The title of this thread is "Do the Israelis really want peace?"

And the simple answer must be yes.

The corollary is "Do the Palestinians and other Arabs really want peace?"

And I just do not know the answer.

Hamas - Peace only after all Israelis are dead or out of the country.

Syria - Peace only after we have the Golan Heights back and can mount our big guns to overshadow the Israeli North.

West Bank Arabs - Peace as long as we can eject the Israeli settlers. And have all the waters of the Jordan.

I am pleased to see that earlier this year the Palestinians in the Lebanese refugee camps were finally given a limited right to work in Lebanon. This may quieten the Israeli Lebanese border a little, but there is still the Beka'a Valley full of Hezbollah fighters supported by Iran.

One can desire peace, but not peace at any price. Peace must be a two-way thing - or in this case a several-way thing. And unless and until all concerned parties are prepared to sit round a table and have serious discussions, I cannot see anything better than Neville Chamberlain's bit of useless paper resulting from any talks.

I have met and worked with scores of Palestinians during the past thirty-odd years and none of them are quite sane when it comes to discussing Israel (something I seldom did, but friends were not so circumspect). The image of the Palestinian medical staff dancing in the NOC clinic in Tripoli (Libya) on 11th September 2001 will always remain with me. The fact that many openly state that 9/11 was a US/Zionist plot is monstrous. The 10% of earnings that went to PLO Arafat, whether you wanted or not, from all overseas Palestinians, was criminal. He was at that time labelled as a terrorist. That is not Zakat. Zakat is charity and that means doing good works in my book.

So - my response to the OP is "Yes - Israel wants peace". But I would follow this with "But within secure borders and with a right to defend the population against outside terror". Plus "Do all the Palestinian supporters want peace?"

Extremely well said, Mr. Bear. As somebody else that has spent over 30 years in the Middle East working with Arabs and Palestinians, I cannot disagree with anything you have said.

Congratulations for a good job well done.

A bunch of European Jews migrated to Palestine and their ancestors (and possibly some of the original migrants) now are trying to oust the indigenous Arabs, bit by bit, settlement by settlement, occupying land here and there, treating them as 2nd class citizens in their own cities,

Learn something new everyday. I didn't know the indigenous Arabs had build all those cities. I wonder why they included all those ancient synagogues?

You are a kiwi, yes? Are you a Maori? If so, then you would be in favor of repealing the right to vote of all 2nd and 3rd generation white New Zealanders since they are mere migrants?

Same thinking. Same attitude towards "outsiders" and same attitude that will never get the human race further beyond primitive tribal thinking, us vs them.

Who is talking about the right to vote?

We're discussing the right to NOT have the land you and your ancestors have been living on for thousands of years taken away by an invader.

Yes, colonisation (ie invasion and theft of lands) occurred all over the world. Modern thinking and acceptable behaviour prohibit today what occurred in NZ, Australia, America,....(and the list goes on) 200 years ago. It's a bit harder to redress what happened 200 years ago. Israeli settlements are going up as we discuss this.

The title of this thread is "Do the Israelis really want peace?"

And the simple answer must be yes.

The corollary is "Do the Palestinians and other Arabs really want peace?"

And I just do not know the answer.

Hamas - Peace only after all Israelis are dead or out of the country.

Syria - Peace only after we have the Golan Heights back and can mount our big guns to overshadow the Israeli North.

West Bank Arabs - Peace as long as we can eject the Israeli settlers. And have all the waters of the Jordan.

I am pleased to see that earlier this year the Palestinians in the Lebanese refugee camps were finally given a limited right to work in Lebanon. This may quieten the Israeli Lebanese border a little, but there is still the Beka'a Valley full of Hezbollah fighters supported by Iran.

One can desire peace, but not peace at any price. Peace must be a two-way thing - or in this case a several-way thing. And unless and until all concerned parties are prepared to sit round a table and have serious discussions, I cannot see anything better than Neville Chamberlain's bit of useless paper resulting from any talks.

I have met and worked with scores of Palestinians during the past thirty-odd years and none of them are quite sane when it comes to discussing Israel (something I seldom did, but friends were not so circumspect). The image of the Palestinian medical staff dancing in the NOC clinic in Tripoli (Libya) on 11th September 2001 will always remain with me. The fact that many openly state that 9/11 was a US/Zionist plot is monstrous. The 10% of earnings that went to PLO Arafat, whether you wanted or not, from all overseas Palestinians, was criminal. He was at that time labelled as a terrorist. That is not Zakat. Zakat is charity and that means doing good works in my book.

So - my response to the OP is "Yes - Israel wants peace". But I would follow this with "But within secure borders and with a right to defend the population against outside terror". Plus "Do all the Palestinian supporters want peace?"

I think you have nailed an aspect to this HB, albeit with a different take on it than I.

I suggest that Israel does NOT want peace because they would lose alot of future land that they have their eyes on, and perhaps even some that they have already grabbed/stolen.

Considering what they have at stake; a few casualties each year from a poorly equipped and poorly organised enemy, vs land and water for tens of thousands of citizens.

Weighing it up, it is easy to see that Israel has more to lose if peace is brokered.

While hostilities continue, they can continue to expand their borders, but once a 2-state solution is agreed upon, that's it, finito, no expansion. Limited space in a defined area for ever (like any other country).

The title of this thread is "Do the Israelis really want peace?"

And the simple answer must be yes.

The corollary is "Do the Palestinians and other Arabs really want peace?"

And I just do not know the answer.

Hamas - Peace only after

Syria - Peace only after

I have met and worked with scores of Palestinians during the past thirty-odd years and none of them are quite sane when it comes to discussing Israel

Anyone could easily add

Israel - Peace only after....

Of course... because if not there would already be peace if one side was willing to back down.

But you imply it is only the lack of one side & that is just not the case.

"Do the Palestinians and other Arabs really want peace?" go ask any of the parents of victims....On EITHER side.

Who would think folks want death & lack of peace anywhere anytime??

Lastly when it comes to your final sentence quoted above....Surly you can say the same of the other side?

I have seen rabid behavior from both sides..

it would be closer to the truth to say.....

none of them are quite sane when it comes to discussing

Israel doesn't want peace

The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that "there is no partner" for peace and that "the time isn't right" to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that "Israel supports peace" has been left shattered.

It's hard to determine when the breaking point occurred. Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative? The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's annual Passover interviews? The revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus, alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with Syria?

Who would have believed it? A high-ranking U.S. official says Israel wants peace talks to resume and instantly her president "severely" denies the veracity of her words. Is Israel even hearing these voices? Are we digesting the significance of these voices for peace? Seven million apathetic Israeli citizens prove that we are not.

Entire generations grew up here weaned on self-deception and doubt about the likelihood of achieving peace with our neighbors. In our younger days, David Ben-Gurion told us that if he were only able to meet with Arab leaders, he would have brought us peace in his time. Israel has demanded direct negotiations as a matter of principle and Israelis have derived great pride from the fact that their daily focus on "peace" has concealed their state's lofty ambitions. We were told that there was no partner for peace and that the ultimate ambition of the Arabs is to bring about our destruction. We burned the portraits of "the Egyptian tyrant" at our bonfires on Lag Ba'omer, and were convinced that all blame for the lack of peace lied with our enemies.

After that came the occupation, followed by terror, Yassir Arafat, the failed second Camp David Summit and the rise of Hamas to power, and we were sure, always sure, that it was all their fault. In our wildest dreams, we wouldn't have believed that the day would come when the entire Arab world would extend its hand in peace and Israel would brush away the gesture. It would have been even crazier to imagine that this Israeli refusal would have been blamed on not wanting to enrage domestic public opinion.

The world has been turned upside down and it is Israel that stands at the forefront of refusal. The policy of refusal of a select few, a vanguard of the extreme, has now become the official policy of Jerusalem. In his Passover interviews, Olmert will tell us that, "The Palestinians stand at the crossroads of a historic decision," but people stopped taking him seriously a long time ago. The historic decision is ours, and we are fleeing from this crossroads and from these initiatives as if from death itself.

Terror, used as the ultimate excuse for Israeli refusal, only helps Olmert keep reciting, ad nauseum, "If they [the Palestinians] don't change, don't fight terror and don't adhere to any of their obligations, then they will never extract themselves from their unending chaos." As though the Palestinians haven't taken measures against terrorism, as though Israel is the one to determine what their obligations are, as though Israel isn't to blame for the unending chaos Palestinians suffer under the occupation.

Israel makes a point of setting prerequisites and believes it has an exclusive right to do so. But, time and time again, Israel avoids the most basic prerequisite for any just peace - an end to the occupation. Of all the questions asked during his Passover interviews, no one bothered to ask Olmert why he didn't react with excitement to the recent Arab initiatives, without preconditions? The answer: real estate. The real estate of the settlements.

It's not only Olmert who is dragging his feet. A leading figure in the Labor party said last week that "it will take five to 10 years to recover from the trauma." Peace is now no more than a threatening wound, with no one still talking about the massive social benefits it would bring in development, security, freedom of movement in the region and by establishing a more just society.

Like a little Switzerland, we are focusing more these days on the dollar exchange rate and on the allegations of embezzlement leveled against the Finance Ministry than on the fateful opportunities fading away before our very eyes.

Not every day and not even in every generation do we encounter an opportunity like this. Although it's not for sure if the initiatives are completely solid and believable, or if they are based on trickery, no one has stepped up to challenge or acknowledge them. When Olmert is an elderly grandfather, what will he tell his grandchildren? That he turned over every stone in the name of peace? That there was no other choice? What will his grandchildren say?

when will they shut down ?

when will they shut down ?

Perhaps when the Israelis have invaded all of Palestine?

when will they shut down ?

It's the (unofficial) voice of the Israeli Labour Party - very influential in most Israelis' eyes.

Not likely to be shut down - just able to exercise free speech in a democracy. Compare that to the other side of the border, where you and your family can die for stating the wrong viewpoint - religious authority discouraged under the PA on the West Bank / secular authority violently attacked by Hamas in Gaza. (Think back to the PA police in Gaza being shot when Hamas came to power).

Let’s reflect briefly on what some of the basic tenets of democracy are and how Israel stacks up:

1. Competitive elections representing the people - Israel has rejected this.

2. The separation of Church and State - Religious authorities and institutions control large amounts of land as well as the control over who is considered Jewish and thus a citizen of Israel.

3. Equal Rights under the law regardless of race or creed - Palestinian Israelis suffer from documented and severe restraints upon their participation in the democratic process and the protections of the state based solely upon their race and religion.

4. Protection of minorities is a common tenet of democracy aimed to protect all of society from the ’tyranny of the majority’ - This is obviously not the case in Israel.

My link

hardly the beacon of democracy when they ban arab parties from running in elections

Let's reflect briefly on what some of the basic tenets of democracy are and how Israel stacks up:

1. Competitive elections representing the people - Israel has rejected this.

2. The separation of Church and State - Religious authorities and institutions control large amounts of land as well as the control over who is considered Jewish and thus a citizen of Israel.

3. Equal Rights under the law regardless of race or creed - Palestinian Israelis suffer from documented and severe restraints upon their participation in the democratic process and the protections of the state based solely upon their race and religion.

4. Protection of minorities is a common tenet of democracy aimed to protect all of society from the 'tyranny of the majority' - This is obviously not the case in Israel.

My link

hardly the beacon of democracy when they ban arab parties from running in elections

What would palestinianmonitor.org know about democracy? I thought Israel had Arab and Palestinian politicians? How many Israeli politicians in Gaza?And separation of Church and State isn't a basic tenent of democracy.

Sourced from the US Library of Congress :

Arab Parties

Israel's approximately 781,350 Arabs, constituting about 17.8 percent of the population, articulated their views through elected officials on the municipal and national levels and through the Arab departments within governmental ministries and nongovernmental institutions such as the Histadrut. In the past, most elected Arab officials traditionally affiliated with the Labor Party and its predecessors, which expected--erroneously as time has proved--that Israeli Arabs would serve as a "bridge" in creating peace among Israeli Jews, the Palestinians, and the Arab world. Beginning in the mid-1970s and throughout the 1980s, increasing numbers of Arab voters, especially younger ones, asserted themselves through organizations calling for greater protection of minority rights and the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Generally, Israeli Arabs remained attached to their religious, cultural, and political values, but their ethnic homogeneity has not necessarily resulted in political cohesion. Internal fissures among Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druzes, Negev beduins and Galilee Arabs, and communist and noncommunist factions have made it difficult for them to act as a single pressure group in dealing with Israel's Jewish majority.

In 1988, despite their natural sympathy for the year-long uprising by their fellow Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israeli Arabs continued to be active participants in the Israeli electoral system. They increased their share in the total 1988 Knesset vote to more than 10 percent of the electorate, and the voting percentage among those eligible to participate was approximately 74 percent, as compared to 80 percent for Jewish voters. Israeli Arabs increased their voting support for Arab lists from 50 percent in 1984 to 60 percent in 1988.

As of 1988, Rakah (New Communist List), a predominantly Arab communist party, continued to adhere to the official Soviet line, yet explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist within its pre-1967 borders. Rakah succeeded Poalei Tziyyon, part of which split off in 1921 and became the Communist Party of Palestine. In 1948 it became the Communist Party of Israel Miflaga Komunisfit Yisraelit, known as Maki, and in 1965 it split into two factions: Rakah with mainly Arab membership, and Maki, with mainly Jewish membership. In 1977 Maki and several other groups created Shelli (acronym for Peace for Israel and Equality for Israel), which disbanded before the 1984 elections. In the November 1988 elections, Rakah maintained its relatively constant share of 40 percent of the total Arab vote and four Knesset seats. In 1988 the party's secretary general was Meir Viler, a veteran Israeli communist.

Within the Israeli Arab community, Rakah's strongest challenges came from two more radical parties, the Palestinian nationalist Sons of the Village, which had no Knesset seats, and the Progressive National Movement. The Progressive National Movement, also known as the Progressive List for Peace, came into being in 1984. Its platform advocated recognition of the PLO and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the November 1988 elections, the party, led by Muhammad Muari, received about 15 percent of the Arab vote; its Knesset delegation declined to one from the 1984 level of two.

The Arab Democratic Party, founded in early 1988 by Abdul Wahab Daroushe, a former Labor Party Knesset member, gained about 12 percent of the total Arab vote and one seat in the November 1988 Knesset elections. In a March 1988 interview, Daroushe acknowledged that his resignation from the Labor Party resulted from the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the "diminishing choices" open to Israeli Arab politicians affiliated with the government and yet tied to the Arab community by a sense of shared ethnic identity. Echoing the sentiments of other Israeli Arabs, Daroushe has stated that "The PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians" living outside Israel's pre-1967 borders.

Source: U.S. Library of Congress

http://countrystudies.us/israel/103.htm

Edit : I have posted this in reply to earlier comments that the Arabs in Israel had no means of political expression. Such is patently false.

Sourced from the US Library of Congress :

Arab Parties

Israel's approximately 781,350 Arabs, constituting about 17.8 percent of the population, articulated their views through elected officials on the municipal and national levels and through the Arab departments within governmental ministries and nongovernmental institutions such as the Histadrut. In the past, most elected Arab officials traditionally affiliated with the Labor Party and its predecessors, which expected--erroneously as time has proved--that Israeli Arabs would serve as a "bridge" in creating peace among Israeli Jews, the Palestinians, and the Arab world. Beginning in the mid-1970s and throughout the 1980s, increasing numbers of Arab voters, especially younger ones, asserted themselves through organizations calling for greater protection of minority rights and the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Generally, Israeli Arabs remained attached to their religious, cultural, and political values, but their ethnic homogeneity has not necessarily resulted in political cohesion. Internal fissures among Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druzes, Negev beduins and Galilee Arabs, and communist and noncommunist factions have made it difficult for them to act as a single pressure group in dealing with Israel's Jewish majority.

In 1988, despite their natural sympathy for the year-long uprising by their fellow Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israeli Arabs continued to be active participants in the Israeli electoral system. They increased their share in the total 1988 Knesset vote to more than 10 percent of the electorate, and the voting percentage among those eligible to participate was approximately 74 percent, as compared to 80 percent for Jewish voters. Israeli Arabs increased their voting support for Arab lists from 50 percent in 1984 to 60 percent in 1988.

As of 1988, Rakah (New Communist List), a predominantly Arab communist party, continued to adhere to the official Soviet line, yet explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist within its pre-1967 borders. Rakah succeeded Poalei Tziyyon, part of which split off in 1921 and became the Communist Party of Palestine. In 1948 it became the Communist Party of Israel Miflaga Komunisfit Yisraelit, known as Maki, and in 1965 it split into two factions: Rakah with mainly Arab membership, and Maki, with mainly Jewish membership. In 1977 Maki and several other groups created Shelli (acronym for Peace for Israel and Equality for Israel), which disbanded before the 1984 elections. In the November 1988 elections, Rakah maintained its relatively constant share of 40 percent of the total Arab vote and four Knesset seats. In 1988 the party's secretary general was Meir Viler, a veteran Israeli communist.

Within the Israeli Arab community, Rakah's strongest challenges came from two more radical parties, the Palestinian nationalist Sons of the Village, which had no Knesset seats, and the Progressive National Movement. The Progressive National Movement, also known as the Progressive List for Peace, came into being in 1984. Its platform advocated recognition of the PLO and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the November 1988 elections, the party, led by Muhammad Muari, received about 15 percent of the Arab vote; its Knesset delegation declined to one from the 1984 level of two.

The Arab Democratic Party, founded in early 1988 by Abdul Wahab Daroushe, a former Labor Party Knesset member, gained about 12 percent of the total Arab vote and one seat in the November 1988 Knesset elections. In a March 1988 interview, Daroushe acknowledged that his resignation from the Labor Party resulted from the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the "diminishing choices" open to Israeli Arab politicians affiliated with the government and yet tied to the Arab community by a sense of shared ethnic identity. Echoing the sentiments of other Israeli Arabs, Daroushe has stated that "The PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians" living outside Israel's pre-1967 borders.

Source: U.S. Library of Congress

http://countrystudie.../israel/103.htm

Edit : I have posted this in reply to earlier comments that the Arabs in Israel had no means of political expression. Such is patently false.

i assume you are replying to my post.

In which case, i should have posted the word ''banned'' instead of ''ban''. Anyone reading the article from that link would conclude that arabs do have a political voice, however the 2 arab political parties were banned from recent elections.

apologies, i didnt intend to mislead anyone

Would any of the pro-Israel contingent like to comment directly on what I suggested above? Or is it another debate that once an inarguable truth is offered, the "losers" walk away without the good grace to concede.

"Considering what they have at stake; a few casualties each year from a poorly equipped and poorly organised enemy, vs land and water for tens of thousands of citizens.

Weighing it up, it is easy to see that Israel has more to lose if peace is brokered.

While hostilities continue, they can continue to expand their borders, but once a 2-state solution is agreed upon, that's it, finito, no expansion. Limited space in a defined area for ever (like any other country)."

Would any of the pro-Israel contingent like to comment directly on what I suggested above? Or is it another debate that once an inarguable truth is offered, the "losers" walk away without the good grace to concede.

"Considering what they have at stake; a few casualties each year from a poorly equipped and poorly organised enemy, vs land and water for tens of thousands of citizens.

Weighing it up, it is easy to see that Israel has more to lose if peace is brokered.

While hostilities continue, they can continue to expand their borders, but once a 2-state solution is agreed upon, that's it, finito, no expansion. Limited space in a defined area for ever (like any other country)."

I wasn't aware that Israel's borders have expanded since the 1970's, in fact, by giving up Gaza a few years ago, Israel has gotten smaller. The settlements - which I don't necessarily agree with - are being built within Israel's current borders. Unless of course they are building them in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt?

Would any of the pro-Israel contingent like to comment directly on what I suggested above? Or is it another debate that once an inarguable truth is offered, the "losers" walk away without the good grace to concede.

"Considering what they have at stake; a few casualties each year from a poorly equipped and poorly organised enemy, vs land and water for tens of thousands of citizens.

Weighing it up, it is easy to see that Israel has more to lose if peace is brokered.

While hostilities continue, they can continue to expand their borders, but once a 2-state solution is agreed upon, that's it, finito, no expansion. Limited space in a defined area for ever (like any other country)."

I wasn't aware that Israel's borders have expanded since the 1970's, in fact, by giving up Gaza a few years ago, Israel has gotten smaller. The settlements - which I don't necessarily agree with - are being built within Israel's current borders. Unless of course they are building them in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt?

OK, you took the word "borders" in it's strictest sense. I accept that you did.

I did not intend the word to be used so literally...but I accept that you did not grasp the context.

"Expanding their "footprint", at the expense of Palestinian Arabs" may have been a better phrase.

"Giving up Gaza"? Would "Returning Gaza (because it was too much of a headache)" be a more accurate description?

Koheesti:

How could you possibly not "grasp the context" of Harcourt's words?

Would any of the pro-Israel contingent like to comment directly on what I suggested above? Or is it another debate that once an inarguable truth is offered, the "losers" walk away without the good grace to concede.

"Considering what they have at stake; a few casualties each year from a poorly equipped and poorly organised enemy, vs land and water for tens of thousands of citizens.

Weighing it up, it is easy to see that Israel has more to lose if peace is brokered.

While hostilities continue, they can continue to expand their borders, but once a 2-state solution is agreed upon, that's it, finito, no expansion. Limited space in a defined area for ever (like any other country)."

I wasn't aware that Israel's borders have expanded since the 1970's, in fact, by giving up Gaza a few years ago, Israel has gotten smaller. The settlements - which I don't necessarily agree with - are being built within Israel's current borders. Unless of course they are building them in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt?

OK, you took the word "borders" in it's strictest sense. I accept that you did.

I did not intend the word to be used so literally...but I accept that you did not grasp the context.

Don't try to throw this back at me as if it's my fault because I have a comprehension problem of some sort when your por choice of words is to blame. All of us need to think about what we write before posting it. We can't expect everyone else to be able to read our minds. This has been something common of late around here. Someone posts something that is blatently false and when they get called on it, then it is "Oh, you are taking what I wrote literally" or some hogwash like that.

Would any of the pro-Israel contingent like to comment directly on what I suggested above? Or is it another debate that once an inarguable truth is offered, the "losers" walk away without the good grace to concede.

"Considering what they have at stake; a few casualties each year from a poorly equipped and poorly organised enemy, vs land and water for tens of thousands of citizens.

Weighing it up, it is easy to see that Israel has more to lose if peace is brokered.

While hostilities continue, they can continue to expand their borders, but once a 2-state solution is agreed upon, that's it, finito, no expansion. Limited space in a defined area for ever (like any other country)."

I wasn't aware that Israel's borders have expanded since the 1970's, in fact, by giving up Gaza a few years ago, Israel has gotten smaller. The settlements - which I don't necessarily agree with - are being built within Israel's current borders. Unless of course they are building them in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt?

OK, you took the word "borders" in it's strictest sense. I accept that you did.

I did not intend the word to be used so literally...but I accept that you did not grasp the context.

Don't try to throw this back at me as if it's my fault because I have a comprehension problem of some sort when your por choice of words is to blame. All of us need to think about what we write before posting it. We can't expect everyone else to be able to read our minds. This has been something common of late around here. Someone posts something that is blatently false and when they get called on it, then it is "Oh, you are taking what I wrote literally" or some hogwash like that.

Ok...por choice of words on my part....happy now?......Now do you feel like responding to the question, or will you continue as usual to pick on spelling, semantics etc instead of making valid points?

I wasn't aware that Israel's borders have expanded since the 1970's, in fact, by giving up Gaza a few years ago, Israel has gotten smaller. The settlements - which I don't necessarily agree with - are being built within Israel's current borders. Unless of course they are building them in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt?

OK, you took the word "borders" in it's strictest sense. I accept that you did.

I did not intend the word to be used so literally...but I accept that you did not grasp the context.

Don't try to throw this back at me as if it's my fault because I have a comprehension problem of some sort when your por choice of words is to blame. All of us need to think about what we write before posting it. We can't expect everyone else to be able to read our minds. This has been something common of late around here. Someone posts something that is blatently false and when they get called on it, then it is "Oh, you are taking what I wrote literally" or some hogwash like that.

Ok...por choice of words on my part....happy now?......Now do you feel like responding to the question, or will you continue as usual to pick on spelling, semantics etc instead of making valid points?

It's not picking on you in any way except in your imagination. Your point is based on Israel taking advantage of hostilities to expand its borders when it isn't doing any such thing. It's ridiculous to think Israel prefers to be at an almost constant state of war with everyone around them just so they can build some more villas. The Palestinians should keep quiet and let them build. They did in Gaza, Israel left, and some Palestinians ended up with some nicer homes as a result.

I located somebody that agrees with Mr. Harcourt. This is what he said Sunday...

"On Sunday, he branded Iran's arch-foe Israel a "savage dog unleashed in the region."

The link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.23111bf2d9c2a75f1ce1e14c0bcb1919.2a1&show_article=1

when it suits them the zionist apologists will use any source

I located somebody that agrees with Mr. Harcourt. This is what he said Sunday...

"On Sunday, he branded Iran's arch-foe Israel a "savage dog unleashed in the region."

The link: http://www.breitbart...&show_article=1

Awfully ironic coming from the Persian regime that exports weapons throughout the region and trains Arabs and other Muslims to kill each other.

Sourced from the US Library of Congress :

Edit : I have posted this in reply to earlier comments that the Arabs in Israel had no means of political expression. Such is patently false.

i assume you are replying to my post.

In which case, i should have posted the word ''banned'' instead of ''ban''. Anyone reading the article from that link would conclude that arabs do have a political voice, however the 2 arab political parties were banned from recent elections.

apologies, i didnt intend to mislead anyone

I assume you are referring to the February 2009 election, where there was an attempt prior to the election to ban two of the three Arab-oriented parties from participating, as they were deemed to be conducting themselves in a manner contrary to the constitution.

However the Supreme Court overturned the 'ban' and here is an article on the current Knesset seating.

Following is listing of major current political parties, number of MKs in the 16-18th Knesset (the one elected February 10m 2009) and a summary of their political orientations.

Name Orientation Personalities Mandates

(Knesset #)

16th 17 18

Labor Center-Left,Zionist Ehud Barak,  21 19 13

Benjamin Eliezer

Amir Peretz

Kadima Center-Right, Zionist, Populist Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni * 29 28

Shaul Mofaz

Likud Right, Zionist, Capitalist, Zionist Benjamin Netanyahu, 40 12 27

Meretz Leftist, Secular Zionist Haim Oron, Yossi Beilin, 6 5 3

Ran Cohen

Hatikva+ Far right Arieh Eldad (joined NU) 0 0 --

Shinui (now defunct) Center, Zionist, Capitalist Tommy Lapid,  Avraham Poraz, 15+ 0 --

Eliezer Zandberg

Noy Center Right? David Tal 1# 0 --

National Union Extreme Right, Zionist Benny Eilon 7 9

Pensioners Party Not announced - Pensioners rights Rafi Eitan 0 7 0

Yisrael Beiteynu Extreme Right, Zionist Avigdor Lieberman ** 11 15

NRP (National Religious Party) Extreme Right, Religious Zionist  Zevulun Orlev 6 *** With NU 3

Nissan Slomiansky

Shaul Yahalom

Shas Ultra-Orthodox, Center-Right, Nissim Dahan;Yair Peretz; 11 12 11

non-Zionist Shlomo Ben-Izri

Agudath Yisrael**** Ultra Orthodox, Right, non-Zionist Yakov Litzman, Meir Porush 3 6 5

Degel Hatorah**** Ultra Orthodox, non-Zionist, Dovish Moshe Gafni Avraham Ravitz 2 -- --

Hadash Communist Party of Israel, Muhamed Barakeh,Ahmad Tibi 3 3 4

Anti-Zionist ("Arab" party)

National Democratic Assembly (Balad) Anti-Zionist ("Arab" party), progressive Azmi Bishara 3 3 4

United Arab List (Ra'am-Ta'al) Anti Zionist ("Arab" party) Abdulmalik Dehamshe 2 4 3

includes Islamists Talab El-Sana

(Sorry, I can't seem to post a table)

The final three parties are 'Arab' parties. The number of Knesset members (MKs) is fairly constant - the three parties tally around 10/11 seats out of the 140 or so in total.

You can find the proper table, plus a lot more info, at

http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/politicalsystem.htm

Ok...por choice of words on my part....happy now?......Now do you feel like responding to the question, or will you continue as usual to pick on spelling, semantics etc instead of making valid points?

It's not picking on you in any way except in your imagination. Your point is based on Israel taking advantage of hostilities to expand its borders when it isn't doing any such thing. It's ridiculous to think Israel prefers to be at an almost constant state of war with everyone around them just so they can build some more villas. The Palestinians should keep quiet and let them build. They did in Gaza, Israel left, and some Palestinians ended up with some nicer homes as a result.

There you go again, reading into my words whatever it is in your imagination.

Ok...por choice of words on my part....happy now?......Now do you feel like responding to the question, or will you continue as usual to pick on spelling, semantics etc instead of making valid points?

It's not picking on you in any way except in your imagination. Your point is based on Israel taking advantage of hostilities to expand its borders when it isn't doing any such thing. It's ridiculous to think Israel prefers to be at an almost constant state of war with everyone around them just so they can build some more villas. The Palestinians should keep quiet and let them build. They did in Gaza, Israel left, and some Palestinians ended up with some nicer homes as a result.

There you go again, reading into my words whatever it is in your imagination.

Mr. Harcourt:

When you are in a hole, the first rule of physics is to stop digging.

Ok...por choice of words on my part....happy now?......Now do you feel like responding to the question, or will you continue as usual to pick on spelling, semantics etc instead of making valid points?

It's not picking on you in any way except in your imagination. Your point is based on Israel taking advantage of hostilities to expand its borders when it isn't doing any such thing. It's ridiculous to think Israel prefers to be at an almost constant state of war with everyone around them just so they can build some more villas. The Palestinians should keep quiet and let them build. They did in Gaza, Israel left, and some Palestinians ended up with some nicer homes as a result.

There you go again, reading into my words whatever it is in your imagination.

I'm bowing out of this annoying tit-for-tat game you're trying to drag me into.

Ok...por choice of words on my part....happy now?......Now do you feel like responding to the question, or will you continue as usual to pick on spelling, semantics etc instead of making valid points?

It's not picking on you in any way except in your imagination. Your point is based on Israel taking advantage of hostilities to expand its borders when it isn't doing any such thing. It's ridiculous to think Israel prefers to be at an almost constant state of war with everyone around them just so they can build some more villas. The Palestinians should keep quiet and let them build. They did in Gaza, Israel left, and some Palestinians ended up with some nicer homes as a result.

There you go again, reading into my words whatever it is in your imagination.

I'm bowing out of this annoying tit-for-tat game you're trying to drag me into.

There is a thread I read somewhere recently where an accusation was made along the lines of "whenever a righty is wrong, he either walks away or tries to change the subject".....now, where was that thread?

More often, the "righty" is right and gets bored with the troll.

The settlements - which I don't necessarily agree with - are being built within Israel's current borders.

A question Ko' and I will readily admit at this moment I do not know the answer, so am genuinely looking for an honest response.

Are the Settlements within Israels present borders, or are they territories acquired by winning wars, since 1948?

Internationally, are they approved and accepted as within Israels defined borders and for a defining judgement, lets say in the view of the U.N, not Iran, or the U.S, or for that matter other posters of either side on this forum.

If you could direct me to a good reference site, I will read up for myself, but as the more logical, although I will admit vociferous and certainly passionate poster, I would like to hear your view.