Why don't you answer my questions first?

Th Al Jazeera opinion piece was written by an American. Try reading the content and understanding that it represents the view point of an awful lot of people in the West and many moderates in the Middle East.
They state a few undisputable facts with their opinion. That Goldstone was a minor author of the Goldstone report and that the other authors have disputed his statements.
You originally quoted Goldstones "repudiation" as if the whole report was disowned and discredited. Do you cringe when that is shown not to be true? Even Goldstone only repudiated a small part of the findings...

As for the UNHRC I'd like to think there was an organization somewhere that one side or another couldn't claim was biased. But I know there isn't. I understand that Israel is isolated in the UN and politically around the world. But there is also objective truth Ray. And the original Goldstone report probably was close to an objective report. and enough truth was displayed that Israel has changed its ways.
Why would they go to great lengths and cost to develop the anti-rocket systems if they weren't interested in avoiding future criticism of their forces by avoiding actions that were likely to cause civilian casualties.?
Somewhere someone in Israel has accepted that Goldstone was right.

Goldstone repudiated the view that Israel intentionally fired on civilians. He also acknowledged that Israel investigated questionable incidents. That's huge.

As to the UNHRC, I think it is telling that they haven't investigated Iran firing on its own people or Syria firing on its own people or Libya firing rockets at its own people or Iran raping its citizens in prison or Sudan organizing a genocide against its own people or Yemen firing on its own people or countless violations by Hamas or Hezbollah. Look at the statistics of UNHRC activity.

To answer your questions, Israel is a democracy and will adjust its military expenses as it sees fit. We may feel secure in North America, but with Hezbollah being supplied by Iran, and Hamas calling for the extermination of Israel and Jews, and Iran building nuclear weapons and indicating that it wants to wipe out Israel and that Israel is a one bomb country, they may view it differently. Sunnis and Shiites regularly kill each other even though they essentially share the same religion. Syria and Iran have no problem killing their own citizens let alone their sworn enemy (whose name they cannot even utter). Egypt may start allowing Hamas to be supplied by military weapons from Iran and Syria. It is not just the ultra religious that support West Bank settlement. You view it as land for peace. They view it as land for paper that will eventually get torn up. In any case, Israel is right to respect its constitution and you should too.

As you know, I do think that Israel should moderate its policies. Somehow Randy has a need to paint me as a lefty and you have a need to paint me as a hawk. But I'm comfortable here in the center.

By the way, what indisputable facts did that opinion piece show?

Here's a link to Richard Falk whose opinion you quote. He has rather interesting things to say about 9/11, comparing Israel to the Nazis, and the innocence of terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A. ... te_note-50

ray

By the way, what indisputable facts did that opinion piece show?

They state a few undisputable facts with their opinion. That Goldstone was a minor author of the Goldstone report and that the other authors have disputed his statements.

ray

It is not just the ultra religious that support West Bank settlement. You view it as land for peace.

It may be true that its not just the ultra religious. However, the settlers in many of the setttlements are often religiously motivated. Except in jeruselum where it appears to be economic reasons for setlling.
I didn't ask how the threat to Israel is perceived Ray. I asked how real it is...
In the same way that the military industrial complex exagerates the need for military investment by the US by exagerating the threat, I think the actual physical threat tio Israel by military invasion is exagerated. And its exagerated for political reasons as well.
And the threat is exagerated even more, if Palestine, which is also a democracy by the way, can be developed into a good neighbor. I simply see more hope for this occuring if Israel removes the unnecessary impediments that most of the West Bank setllements represent.
In effect, many of them, are unsustainable in any situtation where the West Bank becomes a wholly independent nation and Israel retreats from its position as an occupation force. If it weren't for the "religious significance" of some they wouldn't be in existence. (I'm thinking of Hebron, for example)

[url]http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2010/p38ejoint.html

Final Borders and Territorial Exchange [/url]
Among Palestinians 49% support or strongly support and 50% oppose or strongly oppose an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with the exception of some settlement areas in less than 3% of the West Bank that would be swapped with an equal amount of territory from Israel in accordance with a map that was presented to the Palestinian respondents. The map was identical to that presented to respondents in August 2009, when support for this compromise, with its map, stood at 49% and opposition at 50%.

Among Israelis 49% support and 43% oppose a Palestinian state in the entirety of the West bank and the Gaza Strip except for several large blocks of settlements in 3% of the West Bank which will be annexed to Israel. Israel will evacuate all other settlements, and the Palestinians will receive in return territory of similar size along the Gaza Strip. In August 2009 47% of the Israelis supported this component while 48% opposed it

Ray

To answer your questions, Israel is a democracy and will adjust its military expenses as it sees fit

Eventually, democracies respond to the expressed needs of the citiizens. You're seeing that in the US where the previously unassailable Military budget is now becoming a target for budget cutting...I'm certain that in Israel, there is likely to be a re-examination of the costs of securing settlements as well.
As the Arab awakening takes affect, and as democracy grows over the next couple of decades, Israel won't be a unique democracy. Indeed Palestine is rapdily demonstrating that deomcracy can be practiced in arab countries. The idea that we should support Israel over Arab threats because its the only democracy will fall away. Then the question will be essentially whether or not the borders and authories between two democracies represent a just resolution.

By the way Ray, I quoted from Ray Falk only as an example of a viewpoint prevalent with pre-Palestinians. Not as an endorsement of the man's opinions in general.

Ricky:

By the way Ray, I quoted from Ray Falk only as an example of a viewpoint prevalent with pre-Palestinians. Not as an endorsement of the man's opinions in general.

Yes, there are many people in Palestine and throughout the world who have one sided views on this conflict. The Israelis are very conscious of this and it adds to their level of fear.

Ricky said:

I asked how real it is...
In the same way that the military industrial complex exagerates the need for military investment by the US by exagerating the threat, I think the actual physical threat tio Israel by military invasion is exagerated. And its exagerated for political reasons as well.

Israel can only lose one war once. I'm sure that the IDF is very interested in your view. However, given Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and potentially Egypt, they are right to be concerned. Without the West Bank, the country is 9 miles wide at its thinnest point. Technology changes rapidly and they have a right to defend themselves against countries and groups that want to wipe them out. (I'm not denying that there is some exaggeration for political or economic reasons. That is the nature of Democracies. But no doubt they should err on the side of caution.)

Ricky said:

And the threat is exagerated even more, if Palestine, which is also a democracy by the way, can be developed into a good neighbor.

Why do you say such stuff? I can accommodate our difference of opinion, but why say something that is so obviously false as Palestine is a Democracy? Hamas is outlawed in the West Bank and Fatah has been decimated in Gaza. There is not a free press; there is not an independent judiciary. Elections haven't been scheduled. One man, one vote, once does not a democracy make.

The crux of the matter is that many Israelis don't believe that Palestine can be a good neighbor. They have launched 2 waves of terrorism. They have not demonstrated democracy. They have demonized Israel for almost a century. They are often supported by radical regimes that want to wipe Israel off of the map. As I said, you see it as land for peace; many Israelis see it as land for piece (of paper). Egypt may abrogate its agreements with Israel. Whose to say that the Palestinians won't do the same.

Ricky said:

As the Arab awakening takes affect, and as democracy grows over the next couple of decades, Israel won't be a unique democracy. Indeed Palestine is rapdily demonstrating that deomcracy can be practiced in arab countries. The idea that we should support Israel over Arab threats because its the only democracy will fall away. Then the question will be essentially whether or not the borders and authories between two democracies represent a just resolution.

Do you think it is hubris to have such certainty about the future?

Ray Jay wrote:

rickyp wrote:As the Arab awakening takes affect, and as democracy grows over the next couple of decades, Israel won't be a unique democracy. Indeed Palestine is rapdily demonstrating that deomcracy can be practiced in arab countries. The idea that we should support Israel over Arab threats because its the only democracy will fall away. Then the question will be essentially whether or not the borders and authories between two democracies represent a just resolution.

Do you think it is hubris to have such certainty about the future?

Ricky, to put it in a different light: isn't this what the neocons suggested when Iraq was invaded? Does it bother you that your foreign policy has merged with GWB?

There is this pesky problem of settlements that just doesn't fit your observations. Israel presumably takes Palestinian land because it wants it for itself, not because it wants peace (though we hear such absurdities from apologists). Israel has sustained a policy of apartheid. When you conquer a land you either absorb the population or you create separate states. Israel has no intention of doing either. There's certainly some Israelis that do recognize the need, but the majority have maintained the xenophobe Netanyahu in power, so there's seems to be more unwillingness than ever to move things along.

Do I have sympathy for Gaza? Not really, they have their own space and basically the only thing keeping them from further progressing is that they have allowed outside states use them as a proxy. So if they shoot random rockets into Israel, of course they are going to get pounded.

Is it complex? Yes and thus the question as to why the US deems it so central to be personally immersed in an affair between Israel and the Palestinians. There were people quoted in recent stories of Israeli killings blaming the US for training and equipping PLO police. Why is the US managing it?

ruffhaus

The crowded urbanized society argument doesn’t wash, Ricky. If that society thinks it’s okay to invite/accept/tolerate terrorists firing rockets into Israel from hospitals, schools, orphanages, and the like, then they are complicit in the action

Generally in an armed conflict there is a respect for non-combatants. Those seeking refuge (refugees) from the violence are usually allowed through the lines and provided some space to camp and wait the conclusion of the military action.
Gazans were not allowed to leave Ruffhaus. The IDF refused any attempts to flee Gaza. It was largely for that reason that were so many Palestinians killed and wounded.
Lets assume that those who attempted to leave were also not welcoming of the terrorists either. And yet they are being held in a dangerous position at peril of their lives. Unable to leave the fighting because the IFD refused that, and unable to resist the presence and the actions of the terrorists. (Being children and women, and the old etc.)
And thats the cause of the "disproportionate use of force". Had the children, women and non-combattants been allowed, even asked, to leave...what then befell the armed resistors in a war zone cleared for combat, would be proportionate.

I read with interest your metaphor of Israel fighting the school yard bully. Would it surprise you to learn that Palestinians view the Israelis as bullies? And that your recommended solution applied to them is the continued use of terrorism? (punch the bully in the nose.)

Be that as it may, there is no military solution, even if one were willing to sink to the indiscriminate use of over powering force that you recommend. The Cold War weapons race didn't just break the Soviet Union. The militarization in your nation is a large part of why you have the fiscal problems you have... If you were forced to raise taxes to pay for all the weapons, would you have built so many after say 1992? Or 2002?
The only reason that militarization is so popular is that you've fooled yourselfs into thinking it comes without a bill.

RJ - stopping the settlements would not simply be a 'PR' matter. It would demonstrate that the Israelis were serious about sticking to their agreements with others and their own laws. Even if that didn't encourage Palestinian leaders to do the same, it would certainly lead to more support than a simple PR move. If the settlements were largely removed, it would also reduce the need for quite a bit of Israeli security.

danivon wrote:RJ - stopping the settlements would not simply be a 'PR' matter. It would demonstrate that the Israelis were serious about sticking to their agreements with others and their own laws. Even if that didn't encourage Palestinian leaders to do the same, it would certainly lead to more support than a simple PR move. If the settlements were largely removed, it would also reduce the need for quite a bit of Israeli security.

I think that is all fair. By "PR matter" I mean that I don't think that it ultimately leads to peace. But I do agree that it would help reduce tensions in the area. The flip side is that it would create tremendous tension within Israel itself, as we saw when they evacuated just a few unimportant (economically or biblically) settlements in Gaza. This would be 100 times harder. It would take incredible political courage to split the society for this "PR plus" gesture. I would stop settlements as a good faith gesture. I would return settlements as part of a genuine peace deal with guaranteed security. I would support it, but it wouldn't be easy. That's why it hasn't been done.

Randy said:

I gather that you also support Syria's request/demand that Israel return the Golan Heights? Certainly you are not going to argue that religion or economics is driving that issue?

If Israel got real peace by giving back the Golan, sure I would give it back. Of course, the odds of that are less than me winning the lottery. I've been to the Golan. You get a nice view towards both Damascus and Jerusalem as I recall. It's a different situation than the West Bank in that it is not heavily populated, it is not biblically relevant, and it is not economically important. It is a military advantage and one shouldn't give it up unless one has supreme confidence that it isn't necessary.

RJ - well, perhaps Israel should deal with the internal effects of the actions of it's own people and government, and not externalise them (as should the same apply to Palestine). Then perhaps both sides might understand that the issues are not simply Israel v Palestine or Jew v Arab, but religious/political nutbars v normal people.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:I guess this will not shock anyone, but I am struggling to understand why you people think that Israel is wrong to encourage their people ‘settle’ in the "Settlements" within their own nation.

No, I'm not at all surprised. The use of 'you people' is also not much of a shock either. And apparently i'm the one lacking 'respect'?

Here's a simple fact for you to wrap your brain around, Randy. The settlements in question are in the West Bank. This is not part of Israel. Period (as you Americans say).

Israel is occupying it, but under their own law they have not annexed it. Under their own laws they are not supposed to be spending any government money on extending settlements there, just defending.

As for the weekend, yes, Arabs did protest with some violence at the anniversary of the declaration of the Israeli state. Not sure that shooting dead people who are throwing stones is proportional, or that there are not some aspects of people being used (especially in Syria where the government really really wants to find a way to get people to aim their anger somewhere other than at them).

But hey, can I expect someone who uses 'you people' to not generalise about all Arabs based on the behaviour of some?

Actually the Arabs specifically marched to mark the 63rd anniversary of the Nakba "catastrophe".

In the Arab media there is a parallel being drawn between these protests in Palestine and the protests they call the Arab Awakening successfully in Tunisia, Egypt and other places so far unsuccessfully.

Just wondering how you feel about the Arab Awakening in general Randy?