I am not an expert on Islamic writing by any stretch, but I will defer to you. Does the term brother apply to Israeli peoples in the quote above?

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians...and (all) who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." The Qur'an, 2:62

You and Freeman and others claim that Israel has always displayed a moral superiority over the Arab populations and governments.

I've said that the Israeli government has behaved more morally than the Palestinians. It's a low bar.

And yet I've asked you to look at how a horribly wronged people were treated in compensatory measures and compared that with how they currently behave towards Palestinians. Have they even treated others, as they have been treated?

No, they've treated the Palestinians much better than they were treated. It ain't even close

The comparisons of Israels behaviours are pretty clear. They reflect a nonchalance towards the plight of the Palestinians and no genuine attempt to secure a positive relatonship

Perhaps they got tired of trying.

freeman3 wrote:Well, I think you were being a bit more careful in how you compared the Israeli Occupation with the Holocaust than Ricky has been. Whether it is Ricky or yourself I still think comparing the Holocaust with the conflict between Israel and Palestinians is not appropriate. The differences are staggering: (1) the Jews did nothing to harm Germany in fact they were leading contributors in science, in universities, in law, in medicine (they were objectively speaking adding a lot to Germany society), whereas the Palestinians are in a war with Israel, (2) Where you draw the line may differ, but clearly Israel needs to take measures in SELF-DEFENSE to prevent Palestinians from harming them, no such measures needed to be taken by Germany, (3) 6 million Jews were killed while the Palestinian population is growing at a fast rate

You're assessing Israel's behavior in a situation where they have great power over an enemy that has demonstrated a desire and ability to harm them. And you complain about how people are treated in that context. Does Israel take too severe of measures to control Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Yeah, but the Palestinians have been their enemy and oh by the way the last time they attempted to make peace with them the Palestinians started the Second Intifada and 1,000 Israelis were killed. Do Israels value Jewish life far more than Palestinian life. Probably (yest) but again the Palestinians are their enemy...

You want to expect Israelis to act like saints--go ahead. I think their behavior is not unreasonable in view of the overall context. I don't think other peoples would behave differently. Power over an emeny does not lead to "moral" behavior--survival behavior kicks in.

Israel has bunkered down so the Palestinians have difficulty harming them. And when they do the reprisals are so great that they have a deterrent effect. It's not nice but it's effective

Sympathy is not going to get the Palestinians, anywhere. They need to take a realistic look at things, realize they cannot beat Israel, get the best deal they can and move on from their struggle with Israel. I understand that will be almost impossible to do because any peace less than their demands will be seen as being humiliating.

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, I would not want to leading either the negotiating team of either the Palestinians or the Israelis-a peace agreement is bound to make some very unhappy.

It sounds very odd to for Israel to say it has the most moral army in the world--that it just sets itself up for criticism. What did Lord Acton say "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ". And power over people you don't like has to be even more difficult to control.

Ricky:

You and Freeman and others claim that Israel has always displayed a moral superiority over the Arab populations and governments.

ray

I've said that the Israeli government has behaved more morally than the Palestinians. It's a low bar.

Should they not aspire to more then?

The comparisons of Israels behaviours are pretty clear. They reflect a nonchalance towards the plight of the Palestinians and no genuine attempt to secure a positive relatonship

.
ray

Perhaps they got tired of trying.

Or maybe they've never really tried that hard.

And remember, the last time Israel actually did a deal, the PM was assassinated by an extremist on the Israeli side. I think that does play on the mind of any Israeli politician who might seek a compromise.

Resettlement of refugees in India: 1947–1957

Many Sikhs and Hindu Punjabis fled Western Punjab and settled in the Indian parts of Punjab and Delhi. Hindus fleeing from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) settled across Eastern India and Northeastern India, many ending up in neighboring Indian states such as West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura. Some migrants were sent to the Andaman islands where Bengalis today form the largest linguistic group.

Delhi received the largest number of refugees for a single city – the population of Delhi grew rapidly in 1947 from under 1 million (917,939) to a little less than 2 million (1,744,072) during the period 1941–1951.[48] The refugees were housed in various historical and military locations such as the Purana Qila, Red Fort, and military barracks in Kingsway Camp (around the present Delhi University). The latter became the site of one of the largest refugee camps in northern India with more than 35,000 refugees at any given time besides Kurukshetra camp near Panipat. The camp sites were later converted into permanent housing through extensive building projects undertaken by the Government of India from 1948 onwards. A number of housing colonies in Delhi came up around this period like Lajpat Nagar, Rajinder Nagar, Nizamuddin East, Punjabi Bagh, Rehgar Pura, Jangpura and Kingsway Camp. A number of schemes such as the provision of education, employment opportunities, and easy loans to start businesses were provided for the refugees at the all-India level.

Resettlement of refugees in Pakistan: 1947–1957

In the aftermath of partition, a huge population exchange occurred between the two newly formed states. About 14.5 million people crossed the borders, including 7,226,000 Muslims who came to Pakistan from India while 7,295,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan. Of the 6.5 million Muslims that came to West Pakistan (now Pakistan), about 5.3 million settled in Punjab, Pakistan and around 1.2 million settled in Sindh. The other 0.7 million Muslims went to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

Most of those migrants who settled in Punjab, Pakistan came from the neighbouring Indian regions of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh while others were from Jammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan. On the other hand, most of those migrants who arrived in Sindh were primarily of Urdu-speaking background (termed the Muhajir people) and came from the northern and central urban centres of India, such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan via the Wahgah and Munabao borders; however a limited number of Muhajirs also arrived by air and on ships. People who wished to go to India from all over Sindh awaited their departure to India by ship at the Swaminarayan temple in Karachi and were visited by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.[50]

Later in 1950s, the majority of Urdu speaking refugees who migrated after the independence were settled in the port city of Karachi in southern Sindh and in the metropolitan cities of Hyderabad, Sukkur, Nawabshah and Mirpurkhas. In addition, some Urdu-speakers settled in the cities of Punjab, mainly in Lahore, Multan, Bahawalpur and Rawalpindi. The number of migrants in Sindh was placed at over 1,167,000 of whom 617,000 went to Karachi alone. Karachi grew from a population of around 400,000 in 1947 into more than 1.3 million in 1953.

While the overall population of Palestinians is growing, many thousands Palestinians have died in the violence over the past few decades. The main real difference is the means - the Nazis employed industrial scale mass-murder, which Israel is far from doing.

Ray Jay wrote:Sure, but there will be such leaders in Israel over time. And great men and women do appear who view their mission as more important than their lives. When a time comes that such Israeli leadership is able to make a deal with the Palestinians, and even if the leader is assassinated, Israel will have democratic institutions that enforce the deal.

Even though both Kennedys and MLK were assassinated, the US did move forward. If the Israelis as a people ratify a deal, their democratic institutions will enforce it. Just like in Canada, the UK, and US, the army reports to the political leadership. The rulings of the courts are accepted.

However, the challenge is that is not the case on the Palestinian side. Abbas or his successor can make a deal, but there is no guarantee that the Palestinian institutions of government can ensure that it is followed.

This is a big part of the reason why the Israelis are reluctant to enter into an agreement. They know what they will give up, but there's no guarantee that they will get anything in return.

What are they actually giving up?

And on the other hand, while the Palestinian government (such as it is) is unable to effectively control its own territory, or to fully represent the people, it's hard for them to make promises that every single Palestinian can keep. The issue is that the only choice Israel has is the current Palestinian leadership, or no-one. They choose no-one, but just as the trend for Palestine is that the deals are getting worse, the trend for Israel is that the potential partners are less amenable over time.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

What are they actually giving up?

For Israel to make a deal they have to compromise on security and may have to give up some settlements,

and may have to allow some Palestinians to settle in Israel proper.

After they do that they may find that they get nothing in return given the dynamics on the other side.

Stepping back, one of our disconnects is that when you evaluate Israel's morality, you evaluate it under the question of the treatment of Palestinians. I agree that is relevant. However, you have to evaluate it with a much wider lens. That's why I talked about all the ways in which you can evaluate the U.S. You can look at slavery or you can look at the treatment of the Indians or the treatment of the environment. Or you can look at it from the standpoint of WWII and defeating fascism and/or defeating "communism" after that. Or you can look at democracy and the spread of capitalism and economic prosperity. How does one combine all of these disparate items into the overall morality of a nation?

When I look at Israel, I don't only look at the treatment of the Palestinians (which I agree is sometimes a black eye). I look at the fact that Israel willingly settled about 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab and African lands. These were poor people who in some cases had no where else to go. They were unskilled and were an economic burden to the new poor country. I also look at Israel willingly resettling about 1,000,000 Russian Jews. They were also initially an economic burden to the new country, although they did bring with them more skills than the earlier immigrants. In fact, as far as I can tell, relative to the size of its population, Israel has resettled more immigrants than any other country in the last 66 years. I know that is viewed as a negative in most of the world, but from the perspective of those who are resettling it is a godsend.

Israel also comes out strong when you evaluate its technological contribution to the world. They are leaders in drip irrigation, solar energy, computer technology, and desalination. As I understand it they have done a decent job of sharing such technology when others have been interested in cooperating with them.

I also judge the morality of a nation based on how they treat their own population. Israel is one of the few nations on earth that has been a Democracy since its founding. I know you pu pu the democratic institutions; they are imperfect as they are in the rest of the western world, but they are solid. Everyone votes including Israeli Arabs. There is also an impressive record on the treatment of women and gays. Finally, there is a great degree of religious freedom. Earlier you mentioned that life for Jews wasn't so bad in the early part of Stalin's reign. However, there was not religious freedom, which is fundamental to some people. There is religious freedom in Israel.

I look at the fact that Israel willingly settled about 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab and African lands. These were poor people who in some cases had no where else to go. They were unskilled and were an economic burden to the new poor country. I also look at Israel willingly resettling about 1,000,000 Russian Jews. They were also initially an economic burden to the new country, although they did bring with them more skills than the earlier immigrants. In fact, as far as I can tell, relative to the size of its population, Israel has resettled more immigrants than any other country in the last 66 years. I know that is viewed as a negative in most of the world, but from the perspective of those who are resettling it is a godsend.

Under Israel's Law of Return, any Jew who has not renounced the Jewish faith (by converting to another religion) can automatically become an Israeli citizen, somewhat similar to the way Ireland gives automatic citizenship to second or third generation descendants of Irish citizens. Gentiles may also become citizens of Israel after undergoing a standard naturalization process, much like the one required to become a United States citizen.

rickyp wrote:ray

I look at the fact that Israel willingly settled about 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab and African lands. These were poor people who in some cases had no where else to go. They were unskilled and were an economic burden to the new poor country. I also look at Israel willingly resettling about 1,000,000 Russian Jews. They were also initially an economic burden to the new country, although they did bring with them more skills than the earlier immigrants. In fact, as far as I can tell, relative to the size of its population, Israel has resettled more immigrants than any other country in the last 66 years. I know that is viewed as a negative in most of the world, but from the perspective of those who are resettling it is a godsend.

Danivon makes the points that really need to be made.
But as an aside, this is a very odd statement, especially coming from you after lecturing others on their knowledge of the history of jews... Israel\s purpose was to be a refuge for jews. They could not be turned back legally. The fact that they were poor or black or Russian really doesn't enter into it...

Under Israel's Law of Return, any Jew who has not renounced the Jewish faith (by converting to another religion) can automatically become an Israeli citizen, somewhat similar to the way Ireland gives automatic citizenship to second or third generation descendants of Irish citizens. Gentiles may also become citizens of Israel after undergoing a standard naturalization process, much like the one required to become a United States citizen.