Former Israeli PM in Favor of Divided Jerusalem

[Ajidica]

Originally Posted by del62

I am not sure if the Israelis can afford to play as loose and fast over the semantics of the meaning of the statements coming out Iran as you can,

So using a more accurate translation of that the Iranians said is playing 'fast and loose' over the meaning?

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

Iceland.

On a more serious note, the Israelis have a bit more reason to presume that their neighbours are likely to be hostile given the chance - as much as appealing to history is usually redundant, it seems equally foolish to say 'this time is different'

How do the current problems facing Israel bear any resemblence to the problems thirty-odd years ago when they invaded Lebanon? The biggest threat from their neighbors Israel has to face is from popular opinion, and their domestic policies certiantly are not doing anything to improve foreign public opinion.

[Winner]

Originally Posted by Silurian

Many countries have dreams that differ from reality.

Israel needs to deal with the reality.

If Israel continues to fight dreams it will lose touch with reality.

What? Israel keeps dealing with the reality in a realistic manner on daily basis. It's the idealists in the West who keep blathering about what it should do, usually without any clue about the situation really is like there.

---

Anyway, the idea of unilateral peace with the Palestinians, or more accurately a 'separation' is gaining ground in Israel. Many are sick of being subject to international meddling that never produces any results on the ground and so they want to create the reality themselves.

It probably won't work anyway (simply because that if you leave the West Bank to its own devices, it will soon collapse into chaos and Israel will be forced to intervene again), but I wanted to mention it here.

[Ajidica]

Israel keeps dealing with the reality in a realistic manner on daily basis.

Such as continuing to build settlements when even the US Secretary of State asked them to cease for the duration of the talks?

[Winner]

Originally Posted by Ajidica

Such as continuing to build settlements when even the US Secretary of State asked them to cease for the duration of the talks?

Yes .

[Ajidica]

Please, do explain to me how doing things that all involved parties say will damage outcome (however small) of discussions is dealing with the situation in a 'realistic manner'.

I, for one, cannot see that.

[T C]

Originally Posted by Winner

I don't care what Americans think. The Egyptians clearly want their army to "defend" against Israel. (Quotation marks because they'd prefer active defence in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, if they were confident they could win).

These would be the same Egyptians who have been at peace with Israel for many years and have even helped the Israel in their collective punishment of the people of Gaza.

[del62]

Originally Posted by Ajidica

So using a more accurate translation of that the Iranians said is playing 'fast and loose' over the meaning?

No, your translation is that of the apologists for the president and supreme leader of Iran, a country which through Hezbollah and Hamas have been carrying out a proxy war against Israel for some time.

[classical_hero]

Originally Posted by Ajidica

What neighbors making existential threats? The most anti-Israel Egyptian candidate (who has already lost) simply wanted to re-do the peace settlement. The rest look like they will continue the Mubarak platform. As long as Assad retains some control over Syria no threats are coming from there. Jordan was one of the first Arab states to make peace with Israel. The same holds true for the other countries in the area. The worst 'threat' I have seen against Israel made in the last decade by a head of state is the Iranian criticism of the 'Zionist Regime' and wishing to see it replaced. Unless you view Zionism as inseprable from the Israeli identity, the Iranian statement is on the same level as Maggie Thatcher or Ronald Reagan calling for a regime change in the Eastern Bloc.
The biggest threat to Israel is their current policy toward Palestinians which looks unsustainable and misguided.

You have to be kidding me. The term Zionist Entity is the Arab term for Israel, since if they say Israel they are recognising that they are legitimate. In reality it should be considered an ethnic slur. Also see this. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=525387

[Ajidica]

Originally Posted by del62

No, your translation is that of the apologists for the president and supreme leader of Iran, a country which through Hezbollah and Hamas have been carrying out a proxy war against Israel for some time.

Not quite. From the Guardian:

Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...02/comment.usa
The author further discusses the exact reasons why the 'accepted' translation is inaccurate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...jun/14/post155
And more information here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...l-iran-rentoul
Regardless of whether you approve of Iranian policy toward Israel and their support of militant groups, it is quite clear that Ahmadinejad did not say what you seem to think he said.

Originally Posted by classical_hero

You have to be kidding me. The term Zionist Entity is the Arab term for Israel, since if they say Israel they are recognising that they are legitimate. In reality it should be considered an ethnic slur. Also see this. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=525387

The term 'Zionist Entity' only applies to Israel if its Zionist character is inseprable from its existence as a modern nation-state.
Furthermore, how can 'Zionist Entity' be an ethnic slur? There is a large number of Jews who are distinctly not Zionist and still support the existence of the state of Israel. While all Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by classical_hero

You have to be kidding me. The term Zionist Entity is the Arab term for Israel, since if they say Israel they are recognising that they are legitimate. In reality it should be considered an ethnic slur.

I don't follow; why does the fact that some neighbouring countries use an unpleasant name when referring to Israel suggest that they represent an "existential threat"?

Originally Posted by Ajidica

The term 'Zionist Entity' only applies to Israel if its Zionist character is inseprable from its existence as a modern nation-state.

Well, arguably that is the case, at least insofar as Israel entertains a self-conception as an explicitly Zionist state, and is understood by others in similar terms. A definitive movement away from Zionism wouldn't mean the dissolution of the Israeli state, but it would in practice amount to an ideological revolution akin to, for example, the deconstruction of Unionist hegemony in Northern Ireland after the Good Friday Agreements.

[Quackers]

Adjicia you cannot trust anything from "Comment is free" seriously.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Are they going to have a Tavern Jerusalem and a Chamber Jerusalem?

[T C]

Originally Posted by Quackers

Adjicia you cannot trust anything from "Comment is free" seriously.

That is an extremely weak argument.

[Ajidica]

Originally Posted by Quackers

Adjicia you cannot trust anything from "Comment is free" seriously.

So, no comment as to the issues he raised as a problem with the 'common' translations? Or is your Farsi good enough to know he was mistaken when he clarified the statement?

[Formaldehyde]

Originally Posted by Winner

What? Israel keeps dealing with the reality in a realistic manner on daily basis. It's the idealists in the West who keep blathering about what it should do, usually without any clue about the situation really is like there.

Unlike those who have even advocated that Palestinians be forcibly relocated someplace else?

Originally Posted by Ajidica

So, no comment as to the issues he raised as a problem with the 'common' translations? Or is your Farsi good enough to know he was mistaken when he clarified the statement?

One would think those who use Iran as an excuse to condone Israeli governmental acts against Palestinians and other Muslims would have learned by now to update that particular rhetoric given how discredited it has become.

[taillesskangaru]

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Unlike those who have even advocated that Palestinians be forcibly relocated someplace else?

Well, granted, it is easier than a "peace agreement", especially when people can't agree on what "peace" is supposed to mean. It's a fine plan you're not bothered by arcane concepts like justice.

[Winner]

Originally Posted by T C

These would be the same Egyptians who have been at peace with Israel for many years and have even helped the Israel in their collective punishment of the people of Gaza.

So? Egypt and Israel are at peace, but it's a "Cold Peace" - there is no neighbourly love between the two states. At the same time, Egypt insists on maintaining a standing army many times larger that that of Israel, without facing any credible threats. Do the math. Especially now, Gods only know who will end up running Egypt and whether they'll chose to keep the peace with Israel or not.

Originally Posted by taillesskangaru

Well, granted, it is easier than a "peace agreement", especially when people can't agree on what "peace" is supposed to mean. It's a fine plan you're not bothered by arcane concepts like justice.

Oh there would be a lot of justice involved in that. Just not that sort of justice you believe in. In any case, should justice stand in the way of peace? Not just in this case, but generally.

[classical_hero]

Originally Posted by Ajidica

The term 'Zionist Entity' only applies to Israel if its Zionist character is inseprable from its existence as a modern nation-state.
Furthermore, how can 'Zionist Entity' be an ethnic slur? There is a large number of Jews who are distinctly not Zionist and still support the existence of the state of Israel. While all Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists.

Even Dr Martin Luther King Jr recognised the fact when people are talking about Zionism, they are really talking about the Jews. http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

This is a letter from someone who knew Dr King very well.

Once again, the words of King ran through my memory, “I solemnly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews-because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all.”

During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

[del62]

The Guardian is not the great newspaper it was and sometimes allows articles by peddlers of anti-semitism, so I wont be looking at the Guardian links if you don't mind.

[Kaiserguard]

Originally Posted by Winner

So? Egypt and Israel are at peace, but it's a "Cold Peace" - there is no neighbourly love between the two states. At the same time, Egypt insists on maintaining a standing army many times larger that that of Israel, without facing any credible threats. Do the math. Especially now, Gods only know who will end up running Egypt and whether they'll chose to keep the peace with Israel or not.

What does Egypt gain from war with Israel? They probably can't even reach Eilat before getting nuked.