the scenario you described taken to this level by 50 years of despair, hardship and misery. Is it really that hard to see? Or do the words terrorist just put the blinder on, stir up some rage and you cant see this?

I am still considering your question of what I would do and how it would effect my feelings. Will reply in the morning.

[MMMMMM]

Well the problem is that the terrorists are not primarily attacking what one might call legitimate targets--such as soldiers, checkpoints, political or military leaders. They are primarily attacking the most innocent members of society which is, if you want to use that unparallel example, like going after someone's kids instead of the person you have the beef with.

[ACPlayer]

Every time I bring up a possible why -- you turn towards the how.

How about first considering why they are doing this in the context of the events in 48 and then the how. Perhaps then we can agree that there is at least a half way decent reason for fighting back and jointly agree that the terrorist methodology is terrible. Once there is understanding of the why rather than a focus on the how by the likes of Bush there is hope that the US can play a constructive role.

[Cyrus]

"Unlike some of the other mathematicians in the forum, I understand [the Mathematics'] short comings specially when applied to the areas of human interactions."

Well, here comes Goedel. (You asked for it.)

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

I thought of Goedel when I put this up. Poor guy, he probably wishes he had kept his mouth shut.

[ACPlayer]

In self defense it is not immoral if it is a LAST resort. Plenty of soul searching both before (if time allows) and after (when there is plenty of it) the event should be undertaken to ascertain for yourself if you really did every last thing that you could to avoid it.

I do believe that it is immoral how victims families gloat on the execution of another human being; I do believe it is immoral how the US is unwilling to examine its actions in Iraq and how it went in, in the first place; I do believe it is immoral how terrorits use their tactics to defend themselves (remorselessly); I do believe it is immoral how Zionists use the tactics they do to defend themselves (remorselessly).

Gandhi's way is the true way. Buddha has it right. The practice as opposed to the theology of major religions has it wrong.

This should get this thread buzzing, perhaps. Fortunately I am off to Central Park to see if I can hear what the Dalai Lama has to say.

Do you yet have an answer on why the Palestinians are not simply defending their rights or an alternate theory on why they are doing the terrorist actions (or is it still becase Islam says that they must).

[MMMMMM]

I agree that gloating over executions is somewhat immoral, though quite understandable.

Regarding Palestinians actions I think it is a combination of many factors including all discussed thus far.

One thing you probably do not realize is that Islam has a fundamentally different view of of the meaning of the word "peace" than does Christianity or Judaism.

In Western terms, "peace" generally means living with or side-by-side others without fighting. In other words if the Christians and Jews and Muslims all followed their own religions and did not fight against each other, that would be one example of "peace" according to the Western view.

In Islamic terms, that is not what "peace" means, however. "Peace" in Islamic terms means the entire world under Islam. This fits with the Islamic view that the world is divided into two parts: the House of Peace (dar al-Islam, regions where Islam rules), and the House of War (dar al-Harb, regions Islam has not yet conquered). So, you see, the two inherent world views are quite different, and are actually fundamentally quite incompatible. Only when the entire world has been converted to Islam will there be peace, according to Islamic ideology, because anything outside Islam is not peace.

Regarding theistic and non-theistic religions, most violence towards others seems to flow outward from theistic religions, as opposed to from non-theistic religions (such as Buddhism or Taoism).

Regarding Buddhism, while I am not a Buddhist, I have read approximately 30 books on Buddhism and find it quite interesting.

Here is a list of the choicest books from among those which I have read. If you are interested in Buddhism, you might like to pick up a few of these.

What The Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula--the most essential explanation of the Buddha's actual teachings

Zen Training by Katsuki Sekida--contains actual training exercises, and psychological insights and explorations not found elsewhere, a ground-breaking work, IMO. Psychology Today calls it "The first complete English-language handbook for Zen Meditation"

The Diamond Sutra and the Sutra of Hui-Neng, translated by A.F. Price and Wong Mou-Lam, Shambhala Dragon Editions--these are possibly the most important sutras in Buddhism and in Zen Buddhism; I believe this translation captures the spirit and meaning better than other translations I have read.

The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma translated by Red Pine, North Point Press

There is another very special book the name I cannot just now recall, but I'll add it later sometime.

Strangely perhaps, I don't really recommend Shobogenzo by Dogen, the Soto classic, but no doubt I am missing something;-)--or perhaps it had to do with the translation I had;-)

Also, there are quite a few very good books I am not listing, since I am only listing what I consider the choicest.

Of the various koan books and translations, the one I liked best was The Gateless Barrier: Wu-Men Kuan, translated and commentated on by Robert Aitken

And of course the more popular wonderful books, which emphasis is more exploratory and less direct:

Nine-Headed Dragon River and The Snow Leopard, both by Peter Matthiessen

Endless Vow: The Zen Path of Soen Nakagawa, presented by Eido T. Shimano, Shambhala Publications

Zen in the Art of Archery by Eugen Herrigel

Well, enjoy your day;-)

[ACPlayer]

Thanks for the references. I would add the Sogyal Rinpoche book on Living and Dying.

Regarding your comments about dar al-Harb I would remind you that these are not in the Quran but are interpretations of a particular Fiqh or group.

Islam also has numberous other ways of classifying groups:

Dar Al-Ahd (Abode of Covenant - the countries with which Islamic countries have diplomatic relations), Dar Al-Sulh (Abode of Truce), Dar Al-Maslubah (Abode of Pillaged Land), Dar Al-Bid’ah (Abode of Heresy), Dar Al-Baghy (Abode of Usurpation), Dar Al-‘Adl (Abode of Justice), Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Unbelief). Yet, Western attention prefer to rather focus on the term Dar Al-Harb (Abode of War).

Further consider these two passages from the Quran:
God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just.

God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.”

So, the house of war is for those people who have harmed the muslim, with whom there is no covenant of mutual alliance and is not a mindless us vs them dichotomy.

[MMMMMM]

You may be presuming certain dars to be mutually exclusive, when they are not necessarily so.

More later; in a great game now.

[Gamblor]

You're like the guy who goes to a WWII veteran from D-day and tries to explain to him that if he truly wanted peace, he shouldn't have shot that German standing on the beach.

After all, wasn't it a US occupation of Normandy? What business did the US have there 10 000 km from their border? Weren't they crushing German Socialist Nationalism (or does the name National Socialists ring a bell)?

Now imagine the Nazis were based in Mexico. That's a little more like the situation Israelis think they face.

[nicky g]

It may have escaped your attention that the US didn't stay for 30 years and more. You also might like to note that while the Nazis were trying to take over all of Europe and slaughter everyone they deemed inferior to themselves, the Palestinians are simply fighting for the occupation to end. Furthermore, you might like to note that the US generously built up the German infrastructure, and then handed it over to the locals, as opposed to destroying the locals' infrastructure while building roads and settlements for the sole use of American colonisers. Still. Keep it up.

[ACPlayer]

Now imagine if the Nazis were in Toronto (is that where you live presently?) that would be more like the situation that Palestinians face.

We can keep going around that circle. You are incapable of seeing things from the Palestinian perspective, and I am sure you feel the other way about us (even though all the posters writing about their opposition to Israeli tactics and strategies) roundly condemn suicide bombings (my reading, if i have misstated my apologies to those posters).

[Gamblor]

the Palestinians are simply fighting for the occupation to end.

If you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.

Perhaps the occupation between Kiryat Shmona and Eilat (the Northermost and Southernmost cities in Israel - bordering Lebanon and the Red Sea)

[Copernicus]

The lack of understanding of the historical/religious ties (and therefore implied rights) to "occupied" land is apalling.

[Cyrus]

How can you vascillate so comfortably and so quickly between relatively sober posts and completely, utterly, Gin-Blossom-like wild-ass drunkenness? Tell me. I really have a technical interest in this.

"Wasn't it a US occupation of Normandy?"

Huh? What are you on today? The Allies (true allies, and not in name only, as in the recent two US-led wars) landed in Normandy, at the request of the Free Government of France , with the express assistance of Free French troops and in order to liberate Europe, including France. The concept of occupation was completely absent from all this, until your brought it up! The United States, on the other hand, have asked to be officially recognized by the United Nations as an "Occupying Power" in Iraq, and they have been granted that.

And Israel has been officially designating West Bank and Gaza as "Occupied Territories". There's no two ways about in the official Israeli diplomatic nomenclature, sorry, Alice. It's "Occupied Territories". If you have a beef with that, take it to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, not here.

"Now imagine the Nazis were based in Mexico. That's a little more like the situation Israelis think they face."

I believe you. The operative word, here, of course, is think.

Thanks for once again revealing more than you meant to.

[RollaJ]

This fight has been going on for 2000+years, no bullshit treaty is going to solve it. It will end when one side is dead (hopefully the "palestinians", hopefully soon).

[Gamblor]

vascillate

Good word!

How can you vascillate so comfortably and so quickly between relatively sober posts and completely, utterly, Gin-Blossom-like wild-ass drunkenness? Tell me. I really have a technical interest in this.

Hard work, dedication, 110% effort, taking it one post at a time, and sticking up for one another. We go into the corners, protect the crease, get the puck on the net, don't take no guff from nobody.


The concept of occupation was completely absent from all this, until your brought it up!

To you and me... what do the Germans think of this (strictly out of curiosity)? Would it be fair to say that Hitler et al were trying to "claim their Aryan birthright of Europe", which by the end was "occupied", from the Nazi perspective, by the Allies? I got crossed up between issues - not Normandy, Normandy is just where they landed as you are well aware.

"Now imagine the Nazis were based in Mexico. That's a little more like the situation Israelis think they face."

Yes. Think. Bickering about right and wrong will get nowhere on everyone's ultimate goal of peace and security for everyone. But Palestinian supporters and terrorism apologists must understand that there is a reason the Palestinians are in the situation they are in, and it is largely of their own doing, not because of "big bad evil Israel"...

[Cyrus]

"This fight has been going on for 2000+years, no bullshit treaty is going to solve it. It will end when one side is dead (hopefully the "Palestinians", hopefully soon)."

The above sentence manages to contain two totally incorrect premises :

-- It is false that the fight between Jews and Arabs/Palestinians has been going on for two-thousand-plus years. The historical record is quite undisputed and quite categorical. This is a quite recent conflict.

-- It is false to put the word Palestinians inside quotation marks ("Palestinians"), as if the term denotes something that is only alleged, something that is not really true or correct. Palestinians exist and have been living for hundreds of years in what was once Palestine and now Israel. The official Israeli claims contradict squarely all revisionist Jewish historians and the History of the area as presented by all serious, secular western scholars. (One among many items : "The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415107598/qid=1064327730/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6515208-0720134?v=glance&amp;s=books). Do not assume that the author is some kind of anti-semite! )

Finally, by "hoping" for the wholesale death of "one side", and moreover "soon", the reader is tempted to ask :
Could the Israelis possibly adopt with impunity the efficient methods used by a regime that was with us not many decades ago ?

I guess the modern version would be microwave (gas) ovens.

[Cyrus]

OK, you have conceded all the points aside from those you coneviently abandoned, except for the "American occupation of Normandy and Western Europe" (!).. This shouldn't take long.

"What do the Germans think of this ? Would it be fair to say that Hitler et al were trying to "claim their Aryan birthright of Europe", which by the end was "occupied", from the Nazi perspective, by the Allies?"

You are confused. This is inevitable when you jump between false premises more happily than the frog in that old videogame.

The Western Allies were Aryans, according to Nazi theory. The conquest of France, Holland and Belgium by Germany did not represent any kind of "liberation", not even according to the Nazis. Nor was it for the Nazis a conquest of "inferior races". The Nazis were explicit about "incorporating" major parts of those countries into the Reich, in order to advance "European glory and unity".

When the Allies landed in Normandy and started taking back western Europe, the Nazis viewed this as essentially a "betrayal of pan-European and Aryan ideals" by "the Jewish-led leaderships of London and Washington". The Nazis never protested that Europe was being "invaded" by "non-Aryans" or "inferior races".

Get your History right! The argument about "invasion of Europe" (by the Mongols) was reserved by Nazi propaganda for the Soviet Red Army. In the case of Eastern Prussia, for instance, the Soviets were characterized as "invaders". Which they were, but only strictly technically speaking, since they did not stop their advance at the Soviet-Nazi border, but continued onwards inside Nazi territory --- until they raised their flag over the Reichstag.

In this strictly technical sense, Germany was "invaded" by the Western Allies in the West and the Soviets in the East.

However, an invader is almost always the party that instigates hostilities. If Argentina takes over British soil and Britain re-conquers it, then Britain is not an invader. If Israel is invaded by Egypt and turns back and attacks deep into Egypt, to even conquer Egyptian soil, in the process, then Israel is not invading.

...Hope this helps.

[Gamblor]

Are you going to cite every academic who hops on the anti-Israeli bandwagon?

Just because it's popular to come up with hundreds of reasons why the poor, oppressed Palestinians need to murder someone enjoying a Sbarro pizza doesn't mean they are all factually accurate. Secular Western Historians know no more about Israeli-Palestinian history in 2003 than I know about whether or not the evil British were the best government for the poor, oppressed Americans in Massachussets.

Historians read accounts, then posit hypotheses which are either accepted by other historians with a similar degree of knowledge of a fairly random list of writing by other historians, or it is rejected, often on criteria as complex as whether or not the historian got laid the night before. They are not concluding indisputable facts.

[Gamblor]

Thanks...

My knowledge of WWII is eclipsed only by my knowledge of WWIII.

But to nitpick at an analogy, however false it was, implies an inability to poke a real hole in the broader argument.