[Plum]

I would love for this thread not to degenerate into a flame war, or a rehash of the history of this whole issue or any other of the usual crap.

I know this issue is fairly controversial. I recently read a couple books on the subject "The Accidental Empire", which chronicles the settlement movement from 1967-1977. And "Lords of the Land" which chronicles it from 1967 until present.

I had no idea just how powerful the settler organizations (ie. Gush Emunim...) were on the politics of the nation and military. But I can't escape from the conclusion that every single govermnent of Israel since Levi Eshkol engaged in a de facto policy of settlement and expansion in the West Bank, Gaza and Siani.

Do you believe the settlements will have to be either a) evacuated or b) turned over to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority eventually?

[Plum]

What do you mean "Israel has no right to exist in Palestine"?

[Ezra Pound]

Originally Posted by Plum

What do you mean "Israel has no right to exist in Palestine"?

That's a great question Plum, no nation has a 'right to exist' All current societies were built upon the living space of someone else. This right to exist crap is a bs political term. It makes you think of eradication and extermination, it's a clever move. I'm an American and love this imperfect nation, but do we have a right to it? Not really, there were people here before the American colonists, and so forth. This is true for all nations but we are here, the remaining indians have casinos and we are keeping what we have. So in the interest of a respectable non flaming thread, I would like to stay away from anyones right to exist, as all it is is some sort of justification based upon a degeneration into emotionalism to generate sympathy for an agenda. It's a term used to politicize someones cause. America's, Israel's, whomever, your thoughts?

[DrSatanDracula]

Plum:

Ultimately, Israel is on Palestinian land.

The Palestinians are simply too weak to slaughter the Israelis and reclaim what is theirs.

[Blaze973]

More like too cowardly.

[Plum]

Originally Posted by Ezra Pound

That's a great question Plum, no nation has a 'right to exist' All current societies were built upon the living space of someone else. This right to exist crap is a bs political term. It makes you think of eradication and extermination, it's a clever move. I'm an American and love this imperfect nation, but do we have a right to it? Not really, there were people here before the American colonists, and so forth. This is true for all nations but we are here, the remaining indians have casinos and we are keeping what we have. So in the interest of a respectable non flaming thread, I would like to stay away from anyones right to exist, as all it is is some sort of justification based upon a degeneration into emotionalism to generate sympathy for an agenda. It's a term used to politicize someones cause. America's, Israel's, whomever, your thoughts?

I actually do agree.

I think the fact that every Israeli PM demands every Palestinian to recognize Isreal's unilateral "right to exist" as if they are on the verge of extermination is a "degeneration into emotionalism". The Settler ideology of the historical and perpetual victims of evey Arab in the West Bank is frighteningly extreme.

But at the same time, a scientifically minded person might say that's a bunch of "post-modern mental masturbation". Because in the current context, it means recognition of a right to live in peace and security with its neighbours. And in that context I support both their "rights to exist".

[RuSSiaNThuG]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Plum:

Ultimately, Israel is on Palestinian land.

The Palestinians are simply too weak to slaughter the Israelis and reclaim what is theirs.

or is it the other way around?

[RuSSiaNThuG]

Originally Posted by Plum

I actually do agree.

I think the fact that every Israeli PM demands every Palestinian to recognize Isreal's unilateral "right to exist" as if they are on the verge of extermination is a "degeneration into emotionalism". The Settler ideology of the historical and perpetual victims of evey Arab in the West Bank is frighteningly extreme.

But at the same time, a scientifically minded person might say that's a bunch of "post-modern mental masturbation". Because in the current context, it means recognition of a right to live in peace and security with its neighbours. And in that context I support both their "rights to exist".

there is no way of negotiating with someone if they do not recognise your right to exist, period.

[Ezra Pound]

Originally Posted by Plum

Because in the current context, it means recognition of a right to live in peace and security with its neighbours. And in that context I support both their "rights to exist".

I think there are people on both sides who feel the same way. It's mutual respect. It's a great place to start rather then the constant feuding, which can go on forever. I mean there are 1000 reasons to kill each other and just the one basic principle of mutual respect to live in peace. Good thread.

[Plum]

Originally Posted by Plum
But at the same time, a scientifically minded person might say that's a bunch of "post-modern mental masturbation". Because in the current context, it means recognition of a right to live in peace and security with its neighbours. And in that context I support both their "rights to exist".

Originally Posted by RuSSiaNThuG
there is no way of negotiating with someone if they do not recognise your right to exist, period.

Right.

But at the same time, would Israel ever "recognize Hamas' right to exist"?

No Israeli Knesset or PM would ever have the clout to pull that off.

I'm not trying to start a comparative debate, just that it's a one-sided pretext.

Though I do agree with you.