Eye On Israel

[mike435]

Mike did you know that the founders of Israel targetted civilian populations?

yes groups like irgun and somthing else i forgot
hagana also used terrorisom

but an overwelmingl of theri targets were british troops and malitia

it was never as hanius as what hamas is doing and never that consistant

look as i said again i am not a pasafist but violance has to be used in the right way not agianst everyone and not all the time

at the begening to get attention and get the ball rolling maybe but even than its still bad

nothing comes easy you have to fight for what you want sometimes unfortanitly takes a form of violance

but yea they did use terrorisom and for that israelis are paying the price

[zubin]

so if Israel used terrorism (or its founders) why should anyone recognize Israel?

[mike435]

why shouldnt they?

they used terrorisom then the world body voted for a two state solution jews ran with it and helf the vountry

the palastinians the selfish arabs didnt want to give up their influence on the teritory so they screwed the palastinians

by the way at the begening 1949 the palastinians or the ingidinous arabs or the are had the best parts of the land israels portion was mostly the negev desert

and offcourse you know the history after that

look no one in israel is debating wether or not they will recognize the arabs

arrafat and his group were all terorist according to me but israelis looked past it and gave him a chance what did they get in retund Fd

[Rasputin]

JERUSALEM - The deputy defense minister suggested Friday that Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran's disputed nuclear program — the clearest statement yet of such a possibility from a high-ranking official.

"I am not advocating an Israeli pre-emptive military action against Iran and I am aware of its possible repercussions," Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, a former general, said in comments published Friday in The Jerusalem Post. "I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort."

Sneh's comments did not necessarily reflect the view of Israel's government or of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said government spokeswoman Miri Eisin.

Olmert, who was arriving in Washington on Sunday, said he was confident in the U.S. handling of the international standoff over Iran's nuclear program. The Bush administration and other nations say is a cover for developing atomic weapons, but Tehran says the program is peaceful.

"I have enormous respect for President Bush. He is absolutely committed," Olmert said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show. "I know that America will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons because this is a danger to the whole Western world."

The United States and its European allies have proposed a raft of sanctions to try to curb the country's nuclear development.

Israel sees Iran as the greatest threat to its survival. Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel's destruction, and Israelis do not believe his claims that Iran's nuclear program is meant to develop energy, not arms.

Israel crippled Iraq's atomic program 25 years ago with an airstrike on its unfinished nuclear reactor. Experts say Iran has learned from Iraq's mistakes, scattering its nuclear facilities and building some underground.

Sneh's tough talk is the boldest to date by a high-ranking Israeli official. Olmert and other Israeli leaders frequently discuss the Iranian threat in grave terms, but stop short of threatening military action.

Years of diplomacy have failed to persuade Iran to modify its nuclear program so it can't develop weapons.

[zubin]

why shouldnt they?

they used terrorisom then the world body voted for a two state solution jews ran with it and helf the vountry

the palastinians the selfish arabs didnt want to give up their influence on the teritory so they screwed the palastinians

by the way at the begening 1949 the palastinians or the ingidinous arabs or the are had the best parts of the land israels portion was mostly the negev desert

and offcourse you know the history after that

look no one in israel is debating wether or not they will recognize the arabs

arrafat and his group were all terorist according to me but israelis looked past it and gave him a chance what did they get in retund Fd

so there are exceptions in the use of terrorism? sometimes its justified?

[mike435]

no its not justified

hams doesnt have an army their for it is considerd terorisom when it engaes violantly

i am not talking about that style of violanve
i am taling about when hamas goes specificly after woman and chilidren to kill theme what ever the other motive be, that is terorisom when they go after civilians pourposfuly

[zubin]

but you just said that Israel did the same thing the past. was that justified?

[mike435]

but you just said that Israel did the same thing the past. was that justified?

was it justifeied going after woman and chilldren
no ofcourse not

but even if a litle bot of it based on bad is the whole thing bad
what kind of a logic is that
thats like saying screw the palastinians never make peace with theme becuase at one point they engaged in terrorisom

[zubin]

but if you're not going to accept hamas then what part of israel should palestinians not accept? the question is how much of israel's founders was terrorist

[mike435]

the question is finding out wether israel based terorisom or not, is indiffrnt to the futuare of the palastinians

wether one way or the other wont mae a diffrence

palastinians want a home
israelis want peace and scurity

thisis what matters

palastinians want an end to barring their kids
israelis want an end to barrying their kids also

but israelis wasnt to achive that but giving back land in exchange for real peace

hamas wants peac only if it has all the terirory it says it want and until then it will kill every israeli citizen regarles of age sex religion
you dont accept this than i dono what else to say

[zubin]

have you ever heard the phrase "confound" or something being "confounded by" something else?

[mike435]

so ok lets say one part of israels excistance is confound
how signifigiant is that one third part from others

or in any situation do we know every part of it
i think in every situation we do have a condouns variable oes that than mean that everything is woerthless becuase the result is always wrong
what is ever right
or what is ever based on truth
dont we live in a reality were when we accept everything it is because of complication of evidances and not just one statement

i mean a beer botel isnt a beer botel
you obser it and after you have compiled evidances that each way a dirrnt amount and that you come up with a conclution or a position that yes that thing is a beer botel.

so weterh their is a confound variable it wont make it irralavnt but it wont add to much to the equation even thogh accorfing to definition it makes the whole things false and i said that so what if it makes everything false becuase everything is allways deduced becuase of evidances and becasue of that we can say that since nothing is based on absolute truth everything is false and if everything is false it is irelavnt if we have a variable that will give a false out come

[zubin]

ok you obviously know what a confound is. I just needed to make sure you knew before I said your argument has a confound. When you say that Hamas will not rest until every Israeli is killed and they have occupied it all back, if this is due to a literal interpretation it is not only confounded but a very weak argument in this case. The confound is that it does not follow just because someone says something that they'll do it or that they mean it. In this case, the need for Palestinian solidarity, and the weakness of Palestinians in comparison to Israel, are so great, that their non-recognition of Israel is probably an "us vs. them" way of forming unity and a stronger opposition, and this not only confounds your argument but weakens it.

In short, we disagree on how Hamas' actions and language should be interpreted, and what they really mean. I really don't understand how you get from Hamas and Israel being both terrorist-based to Israel being better, simply because Hamas currently states Israel is its mortal enemy. These words don't necessarily mean that they want to kill every Israeli or that they are intent to destory Israel no matter what. Didn't you see that they were willing to understand the other side through the hunda, and that they have for now formally not asked for all Israel but for the 1967 borders? They clearly want to gather strength through their clear opposition.

Also, didn't you know that a large portion of Israelis still do not recognize Palestine and want to kick them out into Jordan completely? From these statements should I infer that these factions are going to be relentless to kill or kick out every single Palestinian that exists? No. These are mechanisms for solidarity. You find an enemy and you make self-righteous threats as a way of uniting.

A last way of putting the argument is that there is so much time between now and whenever Hamas could theoretically destroy the last inch of Israel. How do you know there was be a change in attitude and tactic at the very beginning before even coming close to this scenario? And given how far-fetched it would be for Hamas to get rid of every inch of Israel, it simply shows that they are not serious but are instead mobilizing unity.

I'm really dissappointed if your whole argument is based on a literal interpretation of Hamas' doctrine. That's paranoid and simply inaccurate.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

A CONVERSATION WITH EHUD OLMERT

After this past summer's controversial war in Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has lower poll numbers than President Bush. Olmert, who will meet with Bush in Washington this week, spoke with Newsweek-Washington Post's Lally Weymouth about the Middle East, Iran and the prospect of a U.S. pullout from Iraq.

What are you going to say to President Bush? Last year you told him you had a vision -- your convergence plan, which was to withdraw from large parts of the West Bank. Do you have a vision today?

The convergence plan was a vehicle to accomplish a vision shared by both President Bush and myself. This is a two-state solution. Before the war, I told the Israeli public that the first step I would take is to try to establish a credible process of negotiations, on the basis of the road map, with the legitimate Palestinian leadership. If that didn't work, then we would try [unilateral] realignment.

But after the war in Lebanon, you said the convergence plan was on hold.

After the fighting in Lebanon, and also the failure of the Palestinians to cope with continued terrorist actions, I have second thoughts about the ability to accomplish the two-state solution through realignment. It is definitely not dead but it has to be reexamined. One thing I can promise: Under no circumstances am I going to withdraw from the need to engage in a serious dialogue with the Palestinians, toward the implementation of the vision which I share with President Bush. The Palestinian issue is on the agenda. There is no way we can ignore it or that we would want to ignore it. We have to find the best partner to do it. A lot depends on the Palestinian leadership.

How do you feel about Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] as a partner?

He personally has shown consistently his opposition to terror and his discomfort with Hamas techniques. But it is incumbent upon him to do more than just say how uncomfortable he is with Hamas. He hasn't yet shown enough determination and inner strength to put down this government of terrorists and to reduce the influence of [Hamas leader] Khaled Mashal, who controls the officials of the Palestinian government from Damascus.

How do you feel about Abu Mazen entering into a unity government with Hamas?

Such a government can be measured by one criterion: Do they accept actively -- not just in theory -- the principles of the Quartet? If Hamas will formally accept these principles -- which are to recognize Israel's right to exist, to end all terror and hostile activities against Israel and to recognize and implement all the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority -- then I'll be ready to sit down with such a government even if it includes Hamas representatives.

So you don't have much hope that there's a partner you can engage with and you're not sure about the unilateral realignment plan you proposed last year. Do you have another idea?

I'm very encouraged by some developments that have taken place lately. The fighting in Lebanon made it much clearer that there are some shared interests between Israel and some of the more moderate Arab countries. We have very friendly relations with Jordan and with Egypt. As of late, I'm very impressed with the performance and policies carried out by the King of Saudi Arabia. And the leaders of the [United Arab] Emirates. One can feel that there is a broader examination of the region and also maybe a better understanding of some of the constraints Israel has to deal with. And also a realization that at the end of the day, Iran and the axis of evil made by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas is of greater danger not only to Israel but to some moderate Arab countries.

The position they took over the fighting in Lebanon, which was very courageous. In the past, the Saudis have expressed some ideas about a possible solution in the Middle East.

You're hinting that this might be another route for working with the Palestinians -- via Jordan and other moderate Arab countries?

We have to change the balance in the Middle East and the position of the radical elements of Palestinian society. I hope that with the joint efforts of Israel and America on the one side and the moderate Arab countries on the other side, something can be worked out that will help the more moderate elements within Palestinian society, led by Abu Mazen, to take over and establish the necessary conditions for a fruitful dialogue with us.

Has the United States asked you to release Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti from prison, and would you consider doing that?

I am ready to release many, many prisoners. I made it clear long ago that I am anxious to open up a new dialogue with Abu Mazen, and for that purpose, I'm ready to release many prisoners. Hamas's extreme inflexible attitude prevents the prisoners from being released because they refuse to let us have our soldier [kidnapped Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit]. . . . Hamas is not really interested in the well-being of its prisoners. They want to topple Abu Mazen at any cost.

You brought [Avigdor] Lieberman into your coalition. But people on the left perceive him as an extreme right-winger opposed to any kind of concessions with the Palestinians. Does he affect your position?

The policies of this government are not going to be changed and you can read my lips: I'm ready for territorial compromises, and I haven't changed my mind.

How do you see the threat posed by Iran?

This is the first time in many years that the official leader of a major nation with more than 70 million citizens has talked publicly and officially of the liquidation of another nation that is a member of the United Nations. [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is a man who is ready to commit crimes against humanity, and he has to be stopped.

When Hitler began to talk about the liquidation of the Jewish race, people heard it. But they hardly did anything to stop it. And then for generations, nations and leaders had to explain why they didn't speak up. So we have to have a world campaign to emphasize the moral commitment that no one will be able to ignore what he says and what the possible ramifications may be.

There is also the process of negotiations. My position is clear: If there can be a compromise that will stop Iran short of crossing the technological threshold that will lead them into nuclear capabilities, we will be for such a compromise. But I don't believe that Iran will accept such compromise unless they have a very good reason to fear the consequences of not reaching it. In other words: Iran must start to fear.