User talk:Ramallite/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Falafel in Nablus

I am glad that we can discuss this calmly. I had this feeling that it is possible to discuss such issues maturely, and so far I have not been dissapointed. I do not know if you consider yourself a Palestinian nationalist, but I just want to state as a matter of factly, that as one nationalist to another (if this is in fact so), I understand national ambitions of other nationalists better than most left wing Israelis. So I hope that this talk will let you understand what the actual national goal of a Jewish state is; not from a confused high schooler, but from someone who has clear cut goals. The ideology of the Irgun is a marker for how it would have been if everything went right. In an ideal world, the Jews would have a state on all of their national patrimony, but this contrasts with reality. Unlike certain individuals who have abandoned to redeem Jewish land, I, and other like minded nationalists have not. I will come back to this later so you understand why I say this. As for how I became a Jewish nationalist, well it is a combination of things. Being born in a country where you knew that you were different, reading Jewish history, learning from current events. An ideology comes from understanding and history, not from the circumstances a person is born in. It is a millenial Jewish national aspiration to rebuild the Jewish Kingdom in our ancient patrimony, and I belong to the Jewish nation and "share" this national consciousness which is taught through culture, school, and personal experience. I am primarily a religious nationalist, as I see that this is the only legitimate form of nationalism allowed for the Jewish people. I went to a religious school, and although there are nationalist reasons, my ideas are outwardly Religious Zionist more than anything. Personally, I am for peace too, but I utterly reject how it is being handled today. I will tell you why holding the whole Eretz Yisrael is important. Because the sacrifice for peace I am willing to make is the state of Jordan, no more no less. A country with a population of 65% Palestinian origin. It is unfathomable for me to give up ancient Judea and the site of the holy Temple, when Jews finally have sovereignty over the land.

My vision for peace is a two state solution, but it is a solution that will work when it is instituted. Palestinians and Jews cannot live together on the same land in peace, and I am not willing to give up Jewish sovereignty over our ancient homeland to a nation that already has 17 states they can go to, and one which already holds a majority. Transfer is the only solution. I am of course talking of transfer of Arabs, either through incentive or law out of the territories and Israel. Now don't take it the wrong way. I am not motivated by ill will but by the unfortunate experiences of our two peoples. We are two people heading in opposite directions, two people with separate destinies that will spectaculary crash sooner or later into a grand war if we are not separated. If the current road map is instituted, there will be an all out war, because the Palestinian state will be an impoverished disjointed canton dependent and dangerous to Israel, and I cannot tolerate a secular state because that doesn't serve Jewish national aspirations. This is of course all rough information which you can digest as you wish. You probably will have questions about clarifications and what not. Once again, feel free to ask. How does this hold up with the 21st century? It holds up just fine. The time period is irrelevent to what will sooner or later have to be done. I also suggest you take a look at what happened to 250,000 Palestinian Arabs in Kuwait during the Gulf War. No matter which century you are in, the rules don't change much. Sorry that you have to be kicked around so much, but that is the only way to cut the gordian knot.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)

Glad that you wish to continue. I do not believe that your plight exists because you are not Jewish. That is only one of the factors. The Druze, Beduin, and Circassians are not Jewish either, but they are loyal citizens and I would not fathom asking them to leave. The primary reason your plight exists is that Palestinians want to replace Israel with another Arab state. Palestinians failed in 1948 and have never stopped to regain ground since. You are by definition a hostile population that would attempt genocide if given the chance. In other words, you pose an existantial threat to Israel, and that is where your plight originates from. Not only that, but your leadership asks us to give up our eternal capital and holy sites. As far as I am concerned, this is beyond insulting, it is inflammatory. The fact that Palestinians as a nation were only formed in the last 40 years makes it that more insulting. Although, I do not agree with the current policy because it is self perpetuating, it does not mean I believe that it was not necessary. Most of the problems we have could have been solved if Ben Gurion was wise enough to push all the way to the end of the west bank, pushing the Arabs into Jordan, but he faltered. We had another chance to finish the job in 1967, but once again Moshe Dayan and the whole leadership faltered. By now you would have overthrown the Hashemites and had your own state in Jordan. I sympathize in the general sense of the word that you could not state a national homeland on your passport. It is just as frustrating if not more for me to not have Jerusalem recognized as the eternal Jewish capital. So there is some common understanding there, but I have always believed that if the Palestinian people wanted nationhood, they would not focus on the territories, but on Jordan. If the PLO existed not to terrorize Israel but to represent Arab national interest, they would have done what they could to establish a state in Jordan, and followed through.

I am not saying that you have to accept a constraint on certain freedoms, but your rights are directly influenced by the actions of the Palestinian people. I will gain citizenship because I am already a member of a nation, and I have chosen to return and join my people there. Israel is a Jewish state, it is not made for anyone but Jews. As for the west bank being your land. In 1967 it was part of Jordan, who conquered it in 1948. Since there was never a Palestinian state and the land was vacant, it officially belongs to no one. When Jordan initiated agression during 1967, it got what it deserved. You cannot expect the people who start the war to not pay reperations, in this case, ancient Jewish patrimony was pretty good compensation.

Whatever internal problems Israel has (and they are many due to the corrupt nature of the parlaimentary and party system in place) will be solved in time. Israel still faces an existantial problem in the form of you. Labor lost because it has no spine and the only policy they had was appeasement, and Sharon won because everyone thought he had a spine. Shinui won for its own reasons. It was a newcomer with an odious yet charismatic man as a leader at a time when Labor was repeating the same old mantra of appeasement cowardice. I do not have much faith in the parlaimentary system in Israel, so here is what I predict. You can heed what I predict or not, but I hold a certain mentality that is prevalent with other people of my ideology, so there is a good chance that if I think this, many many others think so too. I predict that within the next 15 to 20 years you will see a social revolution in Israel, exerbated by the unstable system of the government system there. I also predict a large scale war between Israel and the Arab states.

I am well aware of the fact that other Arab states have differences with Palestinian Arabs. But these differences strike me nothing more than the difference between a Briton and an American, Austrialian, New Zealander or Canadian. The problem is that Arab regimes want to use you as a weapon against Israel. What other reason do they have to keep you in squalid refugee camps? Historically, Nasser used Palestinians as weapons against Israel, and today it is no exception. Iran, Syria, Baathist Iraq, Lybia and others always used you as a weapon against Israel because it is convenient. I would also like to point out that Israel is an ethnic state dependent on the cultural and religious status of the people who live there. I want you to do an experiment. Ask any Jewish Israeli, if they had the choice, would they be happier ( or have no problem) if there were no longer Arabs living in Israel. With previous experience, I would guess it the answer would be an overwhelming yes. Finally, I would like to point out that it is the right of every state to determine who it wants to live in its border. The fact that Palestinian Arabs, if given the choice to move to Israel or gain PA "citizenship," most would choose Israeli citizenship is a dangerous sign. When you understand (you don't have to like) that every Palestinian Arab is an existantial threat, you will see it is impossible to compromise on such a policy.

On to Jordan. This is the quintessential national land under foreign occupation. Foreign East Bank Arabs who rule over a huge chunk of land when they compromise less then 40% of the population, with Palestinian Arabs compromising the last 60%. De facto, it is a Palestinian state ruled by a minority. Arafat once tried to establish a Palestinian republic in Jordan, which culminated in the Black September in Jordan, but ever since Oslo, all the focus is on the territories. Until 1986 most Palestinian Arabs had citizenship in Jordan, then that bastard Rabin invited Arafat into Israel and everything went to shit. So Palestinian Arabs will never compromise an integral part in Jordan? Then revolt. Stop wasting time on Israel. That is why I say that if the PLO and the PA had Palestinian national rights at heart, they would have revolted against the Jordanian monarchy, but they stopped because it is easier to unite to fight "foreigners" with a democratic government and all its constraints, than it is to fight an Arab regime that will do what is necessary to stay in power. I do not think that people will stay in the West Bank if Israel offers enough cash for them to move. Finally, if that doesn't work (I am sure it will on a certain scale) they would just have to be forcefully pushed out. Israelis will support any policy that will bring peace and security. This policy most certainly will.

Regards,

Guy Montag 9 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)


Good to hear from you again. I'd like to point out that agreement and understanding of each others viewpoint are two different things. I am very comfortable in my viewpoint to discuss my ideas with nationalists on the other side. I personally think that when people of opposing sides can discuss their positions peacefully, understand and respect each other, it represents the highest form of intellectual maturity. It is important to hear viewpoints from the other side, or one might sink into ideological stagnation. I am sure that at the present, humiliation is a large part of what you could describe as your situation. The problem is that humiliation is not a goal, it is the historical result of past actions by Arabs against Israel. Notice the difference in treatment of the Druze and Beduin and those who call themselves Palestinian Arabs. Druze and Beduin serve loyally in the IDF, participate in civil society and are generally treated well despite the cultural differences. Palestinian Arabs are treated differently because they are the people who have historically been responsible for the inflitration and terrorist attacks against Israel. Although I could hope that you represent the "majority" of Palestinian thought, I am not that naive to believe it. I judge only actions, not well meaning intentions. I have to go by the reality of the situation as I see it, not as how I want it to be. I cannot deny PLO goals or the 70 year history of wars and attempted genocide against Jews in Israel, and I cannot believe that anything has changed after seeing the bile coming out of our "peace partners" in Egypt, Jordan and the PA. I only have to remember this (or any sort of other example) to snap me into reality. It is less dehumanization than it is caution based on valid reasons. If you take a look at the genocide page, you will see "stages of genocide" I would have to say that Palestinian media and actions tell me that Palestinian society is wavering between stage five and six. Israelis generally waver between 2 and 3.

  • 1. Classification: people are divided into "us and them". "The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend... divisions."
  • 2. Symbolization: "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups... To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden… as can hate speech."
  • 3. Dehumanization: "Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder."
  • 4. Organization: "Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed... To combat this stage, membership in these militias should be outlawed."
  • 5. Polarization: "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda... Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups..."
  • 6. Identification: "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity... At this stage, a Genocide Alert must be called..."
  • 7. Extermination: "At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection."
  • 8. Denial: "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes... The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts."

Palestinian society is in shambles and the dictatorial nature of the PA government, the inability to quell terrorist organizations, the constant demonization of Israel in the PA media and indoctrination in schools and summer camps doesn't serve to show Israelis that the majority of Palestinians wish to cooperate and coexist. That is why many Jewish Israelis believe that [1] Arabs should be encouraged or made to leave. Israel doesn't need you to be hostile, Israel would very much like it if there was no conflict. In my view, you are misrepresenting the difference between cause and result. The military presense is the result of Arab hostility and promotion of violence, it was not made to establish hostility, but to prevent the damage from already existing hostility. A point about historical narratives. I think we should leave historical discussions to the end of our discussion. I have found that if we start talking about the past (with other individuals not as mature as you) it deteriorates into a pointless argument, where one party starts quoting figures and propagandists and it results in both parties being more adamant about their positions than before. I think that if we discuss the present, and the future, we will be able to find a common ground to explore and suggest to each other sources where we can find the ability to understand each other's historical narratives. This is to much of an opportunity for the both of us (at least I believe so) to discard it by referring to dry historical rhetoric. If you wish, we can return to the subjective subject of history later. Jordan, had Jewish settlement, sadly, since Mandate times, the law has been that Jews cannot live or settle in Jordan. I do not wish to discuss statistics (that much) and other parts, but part of the reason Jerusalem Arabs didn't accept Israeli citizenship was because the visa offered the same rights without the responsibilities. Plus, Jerusalem Arabs have been told to boycott participating in elections by their leaders. But I am sure you have seen that during the Oslo debacle, when Israel contemplated giving Jerusalem Arabs PA citizenship only, they raised a riot, fearing losing the benefits and economic opportunity they are able to receive from living in Israel.

What society to I envision? A constitutional theocracy based on democratic prinicples. A semi presidential system of government, a Sanhedrin (eventually) and the reinstatment of the 3rd Temple (eventually). I cannot fathom Israel not being based on democratic principles, but I see that since Israel is "democratic and Jewish", a constitutional theocracy, where the primacy of Judaism is described in a well balanced democratic constitution is the final outcome of a Jewish state.

A few comments and questions.

  • In my discourse and personal experience with like minded people, I have found that very few, save a few lonely loonies in the JTF advocate genocide against Arabs as a solution. When I consider transfer, I think of it as a humane solution, with the Armenian genocide on one side, and a professional organization of a population on another. I do not believe that it will be a picnic, but the potential to defuse the situation through separation is too enormous to give up.
  • How do you envision a two state solution, and what do you want to see in the future?
  • From what I read about Jordan, Yassar Arafat proclaimed a Republic of Palestine in the areas that he took under his control, and Jordan has until Oslo vied with him for the status as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. Is there some information I am missing? Here is a branch of the source I am speaking of [2]

Regards,

Guy Montag 04:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. Security is a major concern, but the other concern is that I cannot under any circumstances agree to leave the Cave of the Patriarchs, Rachel's Tomb, Hevron, Schem and other Jewish cities to foreign enemies. It is insulting to our national claims to surrender to Arabs the part of the Land of Israel richest with Jewish history. Have you thought about how the situation will be if the road map or whatever "peace plan" made up by other countries is implemented? Here is what I think will happen. If a Palestinian state, God forbid, ever exists in the West Bank and Gaza, I forsee a much bleaker situation. A corrupt dictatorial government will rule in the West Bank, and Hamas wlll rule in Gaza. The PA will be dependent on foreign aid and Israel, who will not trust it with any semblence of competent sovereignty, will have to employ the Palestinians from the new state. All of this will breed a resurgance of resentment hatred and violence, as Palestinians once again start blaming Israel for their situation and rally for war. Or it will serve as a launching pad for other nations to wage war against Israel. In other words, I do not see a viable Palestinian state ever existing in Judea and Samaria. I'll get back to the pictures you provided in a second, for now i have to touch on the Oslo debacle. The Jewish communities in the territories were never meant to be dismantled because Oslo was not about granting Palestinians a state, but autonomy. You were supposed to govern your affairs in your villages and towns while Israel controlled the borders and other points of national defense. Jewish communities were not part of it because Rabin foolishly thought that Arab states can accept anything other than a Judenrein state. That is another point I am interested in. Why must Jews live with Arabs, but Arabs have to have a state and an agreement which involves the transfer of 250,000 Jews out their homes? Clearly, they can't tolerate a minority in their midsts. If thats the game, I'd rather transfer Arabs instesd of Jews.

Now to your final points. I fully understand that the past is irrelevent to a present situation. I have no reason to believe that a mother who sees her son shot, will rationally think back to history and realize that this is because she lives in a society where mass murdereres are idolized in the media, and that there is an incredible pressure for children to put themselves in danger to act as a propaganda tool against Israel. She will instead curse those who fired the bullet and the present situation. But this does not mean that it is a correct way to think. For example, what is the difference between surgery and seeing someone being stabbed you in the gut? Both are bloody situations. What is the difference between self defense and murder? I would not hesitate to protect myself, my family from an attacker; I wouldn't even think twice. But coming up to someone random and shooting them or beating them to death, I would think more than twice, I'd say I am thinking something immoral. That is the difference between your examples and the one I showed to you. The only crime the Israelis who were beaten to death and then torn apart in the streets of Ramallah, were guilty of was that they made a wrong turn and were Israelis. The examples you showed were of people who were not targetted, but were cought in a crossfire, or people who were suicide bombers, or whatever. I am sure that those people died, but I am not sure why and what the circumstances were. In other words, was it surgery or was it a stabbing. Were they targetted or were they bystanders during fighting? For example, Tali Hatuel was murdered deliberatly, I cannot say the same things for any of the examples you have shown me. As I understand, Rabbi Yosef's spokesman told the media that he was talking about terrorists. I'd have to say that you are very much mistaken on Israeli society vs PA domination. The media in Israel, although monolithically left wing, is free. The PA on other hand, has full control of their media and are able to consistently bring their message into foreign organizations and the world. A dictatorship controls information better than a democracy. Palestinian society cannot be ranked less than five because the media is so closely controlled by the PA, who spout some of the vilest genocide enducing propaganda I have had the displeasure to watch.

Comments and such

No one is speaking of hounding you and dumping you in the desert. I am not about to start preaching the wonders of transfer and how peachy everything will be, or bore you with details, but I just have to mention that transfer can be organized to minimize or maximize the loss of life. I value life to much to support any solution that would involve mass murder of civilians. And although humane is a subjective word, I firmly believe based on historical experience, that in the long run, when both our nations are living far away from each other in our collective states, and we are finally at peace because we don't have much contact with each other, I'd say it was worth it.

  • I'll look a little more into the Jordan Palestine connection in our next communique.

The vision of a constitutional theocracy in Israel is not strictly my idea. It is based on the ideals of Rabbi Kook, I and others have just updated it for modern times. Some parts of the idea can be found in Jewish state. Basically, I cannot base what Jewish civilization is leading up to on transient public opinion. Jews want and need a strong nation state that is used as a vehicle to bring them closer to their religious, cultural and historical roots. Maimonides goes as far as to say that the messianic age will happen when all the Jews live in their own state free from foreign and interference and influence. I hold the existance of a realized religious Israel as the first stage to world redemption, where the nations see Israel as a moral guide and work to better the world through the moral law of God, and Israel being the spiritual example. But this is the religious and in many ways ideological goal, a goal I will do everything in my power to achieve but likely not see in my lifetime. But the first stage is a constitutional theocracy. Israel is in many ways a nascent constitutional theocracy. Israel is a Jewish state by defintion of its founding document, but this document is a rough stone which must be chisled into a diamond. This requires a good constitution. I have no doubt that some people will ideologically oppose such a direction for Israel, even though the proposed system will be democratic and in no way based on the Iranian system. I cannot do anything about this except try to convince them otherwise, and fight on the side I believe in in the culture war. I have no doubt in my mind that Jewish national consciousness will be realized, and Israel will embody this cosciousness in its values.

Regards,

Guy Montag 06:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)



Greetings. It appears that we had a slight miscommunication. As I think that the point of this conversation is to understand each other, I feel that I have to correct myself where I think I was misunderstood. But before I do this, I want to address your points. Transfer was always just one of different solutions that came up. One idea was to let Palestinians live where they do now, but to have their citizenship transferred to Jordan, as everyone in the "West Bank" had before Jordan unileterally revoked it. Israel would then annex the territories. But as always there are problems with that solution as well. Hence, the only solution I see is to do everything to encourage Palestinians to emigrate. I have no doubt that it is not a solution palatable to the other side (at least in my view, in the short run), but only this land is a Zero sum game. How the situation will turn out is not a zero sum game. I would disagree that we "never left." There was a military presense in Judea and Samaria, but nothing changed in daily lives of people living there. The mukhtars still ruled the villages and everyone lived as they did. The changes you speak of happended after suicide bombers started to penetrate into Israeli cities. Although I understand your position, I do not believe you are correct when you say that there is moral equivelancy between collateral damage and deliberate targetting of civilian targets. The "excuse" for a military presense was and always is the fact that without them Israel has what Abba Eban called Auschwitz borders. I consider it insane to trust enemies with the security of Israel.


Now I have to clear up what I mean when I say dictatorial an corrupt. You speak of the thugs from Tunis, but unless you haven't noticed, the same thugs still control the PA. I do not believe that an intelligent person such as you would believe that if Palestinian Arabs get a state in the territories, the PA will reform into a democratic government. When I speak of the society, I mean of the government instituted, not some characteristic inherent in Palestinians. There is one thing that we agree on. Palestinian society will self explode without democracy and law and order, but I do not see the PA lifting a finger to do anything about it, mostly because it plays into its interest to keep things as they are. Arafat let his dogs loose and allowed the situation to develop out of hand. The PA has 50,000 armed "policemen" at their disposal. They were not doing anything to stop terrorism because they were orchestrating it, and the controlled chaos they created served their purpose. Sure, some Palestinian terrorist groups are under influence of foreign nations like Syria and Iran, but the PA has the manpower to stop them. But it has never lifted a finger because they don't want to. The picture of helplessness you have presented doesn't correlate to the facts I have. Simply examining the reporters without borders index [3], one would find that the freedom of the press is worse than many African countries and similiar to other countries in the Middle East. In other words, controlled. Journalists are told to toe the line and journalists are intimidated to show favorable coverage. But this [4] should show you some interesting things. Take a look at (complete TV index). The PA receives 2 billion dollars in aid by the way. But you don't see most of the money because as you said, you are ruled by a bunch of thugs from Tunis.

Some questions.

  • If a Palestinian draft constitution is supposed to protect minority rights, why do they demand that 250,000 Jewish pioneers be transferred out of the territories?
  • Why should Israel trust the goodwill of an interim authority that does not even have the will to control its own people with the protection of minority rights?

It looks like we are going to have to come back to Jordan/Palestine next time. I've had a long day so I will try to finish this up tomorrow. Do I think that Palestinians are monsterous? Absolutely not. I don't think one way or the other really. I just know that for us to have normal relations as two peoples we need to be separated by distance and time.

Regards,

Guy Montag 07:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Felafel in Nablus part 2

Sorry I could not get back to you earlier, I have been very busy with work.

During Israel's control of the West Bank, Israel encouraged mukhtars who did not have revolutionary tendencies or connections with the PLO, which was and still is a terrorist organization. The leadership were of native born clan chieftains who ruled during the time of Jordan's rule over the territory. Your story fails to make sense. You claim to have lived horribly, but life did not change from the time you were under Jordanian control. You say that Palestinian Arabs are some of the most educated in the Middle East, but that education didn't come from Arab control. It came when Israel brought hospitals, sanitation and college education into the west bank. Which was itself a mistake, because the indendent minded Palestinians you speak of were cultivated in Israeli funded universities. They might as well have left you as poor felahins, like the Jordanians did, because you sure as hell didn't attempt to revolt under their rule. I firmly disagree with your attempt to equate different actions. It is international law that the responsibility of those who use human shields and hide among civilians falls on those who use such tactics, not those who reply with force. I also disagree with you when you say that it is the "it's the presence of the army itself that is the problem, not why or how they are there." I consider that an illogical circular argument. I can similiarly form an argument saying that the "presense of Arabs in Judea and Samaria is the problem, not why or how they are there", and that would be then end of that conversation. When you understand that there is a cause and effect to every action, we can discuss this further.

Jews had a vibrant culture under the thumb of Muslim rule, but culture is not something that mollifies a people without a state. Nationalists will be the first to tell you that indoor plumbing doesn't satisfy a people's thirst for national self determination. And that goes both ways. When those pesky Jews started acting up by demanding sovereignty over their ancient homeland, suddenly those great relations you speak of disappeared. Instead you getthe Hebron massacre. Arabs conquered the Middle East and now those people that want sovereignty over their ancient homeland want it back. Arab rejectionism of Jewish national aspirations are responsible for the conflict. After world war 2, Arab ideologies sprang up along side Jewish national ideology. These ideologies are mutually hostile and exclusive. Pan Arabist inspired nationalism created a rejectionist Arab supremacist ideology that rejects minority rule and aimed at creating an Arab controlled Middle East, and Islamism today inspires a homogenous Middle East ruled by an Islamist state. These ideologies cannot tolerate a Jewish state.

No one is saying anything about Palestinians being robots who fulfill a program. But denying that children infused in an atmosphere where demonization of Israel and Jews is the norm and that this atmosphere has influence on children doesn't take much to see. It is actually a well known fact. You may be a very well spoken individual, but (and I am well aware that you don't think this) not everyone has the same opportunity as you do. Not everyone in the territories is a well educated individual exposed to diffferent points of view. Experience and history has shown that this radicalization is true.

About Rabin, there is very little on my part to like about Rabin. Oslo was a disaster, we both agree about that for different reasons, but strikenly similiar too. I also agree with your analysis of the PLO leadership and the outcome, although not so much about Altalena. I give it a couple of years before the PA is replaced with Hamas.

Your understanding of Jewish pioneers in Judea and Samaria is pretty flawed. Many are there to find a better life and are not motivated by ideological reasons. 95% percent of Israeli Arabs don't like the concept of a Jewish state, but they are not thrown out of their homes. Read Israeli settlements for more information. I am not as much concerned about what a piece of paper says, as with what the writers of that piece of paper do in real life, which is advocate ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homes. Now, as you understand, I have no moral qualms about this, it is just that as long as population transfer is on the table, I'd rather move the Arab rather than my fellow Jew.

Regards,

Guy Montag 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we reached the end of our discussion for now. Shalom.

Guy Montag 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What a very interesting conversation

I just want to say I appreciate very much your presence here and your civil and articulate Talk page dialogue with Guy Montag. This goes for Guy too, I'm sure he'll see this comment. That's all I have to say right now, don't let me interrupt. : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm impressed by your forbearance - I doubt I could maintain an equally civil conversation with an unrepentant pied-noir. - Mustafaa 12:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


I've had civil conversations with Hamas supporters online as well. I'm sure one could have a civil conversation with Osama Bin-Laden. Civility means nothing.Heraclius 13:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

However, at least half of it (Ramallite's half, for those in doubt) was *highly* worth reading, and I'd like to say cheers to that. I just bookmarked Guy's commentpage, so I can read what you said over again at a future date, and compare how things were when you wrote it to how they'll be the day I read them again. Jeus 03:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly why I am not having a conversation with any of you. You are too narrowly fixated on parroting information and reinforcing your own viewpoints (Jeus) instead of talking like individuals, while Rammalite has shown enough maturity to have a candid conversation.

Guy Montag 04:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/m/User_talk%7ERamallite_Archive2_07ae.html"