Is Israel Commited to Peace?

[vern_humphrey]

IsaacSheen:

Ethnic cleansing? Did I miss something? I’m curious when I implied or stated that I was in favor of ethnic cleansing. .

How about this remark of yours: **Lastly, maybe those poeple in Gaza should move somewhere else. **

IsaacSheen:

I am also going to request your definition of ethnic cleansing so that I know just what I’m working with here…

Ethnic cleansing is normally defined as forcing people who live in one area to move somewhere else, for the benefit of a dominant ethnic group. As in forcing the people who live in Gaza to move somewhere else for the benefit of the Israelis.

IsaacSheen:

Peace is always the best option. Normally peace is reached by both sides sacrificing something for a greater good. Right now, it appears most people want Israel to do all of the sacrificing.

Are you saying the Palestinians are building settlements in Israeli territory?

 

[IsaacSheen]

Ok, your term is a little more generic. I’m not saying the Palestinian people should be forced to move out. I’m saying, if it is that bad, maybe they should just leave. I know this seems stupid, naive, whatever it may be. The land is disputed and they are dying by staying there. It only makes sense to go somewhere else.

And normally, ethnic cleansing is thought of as the massacre of a certain ethnic people to get them out of the way. Maybe it isn’t defined that way, but most people use it that way.
vernhumphrey:

Are you saying the Palestinians are building settlements in Israeli territory?

No, I’m saying there is more to it than Israel being 100% at fault. There is history, reasons, and a web of things that people like to throw out so that they can make it “cut-and-dry” Israel’s fault.

 

[Hospitaller]

Considering that both the Israeli *and *Palestinian men-in-the-street believe that one or the other has to eventually be gotten rid of, permanently, I think any kind of peaceful solution is wishful thinking. The best we can hope for, I think, is that Israel will be the last man standing.

 

[Hospitaller]

vern humphrey:

Ethnic cleansing is normally defined as forcing people who live in one area to move somewhere else, for the benefit of a dominant ethnic group. As in forcing the people who live in Gaza to move somewhere else for the benefit of the Israelis.

Really? I’ve never come across the term being used to denote anything other than systematic termination of civilians, except when it was used by the ones who were doing the killing.
vern humphrey:

If they are disenfranchised, Israel cannot legitimtely call herself a democracy – any more than South Africa could under Apartheid.

Or any more than the original democracies, those of ancient Greece could I suppose.

 

[vern_humphrey]

IsaacSheen:

Ok, your term is a little more generic. I’m not saying the Palestinian people should be forced to move out. I’m saying, if it is that bad, maybe they should just leave. I know this seems stupid, naive, whatever it may be. The land is disputed and they are dying by staying there. It only makes sense to go somewhere else.

And normally, ethnic cleansing is thought of as the massacre of a certain ethnic people to get them out of the way. Maybe it isn’t defined that way, but most people use it that way. .

You say, “The land is disputed and they are dying by staying there. It only makes sense to go somewhere else.”

Then you say, “ethnic cleansing is thought of as the massacre of a certain ethnic people to get them out of the way.”

It seems to me that the first sentence conforms pretty well to the second – they’re being killed so they should leave.

IsaacSheen:

No, I’m saying there is more to it than Israel being 100% at fault. There is history, reasons, and a web of things that people like to throw out so that they can make it “cut-and-dry” Israel’s fault.

When you say, “The land is disputed and they are dying by staying there. It only makes sense to go somewhere else,” it’s very difficult to interpret your words as a desire for peace.

 

[IsaacSheen]

Since we aren’t getting anywhere, I just want to say, thanks for the good debate.

No, I’m not for ethnic cleansing and no, I don’t believe it is going on there.

 

[IsaacSheen]

I will also say, you have trapped yourself in your own definition.

You want the Israelis to move out. Isn’t that the same “ethnic cleansing” you have been speaking about?

 

[Hospitaller]

IsaacSheen:

You want the Israelis to move out. Isn’t that the same “ethnic cleansing” you have been speaking about?

:clapping::clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[vern_humphrey]

IsaacSheen:

I will also say, you have trapped yourself in your own definition.

You want the Israelis to move out. Isn’t that the same “ethnic cleansing” you have been speaking about?

It is an established principle that one who acts illegally cannot profit by his act in law.

The settlements were established for the purpose of ethnic cleansing – settlers have been quoted as saying that “we’ll keep building settlements, and soon they won’t have anywhere to go.” And the Israelis themselves agree that at least some of these settlements are illegal.

However, I am willing to compensate them for moving. A just settlement would leave two viable states.

Let me point out that there is no reason for the settlements. They do not contribute to the security of Israel – they harm the security of Israel, both by maintaining a cause for discontent and by draining security resources.

They also operate at a net economic loss – to the tune of $300 million a year.

 

[cestusdei]

Peace process? Tell that to the Islamic suicide bombers. They could have already had a state if they had taken the deal in 2000. But no, they don’t really want a deal. They want it all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

cestusdei:

Peace process? Tell that to the Islamic suicide bombers. They could have already had a state if they had taken the deal in 2000. But no, they don’t really want a deal. They want it all.

There’s an old saying, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, leaves everyone blind and wearing dentures.”

 

[IsaacSheen]

vern humphrey:

The settlements were established for the purpose of ethnic cleansing –

Ethnic cleansing’s latest definition:
People having to leave an area
People moving into an area

 

[IsaacSheen]

Vern,

It is very possible I’ll wake up one day and realize what you were/are trying to express. Today is not that day, tomorrow doesn’t look too good either.

 

[vern_humphrey]

IsaacSheen:

Vern,

It is very possible I’ll wake up one day and realize what you were/are trying to express. Today is not that day, tomorrow doesn’t look too good either.

When people don’t want to understand, they don’t understand.

 

[FightingFat]

vern humphrey:

There’s an old saying, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, leaves everyone blind and wearing dentures.”

…Ghandi

 

[FightingFat]

vern humphrey:

It is an established principle that one who acts illegally cannot profit by his act in law.

The settlements were established for the purpose of ethnic cleansing – settlers have been quoted as saying that “we’ll keep building settlements, and soon they won’t have anywhere to go.” And the Israelis themselves agree that at least some of these settlements are illegal.

However, I am willing to compensate them for moving. A just settlement would leave two viable states.

Let me point out that there is no reason for the settlements. They do not contribute to the security of Israel – they harm the security of Israel, both by maintaining a cause for discontent and by draining security resources.

They also operate at a net economic loss – to the tune of $300 million a year.

Blimey Vern, I’m with you on this one!

 

[IsaacSheen]

vern humphrey:

When people don’t want to understand, they don’t understand.

Vern,

The funny thing is, from what I’ve read in other posts of yours, we’d agree on many other things.

It isn’t that I don’t want to understand, it is the fact that I tried to understand and what you offered in response was either accusation that wasn’t based in any fact…
vernhumphrey:

So your solution is ethnic cleansing?

or…your “facts” not being in agreement with the “facts” I have found. Notice I put “facts” in quotations. Earlier in this thread, I said that it was impossible for us to know what is really going on there, we aren’t there and we have no idea. If you are there, or have lived there for any substantial amount of time, I will gladly concede that you are more knowledgeable about the subject and I would have no room to talk.

As it stands, I only know what I have learned from other people, as do you. Since this is true, maybe you’ve heard more from Palestinian supporters and maybe I’ve heard more from Israeli supporters. Who knows?

I read what you wrote, and I thought about what I have learned from sources both on-line and in books and they just don’t agree with each other.

I’m not saying that truth is debatable, I’m saying it is hard to know what the truth is when it is wrapped in so much bias.

Peace my friend.

 

[vern_humphrey]

IsaacSheen:

Vern,

The funny thing is, from what I’ve read in other posts of yours, we’d agree on many other things.

It isn’t that I don’t want to understand, it is the fact that I tried to understand and what you offered in response was either accusation that wasn’t based in any fact…

Well, not to be defensive, but you DID talk about the Palestinians moving – and under threat of death.

Now, if we really want peace, I think we must look at the problem through what I call “soldier’s eyes.” That is, we must look it as we look at an earthquake or a tornado.

When we do that, we must consider the approach taken in the Hippocratic Oath, “First, do no harm.” That is, we want a solution that will bring peace and harm no one. We must look at what each side would consider just, and not take a partisan stance.

This requires we reject the proposition that either side will be “driven out.” We must find a solution that allows the people in question to live** together**, in peace.

That gives us just two options – the one-state option and the two-state option. In the one-state option, the Jewish citizens will be in political control for a limited time, and ultimately the Muslim citizens will outnumber them.

In the two-state option, we must have a solution that leaves no long-festering grievences.

IsaacSheen:

or…your “facts” not being in agreement with the “facts” I have found. Notice I put “facts” in quotations. Earlier in this thread, I said that it was impossible for us to know what is really going on there, we aren’t there and we have no idea. If you are there, or have lived there for any substantial amount of time, I will gladly concede that you are more knowledgeable about the subject and I would have no room to talk…

I have lived in the Middle East, but not in Israel.

IsaacSheen:

As it stands, I only know what I have learned from other people, as do you. Since this is true, maybe you’ve heard more from Palestinian supporters and maybe I’ve heard more from Israeli supporters. Who knows?.

I have tried to find neutral sources. There are Israeli sources, for example, that are quite sympathetic to the Palestinians and their aspirations.

IsaacSheen:

I read what you wrote, and I thought about what I have learned from sources both on-line and in books and they just don’t agree with each other.

I’m not saying that truth is debatable, I’m saying it is hard to know what the truth is when it is wrapped in so much bias.

Peace my friend.

I agree. But what sources are you depending on?

I think the most important way to peace is to concentrate on peace, and put aside all ideas that the problem is all the fault of one side or the other.

 

[IsaacSheen]

vern humphrey:

Well, not to be defensive, but you DID talk about the Palestinians moving – and under threat of death.

I didn’t mean that the Israeli’s were threatening them with death. It appears to me that the area being talked about is in severe economic depression. I don’t think that Israel is trying to kill the people or drive the people out in that region, if they were, I’d be 100% against it.

I think they are taking security measures that lock that area down, and I think they are doing it because they see a threat there, not because they want to hurt those people in anyway. It is very possible that these measures help the economic troubles to worsen but I honestly do not believe they are trying to hurt anyone, I believe it is more about safety. Once they reach a peace agreement (if it is possible with these two conflicting sides) then maybe they will be able to relieve the security and then the area will be able to start rebuilding.

So what I meant, based on my above statement, was that maybe the Palestinians and Israelis in this region should abandon it so that it doesn’t ruin their lives. “Move on” so to speak. I don’t wish that they would have to move or leave, I just think maybe they should, not because I believe the Israelis are right, or the Palestinians are right, but because it just makes sense not to live in an area that isn’t going to help your situation. I know this is much easier said than done. Follow me yet?
vern humphrey:

I have lived in the Middle East, but not in Israel.

So you DO have a better understanding than I do. (Provided of course, it was for a long enough time and close enough to what was going on).

vern:

I have tried to find neutral sources.

As have I, it is incredibly hard.

vern:

I agree. But what sources are you depending on?

Middle Eastern papers you can read on-line. Books that cover the historical process of Israel and the surrounding area.

Lastly, although maybe not the best sources, discovery channel and history channel. I usually use those channels as a stepping stone for finding better sources. I never listen to American, British or Canadian media. All three are terribly bias. I’m sure the middle eastern ones are as well, but at least it is from people directly tied to the conflict.

vern:

I think the most important way to peace is to concentrate on peace, and put aside all ideas that the problem is all the fault of one side or the other.

I agree, but just from you and me debating this issue, we see that people will always be partial to one side or the other.

 

[vern_humphrey]

IsaacSheen:

I didn’t mean that the Israeli’s were threatening them with death. It appears to me that the area being talked about is in severe economic depression. I don’t think that Israel is trying to kill the people or drive the people out in that region, if they were, I’d be 100% against it…

If peace is our aim, we should consider their departure under pressure – either physical or economic – a bad thing. We should look to a prosperous people living in their old homes.

IsaacSheen:

I think they are taking security measures that lock that area down, and I think they are doing it because they see a threat there, not because they want to hurt those people in anyway. It is very possible that these measures help the economic troubles to worsen but I honestly do not believe they are trying to hurt anyone, I believe it is more about safety…

Yet a good part of the security problem stems from having settlements intermixed with the Palestinian camps and towns. The settlement program exacerbates both the security and economic problems of Israel.

IsaacSheen:

Once they reach a peace agreement (if it is possible with these two conflicting sides) then maybe they will be able to relieve the security and then the area will be able to start rebuilding.

So what I meant, based on my above statement, was that maybe the Palestinians and Israelis in this region should abandon it so that it doesn’t ruin their lives. “Move on” so to speak. I don’t wish that they would have to move or leave, I just think maybe they should, not because I believe the Israelis are right, or the Palestinians are right, but because it just makes sense not to live in an area that isn’t going to help your situation. I know this is much easier said than done. Follow me yet?.

Pardon me, but I keep seeing a subtext there – “The road to peace is the road on which the Palestinians depart.”

Peace, it seems to me, can come only if they STAY in their homes and become prosperous. If they leave, they won’t step off the face of the earth – they will continue to live on this planet, nursing yet another grevience in this tragic war.

IsaacSheen:

So you DO have a better understanding than I do. (Provided of course, it was for a long enough time and close enough to what was going on)…

I don’t claim to have any special understanding – I lived and went to school in Egypt for two years in the '50s. I still have friends there.

IsaacSheen:

Middle Eastern papers you can read on-line. Books that cover the historical process of Israel and the surrounding area.

Lastly, although maybe not the best sources, discovery channel and history channel. I usually use those channels as a stepping stone for finding better sources. I never listen to American, British or Canadian media. All three are terribly bias. I’m sure the middle eastern ones are as well, but at least it is from people directly tied to the conflict.

A wise man once said, “Ninty-nine percent of what you read in the paper is something you never heard of before. But now and then they’ll slip up and tell you about something you already know. You can judge the ninty-nine percent by the one percent.”

In many areas where I know what happened (not necessarily about the Middle East, but about history in general) TV does a VERY bad job.

IsaacSheen:

I agree, but just from you and me debating this issue, we see that people will always be partial to one side or the other.

One of the great problems is that men of peace are at a terrible disadvantage in situations like this. People look to leaders for results. What can the men of peace offer but patience, patience, and more patience? But the men of violence get “results” with an airstrike or a suicide bomb.

Men of peace on both sides (including an Israeli Prime Minister) have been killed for their efforts.