Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:
It goes further than this, much of Israeli policy connects to this dogma. Israel is a very one sided society. freedom and democaacy for one part of the people oppression for the others. If an Israeli Arab goes on holiday, he is not allowed back into the country, let alone a Palestinian.
Just an example: Israeli settlers moved from the Gaza strip were given six months to move and the move was handled with 'gentleness and respect', if you want to move a palestinian from their home you give them a few minutes minutes warning to leave before the bulldozer moves in. These are not exaggerrations.


The 'Us and Them' attitude is common policy, not the utterances of a few fanatics at the fringe.

That sentiment has been slowly fading for some time (even Olmert calling for peace), and I expect will begin to deteriorate even faster now that you have Jewish settlers bombing their own people.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Big assumptions there, like you think you can read my mind. Who says this is anything to do with last name, it has far more to do with the content. Dice Monkey implied that you had to study this writer in order to 'have a leg to stand on'. Essentially this means: there is only one valid side, agree with it or you are a fool. This can hardly be so on such a delicate and multi-sided issue as the Arab Israeli conflict. Indicating that he at least had swallowed the propoganda.

You are falling into same trap yourself. You are forcing an assumption that: critic of Israel = anti-semitic = evil. Thus you avoid having to face the issues by simply assuming bigotry on my part.

Sounds to me like you think you can read dice-monkey's mind and making the same mistake you seem to think I made that I didn't. I don't think you are antisemitic. I think your kinda ignorant and foolish on this subject, but I don't think it's because you hate all Jewish people.

You are not thinking this through, I never imply in my posts that there is only one valid opinion. The post I quoted does that. Also you contradict yourself, you accuse me of dismissing the opinions of some political writer by their ethnic origin, but now tell me this is not to do with bigotry? You cant 'half denounce' someone of what is tantamount to racism, you are either pointing the finger or withdrawing it.

Also I am anything but 'ignorant' and 'foolish' on middle east politics. I try to be reasonably well read on current affairs so please be more respectful with what you post.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
It goes further than this, much of Israeli policy connects to this dogma. Israel is a very one sided society. freedom and democaacy for one part of the people oppression for the others. If an Israeli Arab goes on holiday, he is not allowed back into the country, let alone a Palestinian.
Just an example: Israeli settlers moved from the Gaza strip were given six months to move and the move was handled with 'gentleness and respect', if you want to move a palestinian from their home you give them a few minutes minutes warning to leave before the bulldozer moves in. These are not exaggerrations.


The 'Us and Them' attitude is common policy, not the utterances of a few fanatics at the fringe.

That sentiment has been slowly fading for some time (even Olmert calling for peace), and I expect will begin to deteriorate even faster now that you have Jewish settlers bombing their own people.

Yes, I concur. The first major change is the dynamic of suicide bombing. While the religious doctrine pre-existed it was not a problem. It required a hard catalyst. Many Palestinians have grown up knowing nothing by occupation. The West Bank was conquered in 1966 further back than all but a fraction of board members here have been alive. In this time, many of the palestinians have lived in squalor. While this of itself is not necessarily the sraelis fault, there are plenty of poor Arabs elsewhere it provides a mental catalyst for some to think somerthing along the lines of:"I cannot live, so the best I can do is choose how I die."

It is a well known addage in security cirlces that you cannot stop an assassin who is willing to die to make the kill. it is not completely true, but truish, especially where the attacker is patient and educated, or at least experienced. This is happening more and more and Israel is being forced into more and more extereme actions to provide even elementary security.

Third Abbas is a known moderate, sure he has a past, but so does everyone in politics out there, he cannot be dismissed as a murderer as Arafat often was. Israel cannot ignore him and cannot (afford to) target him. Furthermore his quoted objectives as visibly reasonable.

Fourth peace is possible, at least as a raw concept. The 1979 Camp David accord between Israel and Sadat caused many problems, not least of which was the death of Sadat, but the peace has held. A lot of that is due to the restoration of Egyptian martial honour due to some effective field moves in the early stages of the 1973 war. Without those successes the Camp David accord would have been impossible, it is also generally why there is no peace with Syria, the Syrians are yet to restore their honour. This is very important in the Arab mindset and should not be underestimated. Suicide bombers have caused a big dilemma for Israel, and one they are clearly not able to completely solve, even though they maintain the upper hand. Like the Egyptians before them Palestinians can now say that while broadly losing, they could prove their manhood as a nation by making effective comebacks. Thus a peace is less humiliating than a situation where Israel has complete supremacy, and only offers concessions due to external pressure or their own choice as a form of charity.

While these thoughts are far from the minds of the fanatics themselves they would broadly echo in what enough ordinary Palestianians are thinking. Pride is a powerful thing.

Orlanth wrote:You are not thinking this through, I never imply in my posts that there is only one valid opinion. The post I quoted does that. Also you contradict yourself, you accuse me of dismissing the opinions of some political writer by their ethnic origin, but now tell me this is not to do with bigotry? You cant 'half denounce' someone of what is tantamount to racism, you are either pointing the finger or withdrawing it.

See the problem here is that we both seem to be assuming that the other is putting words in the others mouth and is putting us on the defensive. I get the feeling that we are talking past each other in many respects and it is ratcheting up the tension. These are problems that probably wouldn't come up if we were actually holding a conversation in person.

I can go with that. Let us consider this part of the thread dealt with and closed peaceably.

Whereas I think the Israeli Government and Military are a bunch of gits (I was going to put swine, but felt that might be a little rude given their chosen Religion) who bully the Palestinians non-stop, and get away with it because they have the backing, and to the Arabs, the blessing of the West to do so.

Example? Targetting Police Stations shortly after demanding that the Palestinian Authorities detain all Terror Suspects. So shortly that none of the suspects were killed, and the Palestinians thus had nowhere to hold them.