CDZ Israel and Palestine

[TemplarKormac]

You're trying to revise the definition of a "human shield" to avoid people seeing Israel in a bad light, but say I'm the propagandist?

Not revising anything. Please, watch the video this time:



"The policy of people confronting Israeli warplanes with their bare chests in order to protect their homes has proven effective against the occupation."

 

[irosie91]

Yeppers. Israel FORCED them into a Civil War so they could kill each other in the streets over the new split in the Government that SECURED that autonomy and future promise for Gaza..

Was Israel and the US that did that -- according to apologists for the chronically bad choices made by the Palis themselves.

Israel didn't force them into a civil war, it just bombed the crap out of Gaza, killing over 2000 innocent civilians and leaving over 10,000 people homeless.

You would think Israel would applaud the Pals for choosing a non-violent means to deal with the issues between them and Israel? But no, they didn't do that. Israel chose to bomb them back to the stone age, sending the message that Israel is not interested in non-violent, peaceful dispute resolutions. The Israeli message was "BLOOD". Israel wants the rivers to flow with the blood of Palestinians.

When did this "non violent means" interval take place? Can you cite any 10 month period of time in the past 20 years that DID NOT include terrorism against
Israel which emanated from Gaza?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Post 167:

Billo_Really says:

"the Goldstone Report said there was no evidence of human shields being used by the Palestinians, there was evidence of 7 incidents of the IDF using human shields in that last big operation before Protective Edge."

I imagine this was what you cited, and to my surprise, lo and behold, the obvious attempt by Goldstone to whitewash Hamas while placing sole focus on the wrongdoings of Israel.

The Goldstone Report, Page 147

G. Factual findings

480. On the basis of the information it gathered, the Mission finds that there are indications
that Palestinian armed groups launched rockets from urban areas. The Mission has not been able
to obtain any direct evidence that this was done with the specific intent of shielding the rocket
launchers from counterstrokes by the Israeli armed forces. The Mission also notes, however, that
Palestinian armed groups do not appear to have given Gaza residents sufficient warning of their
intention to launch rockets from their neighbourhoods to allow them to leave and protect
themselves against Israeli strikes at the rocket launching sites. The Mission notes that, in any
event, given the densely populated character of the northern half of the Gaza Strip, once Israeli
forces gained control of the more open or outlying areas during the first days of the ground
invasion, most -- if not all -- locations still accessible to Palestinian armed groups were in urban areas."


The Goldstone Report, Page 15

7. Deliberate attacks against the civilian population

43. The Mission investigated eleven incidents in which Israeli forces launched direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome (Chapter XI). The cases examined in this part of the report are, with one exception, all cases in which the facts indicate no justifiable military objective pursued by the attack. The first two incidents are attacks against houses in the Samouni neighbourhood south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house in which Palestinian civilians had been forced to assemble by the Israeli forces. The following group of seven incidents concern the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so. The facts gathered by the Mission indicate that all the attacks occurred under circumstances in which the Israeli forces were in control of the area and had previously entered into contact with or at least observed the persons they subsequently attacked, so that they must have been aware of their civilian status. In the majority of these incidents, the consequences.

I will note how much the authors of this report go out of their way to say that these people were not trying to use them as human shields. I'm in the process of reading the entire report, and I can say that it was nothing short of a hit piece, not an actual analysis of the facts.

And now, since I tire of this long winded debate, I will end your argument here and now on two points,

First, Richard Goldstone, the judge who headed this report at the bequest of the UN Human Rights Council voiced his regrets about issuing the report, and had this to say:

"We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

"While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

"Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes."

Judge Goldstone expresses regrets about his report into Gaza war
Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes

Remember, you cited this Goldstone Report explicitly.

Second, Hamas did in fact tell civilians in northwest Gaza last year to ignore the warnings on the leaflets dropped by Israel to vacate the area ahead of the bombing. This only makes my case further:



"We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be.”

-Statement made by Hamas spokesman, Al Aqsa TV, July 14, 2014

Translated from the image above:

"An important and urgent call to our people:

In the past hours, the occupation has once again been sending tens of thousands of voice messages to citizens' phones, especially in the border regions, requesting they evacuate their homes by a certain time.

We emphasize that these are arbitrary calls, not intended for specific people. There is no reason to be concerned by them or pay attention to them; and by no means should they be heeded. They are part of the psychological war, and their purpose is to sow confusion on the home front...

We emphasize that for eight years, the occupation has failed in its psychological war against our people and that it will fail again in view of our people's resolve and awareness."

-Hamas Ministry of Interior spokesman's Facebook page, July 15, 2014

Whereas Israel tried to protect the lives of Palestinian civilians in the war, Hamas openly and intentionally endangered them, causing many civilian deaths in their abstinence. It is also of note that these extremists value the practice of Shahada... or "martyrdom." This would explain why Hamas ordered the Gazans to ignore warnings of imminent attack coming from Israel.

What better way to become a martyr than by being willfully or forcefully crammed into buildings (or ordered to stay in homes) that are about to be bombed by Israeli warplanes.

...Later

 

[M14 Shooter]

Israel has never tried to make peace, that is just non-sense.
If Israel wanted peace, why do they keep breaking the ceasefires?
If Israel wanted peace, why did they destroy the Unity government?

If the Palestinians put down their weapons, the violence would end
If the Israelis put down their weapons, Israel would be destroyed.

 

[Billo_Really]

If the Palestinians put down their weapons, the violence would end
If the Israelis put down their weapons, Israel would be destroyed.

Wrong. The Palestinian's put down their weapons in 2008 for 4 months, Israel attacked in early December.

Last summer, the Palestinian's created a Unity government with the intent of becoming more of a political movement, than a militant one. Israel attacked again.

Since this last ceasefire went into affect, there have been 696 Israeli attacks on Gaza and the West Bank, to only 29 rockets from those areas. That means, there was 667 Israeli attacks over and beyond so-called responses to rocket attacks.

So it doesn't matter what the Pals do, Israel is out for blood.

 

[Billo_Really]

Post 167:

Billo_Really says:

"the Goldstone Report said there was no evidence of human shields being used by the Palestinians, there was evidence of 7 incidents of the IDF using human shields in that last big operation before Protective Edge."

I imagine this was what you cited, and to my surprise, lo and behold, the obvious attempt by Goldstone to whitewash Hamas while placing sole focus on the wrongdoings of Israel.

The Goldstone Report, Page 147

G. Factual findings

480. On the basis of the information it gathered, the Mission finds that there are indications
that Palestinian armed groups launched rockets from urban areas. The Mission has not been able
to obtain any direct evidence that this was done with the specific intent of shielding the rocket
launchers from counterstrokes by the Israeli armed forces. The Mission also notes, however, that
Palestinian armed groups do not appear to have given Gaza residents sufficient warning of their
intention to launch rockets from their neighbourhoods to allow them to leave and protect
themselves against Israeli strikes at the rocket launching sites. The Mission notes that, in any
event, given the densely populated character of the northern half of the Gaza Strip, once Israeli
forces gained control of the more open or outlying areas during the first days of the ground
invasion, most -- if not all -- locations still accessible to Palestinian armed groups were in urban areas."


The Goldstone Report, Page 15

7. Deliberate attacks against the civilian population

43. The Mission investigated eleven incidents in which Israeli forces launched direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome (Chapter XI). The cases examined in this part of the report are, with one exception, all cases in which the facts indicate no justifiable military objective pursued by the attack. The first two incidents are attacks against houses in the Samouni neighbourhood south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house in which Palestinian civilians had been forced to assemble by the Israeli forces. The following group of seven incidents concern the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so. The facts gathered by the Mission indicate that all the attacks occurred under circumstances in which the Israeli forces were in control of the area and had previously entered into contact with or at least observed the persons they subsequently attacked, so that they must have been aware of their civilian status. In the majority of these incidents, the consequences.

I will note how much the authors of this report go out of their way to say that these people were not trying to use them as human shields. I'm in the process of reading the entire report, and I can say that it was nothing short of a hit piece, not an actual analysis of the facts.

And now, since I tire of this long winded debate, I will end your argument here and now on two points,

First, Richard Goldstone, the judge who headed this report at the bequest of the UN Human Rights Council voiced his regrets about issuing the report, and had this to say:

"We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

"While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

"Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes."

Judge Goldstone expresses regrets about his report into Gaza war
Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes

Remember, you cited this Goldstone Report explicitly.

Second, Hamas did in fact tell civilians in northwest Gaza last year to ignore the warnings on the leaflets dropped by Israel to vacate the area ahead of the bombing. This only makes my case further:



"We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be.”

-Statement made by Hamas spokesman, Al Aqsa TV, July 14, 2014

Translated from the image above:

"An important and urgent call to our people:

In the past hours, the occupation has once again been sending tens of thousands of voice messages to citizens' phones, especially in the border regions, requesting they evacuate their homes by a certain time.

We emphasize that these are arbitrary calls, not intended for specific people. There is no reason to be concerned by them or pay attention to them; and by no means should they be heeded. They are part of the psychological war, and their purpose is to sow confusion on the home front...

We emphasize that for eight years, the occupation has failed in its psychological war against our people and that it will fail again in view of our people's resolve and awareness."

-Hamas Ministry of Interior spokesman's Facebook page, July 15, 2014

Whereas Israel tried to protect the lives of Palestinian civilians in the war, Hamas openly and intentionally endangered them, causing many civilian deaths in their abstinence. It is also of note that these extremists value the practice of Shahada... or "martyrdom." This would explain why Hamas ordered the Gazans to ignore warnings of imminent attack coming from Israel.

What better way to become a martyr than by being willfully or forcefully crammed into buildings (or ordered to stay in homes) that are about to be bombed by Israeli warplanes.

...Later

I was wrong. The Goldstone Report cited 4 examples of Israel using human shields, not 7, as I stated earlier.

XIV. THE USE OF PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS AS HUMAN SHIELDS
1032. The Mission received allegations that in two areas in north Gaza Israeli troops used Palestinian men as human shields whilst conducting house searches. The Palestinian men were allegedly forced to enter houses at gunpoint in front of or, in one case, instead of soldiers. The Mission investigated four cases.​

As far as what Goldstone said after the report was published, he only indicated the conclusions would be different if Israel would of cooperated with the investigation. It should be noted, the other 3 members of that Panel, still stand by every word.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the Palestinians put down their weapons, the violence would end
If the Israelis put down their weapons, Israel would be destroyed.

Wrong. The Palestinian's put down their weapons in 2008 for 4 months, Israel attacked in early December.

Cite the specific instance.and I am sure I will prove you wrong.

Last summer, the Palestinian's created a Unity government with the intent of becoming more of a political movement, than a militant one. Israel attacked again.

Cite the specific instance.and I am sure I will prove you wrong.

Since this last ceasefire went into affect, there have been 696 Israeli attacks on Gaza and the West Bank, to only 29 rockets from those areas. That means, there was 667 Israeli attacks over and beyond so-called responses to rocket attacks.

Cite the specific instance.and I am sure I will prove you wrong.

So it doesn't matter what the Pals do, Israel is out for blood.

If all Israel wanted was to kill Palestinians, there would be no Palestinians left.

 

[Billo_Really]

Cite the specific instance.and I am sure I will prove you wrong.

Why should I cite anything, since it appears your mind is already made up?

But since you asked...

A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.​

...back to you!

Cite the specific instance.and I am sure I will prove you wrong.

There is not one "specific instance" on this issue. There are several instances leading up to the attack last summer. One of them being in 2008 (the attack referred to above)...

The attack comes shortly before a key meeting this Sunday in Cairo when Hamas and its political rival Fatah will hold talks on reconciling their differences and creating a single, unified government.​

Israel tipped their hat on that one and last summer made up some BS about Hamas being responsible for the deaths of the 3 teens. Then Israel attacked.

Israel was hell bent on breaking apart that unity government, and was disappointed that the US made noises about being able to work with it, so did the EU and other nations. Someone linked an article here, in which it was stated that this attack on Gaza was part of that plan to break up the unity government. Apparently the Israeli government knew that the kids were already dead on day one, but pretended to “look” for them on the other side.​

So, Israel attacked when they were meeting in 2008 and attacked again after the formation of the Unity government.

Cite the specific instance. and I am sure I will prove you wrong.

Here you go...

Gaza Strip was attacked at least 696 times on different occasions since the August 2014 ceasefire, Tobias Ellwood, the UK Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, says, Middle East Monitor reported.

“We are aware of Israeli forces responding to illegal rocket fire from Gaza with 29 strikes since the 26 August 2014 Gaza ceasefire agreement.​

...okay, prove me wrong?

If all Israel wanted was to kill Palestinians, there would be no Palestinians left.

That's nothing but conjecture on your part.

 

[irosie91]

billo dancing on the dead bodies of three teenagers murdered by hamas operatives---
anyone surprised?

 

[Billo_Really]

billo dancing on the dead bodies of three teenagers murdered by hamas operatives---
anyone surprised?

Do you know where you are?

You cannot personally attack me in this forum.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Cite the specific instance.and I am sure I will prove you wrong.

Why should I cite anything, since it appears your mind is already made up?
But since you asked...
A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.
...back to you!

The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away.
There you go.

There is not one "specific instance" on this issue. There are several instances leading up to the attack last summer.

I meant the specific attack by Israel.
Cite the attack and I will show you the Palestinian provocation.

Here you go...
“We are aware of Israeli forces responding to illegal rocket fire from Gaza with 29 strikes since the 26 August 2014 Gaza ceasefire agreement...

I think you proved yourself wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away.
There you go.

Whatever the Palestinian's choose to build on their own property, is none of Israel's business. This doesn't change the fact that Israel broke the ceasefire with this attack.

BTW, Israel say's a lot of things after the fact that whined up being not true. The tunnel could have been a bomb shelter. We don't know. What we do know is the Israeli's are constant liars.

I meant the specific attack by Israel.
Cite the attack and I will show you the Palestinian provocation.

As I told you, you're trying to respond to an issue that is more complex than a specific attack.

The attack described above, occurred a week before Fatah and Hamas were to meet to discuss the Unity government. 6 years later, when they formally announced the Unity government, all hell broke loose with Operation Protective Edge.

If you cannot understand a complex argument, then don't participate in one?

I think you proved yourself wrong.

That doesn't explain the 664 Israeli attacks that were not in response to rockets.

So no, I didn't prove myself wrong and you didn't either.

 

[320 Years of History]

The IP conflict has gone on unresolved for a long time. What solutions are realistically possible?

Right now the situation in the Middle East is, to say the least, "unstable". There are issues of Islamic Extremism (through ISIS and associated groups), failed states (Iraq, Syria, Libya) and more players than can be counted. All of that effects a solution to a long standing conflict that fuels a lot of flames and, at it's heart, involves both fundamental justice for a people who have long been denied that and fundamental survival for a people who's very existence was at risk.

In my opinion - self determination, citizenship, freedom, equality and human rights are very important. We don't see that much in most of the Middle East. Yet. And that includes Israel. While it is better than it's neighbors, that isn't saying a whole lot in comparison with other western countries. On the other hand, self determination also includes the having the ability to govern it's citizens, provide security, and not allow out of control factions to send rockets into neighboring states. My personal opinion is - give them a state, then it's up to them to keep it. If they act as a rogue state, they suffer the consequences.

But there are additional complications, those of the ME in general. Several points have been raised that are a valid concern: an unstable, un-unified state is a potential point for ISIS to infiltrate.

So what is a realistic and reasonable and just solution for the IP conflict at this time?

To start, what exactly makes a state be "western?" Israel strikes me as a Middle Eastern state. Are you sure you don't mean other democracies, regardless of the type thereof?

Red:
I agree that the Palestinians need to obtain a "state" of some sort. It may be a state like Maryland, a possession like Puerto Rico or Guam, or a nation state. I happen to think that they'd be better off being made into a state within Israel than as a sovereign state, but that has mainly to do with there not being many resources in all of Israel and even fewer in any section thereof that may be granted to create an independent state of Palestine. That shortage will result in the Palestinians just having something new to gripe about in connection with having been given what they will surely view as "scraps." Furthermore, creating a new nation state in the region will almost certainly create an arms race of sorts in the near term because the U.S. is legally bound at the moment to ensure Israel's relative military primacy over its neighbors and the new nation would have to secure a military for its own defense.

(Personally, though I've not heard it widely discussed, I think the main reason U.S. opposes Iran (or other Middle Eastern states) acquiring nuclear weapons is that once it, or any other state in the Middle East near Israel does, Israel's qualitative primacy can only be maintained in terms of ever more sophisticated nuclear weapons, introducing other types of WMDs, or by making sure Israel has more of them than its neighbors. I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.)

Ostensibly, Israel's Palestinian citizens have the same rights for "self determination, citizenship, freedom, equality and human rights" as do other Israelis. That said, the fact is that Israel is and considers itself "the" Jewish State. As such, its leaders will unavoidably, as Jews, enact policies that "don't work" for non-Jews, regardless of whether they are Arab, European, African, East Asian, etc. For a example, some of the "personal" laws that have been appearing in the Knesset. Say what you want, but given the sway rabbis have, there's no way around the fact that extending the authority of any one or several of them, especially if he/they are particularly bent on being anti-Palestinian, cannot indirectly weaken the political equity available to non-Jewish citizens.

The situation Palestinians face in Israel can be likened to that of Native Americans, and to a lesser extent blacks, in U.S:

• All three groups don't want to be somewhere other than where they are, or were, in the case of Native Americans and black who were brought unwillfully to U.S.
• Native Americans were present in North America long before Europeans usurped their lands. Palestinian Arabs have just as many ancestral ties to the land of Israel as do Jewish Arabs.
• Native Americans and blacks were second-class citizens (some would say they still are but that's a different matter), and for the Native Americans, they were made second-class in their own land. Despite the best intentions of the language of Israel's Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, the fact is that Palestinians are de facto second-class citizens.

What is the big difference between Native Americans and blacks' that stopped them from being as destructive as Palestinians? Largely that they had no nearby allies who could enable them. The French tried once by siding with the Native Americans in the North American theater of an eighteenth century world war, the Seven Years War, which most Americans perceive as the French and Indian War, and we all know how that ended. The simple fact is that America's location on the other side of an ocean pretty well ensured that anyone seeking to aid and abet the Natives or blacks would have to also fight a war back on their home turf as well, and for what? They had no vested interest in security liberty for Native Americans and blacks. On the contrary, keeping things as they were more likely served their home interests than did taking up the moral/ethical charge and fighting what was then, due largely to Britain's Seven Years War victory, the dominant power in Europe.

For all its strong ties with U.S., I would have thought by now that Israel would have figured out how to revise its policies to incorporate the Palestinians into the society, much as was done for non-whites in U.S. I'm not intimating that the manner in which U.S. handled the evolution is perfect, but it's sure better than what Israel has done when faced with what is substantively the same problem.

Blue:
What exactly is a "rogue state?" Weren't the colonies a "rogue state" of traitors in the 1770s? Today we call those men and women patriots. Such is the privilege of being on the winning side of a conflict; one gets to write the history books and one's point of view becomes the one that subsequent generations adopt. And why do they adopt it? Because they weren't there, so they have little alternative -- short of looking long and hard through tons of original and hard to find texts -- but to see it as they are told it happened.

Green:
Realistic and reasonable. Well, now, that's the dilemma for the rest of us. What plantation owner in 1820 would have found it realistic to think that he would be forced to free his labor force? What white folks from the 1800s to the 1950s would have ever thought it realistic that a black man would be President? Damn near anything can become realistic if one is of a mind to make it so. The question is whether the people and nations that have the ability to push for Palestinian equity will do so.

It's clear that U.S has little to lose as a nation by coming to the Palestinian's aid, yet it does not. It's clear that U.S. were it to take a neutral stance re: Israel and the Palestinians there has little to nothing to lose. At the end of the day, the Middle Eastern states that would like to support Israel have two major nations to whom they must sell the one thing they have that is in great demand, and they'll sell it to us and China no matter whom -- Israeli Jews or Israeli Palestinians -- either one sides with.

It's nice to say that Israel is our only friend in the region, but that's only because we've done nothing collaboratively to make friends with the other nations in the region. U.S. has largely used its economic and military strength to "prop up" Israel to the detriment of the other nations in the area. The simple fact is that if we were to approach the other nations in the region with a tone of respect for them, we wouldn't need to be friends with just Israel, and we wouldn't have only Israel as a friend there.

 

[Coyote]

First - thank you for some good discussion!

The IP conflict has gone on unresolved for a long time. What solutions are realistically possible?

Right now the situation in the Middle East is, to say the least, "unstable". There are issues of Islamic Extremism (through ISIS and associated groups), failed states (Iraq, Syria, Libya) and more players than can be counted. All of that effects a solution to a long standing conflict that fuels a lot of flames and, at it's heart, involves both fundamental justice for a people who have long been denied that and fundamental survival for a people who's very existence was at risk.

In my opinion - self determination, citizenship, freedom, equality and human rights are very important. We don't see that much in most of the Middle East. Yet. And that includes Israel. While it is better than it's neighbors, that isn't saying a whole lot in comparison with other western countries. On the other hand, self determination also includes the having the ability to govern it's citizens, provide security, and not allow out of control factions to send rockets into neighboring states. My personal opinion is - give them a state, then it's up to them to keep it. If they act as a rogue state, they suffer the consequences.

But there are additional complications, those of the ME in general. Several points have been raised that are a valid concern: an unstable, un-unified state is a potential point for ISIS to infiltrate.

So what is a realistic and reasonable and just solution for the IP conflict at this time?

To start, what exactly makes a state be "western?" Israel strikes me as a Middle Eastern state. Are you sure you don't mean other democracies, regardless of the type thereof?

That is a good point, and I remember reading an article somewhere that that while Israel is western in some aspects, it's also very much Middle Eastern, in much the same way Russia is neither Europe nor Orient, but both.

What I meant by Western was not just a democratic state - but one that also valued historically western concepts of human rights, equality, free press, a representative government.

Red:
I agree that the Palestinians need to obtain a "state" of some sort. It may be a state like Maryland, a possession like Puerto Rico or Guam, or a nation state. I happen to think that they'd be better off being made into a state within Israel than as a sovereign state, but that has mainly to do with there not being many resources in all of Israel and even fewer in any section thereof that may be granted to create an independent state of Palestine. That shortage will result in the Palestinians just having something new to gripe about in connection with having been given what they will surely view as "scraps." Furthermore, creating a new nation state in the region will almost certainly create an arms race of sorts in the near term because the U.S. is legally bound at the moment to ensure Israel's relative military primacy over its neighbors and the new nation would have to secure a military for its own defense.

Intriguing. I've never heard it discussed in these terms before.

(Personally, though I've not heard it widely discussed, I think the main reason U.S. opposes Iran (or other Middle Eastern states) acquiring nuclear weapons is that once it, or any other state in the Middle East near Israel does, Israel's qualitative primacy can only be maintained in terms of ever more sophisticated nuclear weapons, introducing other types of WMDs, or by making sure Israel has more of them than its neighbors. I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.)

Not so sure....I assumed it was because we don't want nuclear proliferation, even though states like Israel, Pakistan, and India have clearly pursued those routes.

Ostensibly, Israel's Palestinian citizens have the same rights for "self determination, citizenship, freedom, equality and human rights" as do other Israelis. That said, the fact is that Israel is and considers itself "the" Jewish State. As such, its leaders will unavoidably, as Jews, enact policies that "don't work" for non-Jews, regardless of whether they are Arab, European, African, East Asian, etc. For a example, some of the "personal" laws that have been appearing in the Knesset. Say what you want, but given the sway rabbis have, there's no way around the fact that extending the authority of any one or several of them, especially if he/they are particularly bent on being anti-Palestinian, cannot indirectly weaken the political equity available to non-Jewish citizens.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The situation Palestinians face in Israel can be likened to that of Native Americans, and to a lesser extent blacks, in U.S:

• All three groups don't want to be somewhere other than where they are, or were, in the case of Native Americans and black who were brought unwillfully to U.S.
• Native Americans were present in North America long before Europeans usurped their lands. Palestinian Arabs have just as many ancestral ties to the land of Israel as do Jewish Arabs.
• Native Americans and blacks were second-class citizens (some would say they still are but that's a different matter), and for the Native Americans, they were made second-class in their own land. Despite the best intentions of the language of Israel's Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, the fact is that Palestinians are de facto second-class citizens.

What is the big difference between Native Americans and blacks' that stopped them from being as destructive as Palestinians? Largely that they had no nearby allies who could enable them. The French tried once by siding with the Native Americans in the North American theater of an eighteenth century world war, the Seven Years War, which most Americans perceive as the French and Indian War, and we all know how that ended. The simple fact is that America's location on the other side of an ocean pretty well ensured that anyone seeking to aid and abet the Natives or blacks would have to also fight a war back on their home turf as well, and for what? They had no vested interest in security liberty for Native Americans and blacks. On the contrary, keeping things as they were more likely served their home interests than did taking up the moral/ethical charge and fighting what was then, due largely to Britain's Seven Years War victory, the dominant power in Europe.

For all its strong ties with U.S., I would have thought by now that Israel would have figured out how to revise its policies to incorporate the Palestinians into the society, much as was done for non-whites in U.S. I'm not intimating that the manner in which U.S. handled the evolution is perfect, but it's sure better than what Israel has done when faced with what is substantively the same problem.

Interesting points. I agree there is a lot of similarity between the Palestinians and Native Americans, I think that is the best comparison to the current situation. Perhaps Israel's failure to come to a resolution is because foreign interests are using the Palestinians and keeping it an ongoing conflagration? Or...Israel's own religious factions are unwilling to share any part of their biblical heritage?

Blue:
What exactly is a "rogue state?" Weren't the colonies a "rogue state" of traitors in the 1770s? Today we call those men and women patriots. Such is the privilege of being on the winning side of a conflict; one gets to write the history books and one's point of view becomes the one that subsequent generations adopt. And why do they adopt it? Because they weren't there, so they have little alternative -- short of looking long and hard through tons of original and hard to find texts -- but to see it as they are told it happened.

Yes...also good points. Just like yesterday's terrorists are today's patriots. The winners write history. I guess what I mean by "rogue states" are states that seek to destablize surrounding regions through invasion, attacks etc. not as defense but as offense. Truthfully though, that is a weak definition because that would put the US in that category for invading Iraq.

But rogue states or not - when states act unilaterally agressively (and they aren't powerful enough to block the process) they have sanctions and other measure innacted on them by the international community.

Green:
Realistic and reasonable. Well, now, that's the dilemma for the rest of us. What plantation owner in 1820 would have found it realistic to think that he would be forced to free his labor force? What white folks from the 1800s to the 1950s would have ever thought it realistic that a black man would be President? Damn near anything can become realistic if one is of a mind to make it so. The question is whether the people and nations that have the ability to push for Palestinian equity will do so.

It's clear that U.S has little to lose as a nation by coming to the Palestinian's aid, yet it does not. It's clear that U.S. were it to take a neutral stance re: Israel and the Palestinians there has little to nothing to lose. At the end of the day, the Middle Eastern states that would like to support Israel have two major nations to whom they must sell the one thing they have that is in great demand, and they'll sell it to us and China no matter whom -- Israeli Jews or Israeli Palestinians -- either one sides with.

It's nice to say that Israel is our only friend in the region, but that's only because we've done nothing collaboratively to make friends with the other nations in the region. U.S. has largely used its economic and military strength to "prop up" Israel to the detriment of the other nations in the area. The simple fact is that if we were to approach the other nations in the region with a tone of respect for them, we wouldn't need to be friends with just Israel, and we wouldn't have only Israel as a friend there.

Really interesting points...and food for thought. Israel is not our only friend though - the Saudi's have long been close allies.

 

[320 Years of History]

First - thank you for some good discussion!

The IP conflict has gone on unresolved for a long time. What solutions are realistically possible?

Right now the situation in the Middle East is, to say the least, "unstable". There are issues of Islamic Extremism (through ISIS and associated groups), failed states (Iraq, Syria, Libya) and more players than can be counted. All of that effects a solution to a long standing conflict that fuels a lot of flames and, at it's heart, involves both fundamental justice for a people who have long been denied that and fundamental survival for a people who's very existence was at risk.

In my opinion - self determination, citizenship, freedom, equality and human rights are very important. We don't see that much in most of the Middle East. Yet. And that includes Israel. While it is better than it's neighbors, that isn't saying a whole lot in comparison with other western countries. On the other hand, self determination also includes the having the ability to govern it's citizens, provide security, and not allow out of control factions to send rockets into neighboring states. My personal opinion is - give them a state, then it's up to them to keep it. If they act as a rogue state, they suffer the consequences.

But there are additional complications, those of the ME in general. Several points have been raised that are a valid concern: an unstable, un-unified state is a potential point for ISIS to infiltrate.

So what is a realistic and reasonable and just solution for the IP conflict at this time?

...

Really interesting points...and food for thought. Israel is not our only friend though - the Saudi's have long been close allies.

First, TY for the good questions/thoughts you've asked/shared in reply. I'll respond to them later in the week, perhaps tomorrow or Tuesday. For now, I'm responding only to the last one because it's the one I can take on in the few minutes I have just now....

I agree the Saudi Arabian government has been a friend to U.S. in many things and on multiple occasions; however, there's no denying that in 2000 there were at least two offical units of the Saudi government that supported terrorism. (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32499.pdf -- page CRS-10) Whereas the Saudi state nonetheless at least shows a reasonable degree of concordance with U.S., it seems that more than enough of its citizens (although perhaps not a majority or even plurality of them) provide financial aid to organizations that in turn directly support several terrorist organizations, organizations that would just as soon see both U.S. and Israel go the way of the dodo bird. I'm referring specifically to donations to charities.

Also, though it's just my general feeling, I think on the major issues where U.S. have received public support from Saudi Arabia, the occasions have been ones in which both nations circumstantially wanted the same things. In at least one, Gulf War II, the Saudis (and U.S.') main choices were accept U.S. assistance and host our troops or (risk having to) battle Iraq's army in the middle of the Saudi oil fields and major infrastructure. Even if the Saudis were able to prevail, their petroleum production industry could easily have been laid to waste. Let's face facts, Saddam Hussein didn't attack anybody just to get his hands on more sand. LOL

I'm reasonably sure that some of the charitable organizations to which some Saudi donors contribute seem like quite legitimate concerns. The thing that troubles me is that we are still talking about a nation and charities that are Islamic at their heart. There's nothing inherently wrong or disconcerting about Islam in my mind, but that doesn't mean I'm obvious to the fact that Islam is as much as religion as it is a system of governance. That is what it is, and I don't have a problem with it being so. That said, there is much to be concerned about re: the Islamic fundamentalist individuals who misconstrue The Prophet's words and use them, or as I understand the Quran, abuse them, bastardizing them into rallying cry for doing all sorts of harm to others.

The key thing that makes donating to certain Islamic charities problematic is that those organizations are as much about charitable acts as they are about religion and politics. Quite simply, for Muslims, and by the words of the Quran, there isn't much of what Americans would call "separation of church and state," nor much separation between church and anything else. When a charity, for whatever reason -- deliberately or unintentionally -- in turn passes funding on to parties that need their aid, they can, like it not, find themselves supporting Muslim fundamentalists.

Charities there aren't the same as ours. We can donate to, say, the Red Cross, and feel reasonably confident that although the Red Cross may help white supremacists, bellicose and fundamentalist Christians, and other extremists who need aid in a disaster, our resources/money won't be channeled directly to those groups thereby allowing them to build bombs, train militiamen, etc. I don't get the sense that one can be as confident of the same thing with Islamic charities, but then I don't donate to any of them, and they don't solicit me to do so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As far as what Goldstone said after the report was published, he only indicated the conclusions would be different if Israel would of cooperated with the investigation. It should be noted, the other 3 members of that Panel, still stand by every word.

Goldstone led the inquiry. So, let what the other panelists think be damned. I now know why Israel refused to cooperate, and for good reason.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Whatever the Palestinian's choose to build on their own property, is none of Israel's business. This doesn't change the fact that Israel broke the ceasefire with this attack.

You really should stop lying, Billo.

Wrong. The Palestinian's put down their weapons in 2008 for 4 months, Israel attacked in early December.

Cause: In the initial week of the truce, Hamas began firing rockets into Israel, which effectively broke the ceasefire. In the next five months, they fired only 19 rockets and 18 mortars. But still, launching any kind of rocket or mortar attack would have broken the ceasefire.

Effect: Israel launches raid into Gaza five months later in November.

So in reality, there really was no ceasefire, because it had already been broken by Hamas. Israel was no longer obligated to honor it any further.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html

June 24, 2008, Hamas fires three rockets which hit Sderot. Hamas claims it was in retaliation for an Israeli raid in Nablus which killed Tareq Abu Ghali and another Palestinian who was armed. The raid found two rockets which matched that of those being fired into Israel.

July 10, 2008, an unarmed Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade member tried to illegally cross the Israel-Gaza border. When he refused to surrender, he was shot killed.

 

[Billo_Really]

Goldstone led the inquiry. So, let what the other panelists think be damned. I now know why Israel refused to cooperate, and for good reason.

The guilty never cooperate.

 

[Billo_Really]

Whatever the Palestinian's choose to build on their own property, is none of Israel's business. This doesn't change the fact that Israel broke the ceasefire with this attack.

You really should stop lying, Billo.

Wrong. The Palestinian's put down their weapons in 2008 for 4 months, Israel attacked in early December.

Cause: In the initial week of the truce, Hamas began firing rockets into Israel, which effectively broke the ceasefire. In the next five months, they fired only 19 rockets and 18 mortars. But still, launching any kind of rocket or mortar attack would have broken the ceasefire.

Effect: Israel launches raid into Gaza five months later in November.

So in reality, there really was no ceasefire, because it had already been broken by Hamas. Israel was no longer obligated to honor it any further.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html

June 24, 2008, Hamas fires three rockets which hit Sderot. Hamas claims it was in retaliation for an Israeli raid in Nablus which killed Tareq Abu Ghali and another Palestinian who was armed. The raid found two rockets which matched that of those being fired into Israel.

July 10, 2008, an unarmed Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade member tried to illegally cross the Israel-Gaza border. When he refused to surrender, he was shot killed.

They reduced the rocket fire to virtually zero...

This represented a 98% reduction in rocket fire 41⁄2-month period
​

...but did Israel end the blockade? No. Did Israel ease up on the blockade. No.

"Over the one-month period from 4 November to 8 December, about 700 truckloads of goods went into Gaza, which is about the amount of material that would have gone through in a single day without a blockade."​

So rocket attacks decreased by 98% and Israel didn't reciprocate.

 

[320 Years of History]

First - thank you for some good discussion!

The IP conflict has gone on unresolved for a long time. What solutions are realistically possible?

Right now the situation in the Middle East is, to say the least, "unstable". There are issues of Islamic Extremism (through ISIS and associated groups), failed states (Iraq, Syria, Libya) and more players than can be counted. All of that effects a solution to a long standing conflict that fuels a lot of flames and, at it's heart, involves both fundamental justice for a people who have long been denied that and fundamental survival for a people who's very existence was at risk.

In my opinion - self determination, citizenship, freedom, equality and human rights are very important. We don't see that much in most of the Middle East. Yet. And that includes Israel. While it is better than it's neighbors, that isn't saying a whole lot in comparison with other western countries. On the other hand, self determination also includes the having the ability to govern it's citizens, provide security, and not allow out of control factions to send rockets into neighboring states. My personal opinion is - give them a state, then it's up to them to keep it. If they act as a rogue state, they suffer the consequences.

But there are additional complications, those of the ME in general. Several points have been raised that are a valid concern: an unstable, un-unified state is a potential point for ISIS to infiltrate.

So what is a realistic and reasonable and just solution for the IP conflict at this time?

To start, what exactly makes a state be "western?" Israel strikes me as a Middle Eastern state. Are you sure you don't mean other democracies, regardless of the type thereof?

That is a good point, and I remember reading an article somewhere that that while Israel is western in some aspects, it's also very much Middle Eastern, in much the same way Russia is neither Europe nor Orient, but both.

What I meant by Western was not just a democratic state - but one that also valued historically western concepts of human rights, equality, free press, a representative government.

Red:
I agree that the Palestinians need to obtain a "state" of some sort. It may be a state like Maryland, a possession like Puerto Rico or Guam, or a nation state. I happen to think that they'd be better off being made into a state within Israel than as a sovereign state, but that has mainly to do with there not being many resources in all of Israel and even fewer in any section thereof that may be granted to create an independent state of Palestine. That shortage will result in the Palestinians just having something new to gripe about in connection with having been given what they will surely view as "scraps." Furthermore, creating a new nation state in the region will almost certainly create an arms race of sorts in the near term because the U.S. is legally bound at the moment to ensure Israel's relative military primacy over its neighbors and the new nation would have to secure a military for its own defense.

Intriguing. I've never heard it discussed in these terms before.

(Personally, though I've not heard it widely discussed, I think the main reason U.S. opposes Iran (or other Middle Eastern states) acquiring nuclear weapons is that once it, or any other state in the Middle East near Israel does, Israel's qualitative primacy can only be maintained in terms of ever more sophisticated nuclear weapons, introducing other types of WMDs, or by making sure Israel has more of them than its neighbors. I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.)

Not so sure....I assumed it was because we don't want nuclear proliferation, even though states like Israel, Pakistan, and India have clearly pursued those routes.

Ostensibly, Israel's Palestinian citizens have the same rights for "self determination, citizenship, freedom, equality and human rights" as do other Israelis. That said, the fact is that Israel is and considers itself "the" Jewish State. As such, its leaders will unavoidably, as Jews, enact policies that "don't work" for non-Jews, regardless of whether they are Arab, European, African, East Asian, etc. For a example, some of the "personal" laws that have been appearing in the Knesset. Say what you want, but given the sway rabbis have, there's no way around the fact that extending the authority of any one or several of them, especially if he/they are particularly bent on being anti-Palestinian, cannot indirectly weaken the political equity available to non-Jewish citizens.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The situation Palestinians face in Israel can be likened to that of Native Americans, and to a lesser extent blacks, in U.S:

• All three groups don't want to be somewhere other than where they are, or were, in the case of Native Americans and black who were brought unwillfully to U.S.
• Native Americans were present in North America long before Europeans usurped their lands. Palestinian Arabs have just as many ancestral ties to the land of Israel as do Jewish Arabs.
• Native Americans and blacks were second-class citizens (some would say they still are but that's a different matter), and for the Native Americans, they were made second-class in their own land. Despite the best intentions of the language of Israel's Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, the fact is that Palestinians are de facto second-class citizens.

What is the big difference between Native Americans and blacks' that stopped them from being as destructive as Palestinians? Largely that they had no nearby allies who could enable them. The French tried once by siding with the Native Americans in the North American theater of an eighteenth century world war, the Seven Years War, which most Americans perceive as the French and Indian War, and we all know how that ended. The simple fact is that America's location on the other side of an ocean pretty well ensured that anyone seeking to aid and abet the Natives or blacks would have to also fight a war back on their home turf as well, and for what? They had no vested interest in security liberty for Native Americans and blacks. On the contrary, keeping things as they were more likely served their home interests than did taking up the moral/ethical charge and fighting what was then, due largely to Britain's Seven Years War victory, the dominant power in Europe.

For all its strong ties with U.S., I would have thought by now that Israel would have figured out how to revise its policies to incorporate the Palestinians into the society, much as was done for non-whites in U.S. I'm not intimating that the manner in which U.S. handled the evolution is perfect, but it's sure better than what Israel has done when faced with what is substantively the same problem.

Interesting points. I agree there is a lot of similarity between the Palestinians and Native Americans, I think that is the best comparison to the current situation. Perhaps Israel's failure to come to a resolution is because foreign interests are using the Palestinians and keeping it an ongoing conflagration? Or...Israel's own religious factions are unwilling to share any part of their biblical heritage?

Blue:
What exactly is a "rogue state?" Weren't the colonies a "rogue state" of traitors in the 1770s? Today we call those men and women patriots. Such is the privilege of being on the winning side of a conflict; one gets to write the history books and one's point of view becomes the one that subsequent generations adopt. And why do they adopt it? Because they weren't there, so they have little alternative -- short of looking long and hard through tons of original and hard to find texts -- but to see it as they are told it happened.

Yes...also good points. Just like yesterday's terrorists are today's patriots. The winners write history. I guess what I mean by "rogue states" are states that seek to destablize surrounding regions through invasion, attacks etc. not as defense but as offense. Truthfully though, that is a weak definition because that would put the US in that category for invading Iraq.

But rogue states or not - when states act unilaterally agressively (and they aren't powerful enough to block the process) they have sanctions and other measure innacted on them by the international community.

Green:
Realistic and reasonable. Well, now, that's the dilemma for the rest of us. What plantation owner in 1820 would have found it realistic to think that he would be forced to free his labor force? What white folks from the 1800s to the 1950s would have ever thought it realistic that a black man would be President? Damn near anything can become realistic if one is of a mind to make it so. The question is whether the people and nations that have the ability to push for Palestinian equity will do so.

It's clear that U.S has little to lose as a nation by coming to the Palestinian's aid, yet it does not. It's clear that U.S. were it to take a neutral stance re: Israel and the Palestinians there has little to nothing to lose. At the end of the day, the Middle Eastern states that would like to support Israel have two major nations to whom they must sell the one thing they have that is in great demand, and they'll sell it to us and China no matter whom -- Israeli Jews or Israeli Palestinians -- either one sides with.

It's nice to say that Israel is our only friend in the region, but that's only because we've done nothing collaboratively to make friends with the other nations in the region. U.S. has largely used its economic and military strength to "prop up" Israel to the detriment of the other nations in the area. The simple fact is that if we were to approach the other nations in the region with a tone of respect for them, we wouldn't need to be friends with just Israel, and we wouldn't have only Israel as a friend there.

Really interesting points...and food for thought. Israel is not our only friend though - the Saudi's have long been close allies.

Role of Chief Rabbi:
I am saying that in a state that defines itself expressly as being a Jewish State, much as with a state that defines itself as being an Islamic or Christian one (Vatican), religious leaders have significant influence over politics. Even in U.S. religious leaders hold meaningful sway, and U.S. isn't expressly a state given to any single faith. I can recall sitting in church as an 18 or 19 year old and hearing part of the sermon devoted to describing how abortion was wrong in God's eyes and how having one is sinful, how it's essentially murder. Abortion was no less a hot political topic then than it is today, and although I wasn't "sold" by the discourse, I suspect some folks were.

Regardless of how many folks were influenced by the sermon, the fact remains that a religious leader used his position to attempt to influence his congregation's position on a political matter. I don't blame or see as wrong that religious leaders use their pulpit to curry favor for one view or another. They are given positions of prominence, of leadership, and they use them to further that in which they believe. Islamic mullahs do it. American priests and Protestant ministers do it. Moreover, leaders will at times consult with a religious leader for guidance on what course/position to take.

The article to which I provided the link speaks of a practice in Israel whereby the Knesset, in 2012, sought to pass a law for the express purpose of allowing a Chief Rabbis (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) to hold their positions for another 10 years. Now I don't have the foggiest idea of what stance the rabbis in question have re: Palestine. and I'm aware of the preferential status Ashkenazi Jews have in Israel. But I don't need to know what their position is to realize that a Chief Rabbi is, like the man who preached to me about abortion, will use his position to influence political events. whether it turns out to be a good thing or bad thing depends entirely on the stance any such individual holds.

A former Sephardic Chief Rabbi, Ovadia Yosef, used his position to influence an Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, to hold negotiations for a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That's a good thing. By the same token, he opposed using secular law to resolve civil legal matters. Well, that's essentially the same position many Muslims have re: the application of Islamic law. However, as an American, there is no way I'd be keen to subject my legal "fate" to the law of any religious belief system.

(FWIW, I happen to think that if a Muslim is willing to submit to Islamic Law, fine. Ditto a Jew willing to submit to Talmudic Law. I have no right to call either individual wrong for doing so. Just don't expect me to do so.)

So what I'm saying is that the matter of the "personal" laws in Israel's legal system makes it possible for hardliners who don't want to yield anything to hold sway longer. Of course, if the general thinking of the citizens goes against a given chief rabbi, sure, the opposite may be true. It's the capricious nature of the legal-political process there that disturbs me, far more so than any single Chief Rabbi's influence. The Chief Rabbi example was just an illustration of it and the subtle ways in which influence can be wielded for better or worse.

Is there a bias in my thinking on this? Yes, there is. I clearly and unabashedly am biased against the influence of religion in all matters outside an individual's own soul. I absolutely bristle the instant I hear folks tell me what God or a faith mandates that I do. Too, I'm not keen on any sort of religious state, be it Jewish, Islamic, Christian, animist, or anything else. I firmly believe religion makes things more difficult to resolve rather than easier.

Foreign interests using Palestinians and Israel's own religious factions are unwilling to share:
The two questions you posed strike me as possibilities, but I haven't any firm evidence to say with certainty either way.

Weak definition of "rogue state:"
Well, I think the definition you provided is pretty good; it's certainly clear. That it qualifies U.S. as a rogue state doesn't really weaken it. Sometimes one has to, in spite of the chagrin it causes, simply "call a spade a spade." The U.S. is hardly perfect or right in everything it does. Invading Iraq could be (or maybe is) one thing on which U.S. was just plain wrong and did behave as a rouge state, the only thing stopping it from being a rogue state is its dominant position in global politics.

The idea of "rogue state" carries with it an implication that such a nation acts outside of what are, at the time, the conventional viewpoints. Aside from the "popularity" element, and discarding that sophistic justification, one can look objectively at a situation and explore, quite simply, whether the action "so and so" performed ethically, legally, and logically right or wrong. That one's own "clan" performed, presumably for the "clan's" benefit, the action shouldn't blind one to the verity of whether it was right, wrong or something in between.

Indeed, it's happened before, and will again, that a group with sufficient power (be it physical or mental) has acted wrongly on its own behalf to the detriment of others. Being able to see that sooner or later leads to questions of suborning one's own greed for the greater good of the whole, questions of competition vs. collaboration, and so on. It forces one to question one's own principles; one must determine whether those tenets are, as we say in business, "scalable."

Take for example the question of nuclear weapons and Iran. Many conservatives believe Iran should not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. Those same conservatives often will quickly point out on the matter of gun control that the gun isn't the problem and that gun ownership should therefore not be constrained. Well, isn't a nuclear weapon just a "bigger" gun? American conservative Christians will quickly tell us what the Bible says we should or should not do, yet they don't often remember that Jesus said, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." That simple instruction sufficiently and clearly tells both the powerful and weak how to consider any action they might take. So, I ask, how do you think U.S. citizens would feel were a more powerful nation to impose its will on us, claiming that it's in our and the rest of the worlds' best interests? Seems quite an arrogant position to take in my mind. I'm quite sure we'd rail against it just as do Muslims/Palestinians. I know I sure would.

(Jesus' statement noted above happens to be the one thing I've taken from my Christian upbring, and I try to keep in mind re: my actions. I have to say that I don't see that message as being so much a religious thing as just good sense guidance for how to conduct one's affairs with others. I think that dictum should and can be applied easily and routinely regardless of one's faith.)