Flying is proof of Freedom, was: Happy Fourth, Folks!

Oh boy. I feel obligated to reply, so here goes:

Pac sezs:

Not off topic, the subject is declaring independence from tyranny.

The thread was a loose spun conglomeration of many issues. Freedom from
tyranny is the one you seem to have taken to, in the context of aviation.
OK, I'll keep that in mind.

Freedom to fly is in my mind is a great example of a higher form of
unfettered freedom.

Yes. I used to feel free while riding my motorcycle. Now when I go biking
I feel more free than in a car, but still "glued to the ground" (Dwayne
O'brien reference).

I believe it epitomizes total freedom since it
can always be argued that personal freedom to fly does not benefit the
party or the peasants at large. You gentlemen have eloquently
addressed it with your insightful posts. I very much enjoyed it. The

Thank you for your compliments. However, where are you going with the "does
not benefit..." comment? I don't generally think of my freedom as something
that depends on the relative lack of freedom of others.

only interjection I would like to make is this: I can think of no
other critical thing to fight for in this world than oil. Oil in the
wrong hands provides virtually unlimited funds for WMD development
whether any proof exists or not. The fact that a despot has billions
within his reach and is aggressive is reason enough for me to support
the administration's wag that we should again become global cop yet
again, and crank up the 40-year old B-52's for another possible

IMHO, oil is connected to the decision to war with Iraq precisely for this
reason, and all other reasons pale in comparison. While the North Koreans
starve their people in order to have enough resources to pursue their
weapons programs, despots in control of oil like Saddam have the luxury of
unlimited resources at their disposal. That's what made Saddam so dangerous
if we would have simply rolled over.

military misadventure. Just like real cops, global cop will make
mistakes and innocent people will have their lives ruined. It is
unfortunate fallout of Freedom, but one I soberly accept.


It hurts, but I agree here. A war was necessary to remove Saddam as a
threat, to us, to the region, and to the Iraqi people.

Secondly, I have, like many Americans, felt we should not support
Israel in any shape or form unless they recall the methods they used
to gain a homeland, many many years ago, and agree to give the
Palestinians sovereignty (recognize a Pal. state with hard Pal.

Are you saying that Israel has no right to exist? Not recognizing each
party's right to exist is a fundamental roadblock to peace. What methods
used to gain a homeland are you objecting to? There are a lot of
misconceptions about the way Israel was settled and became a state, and who
was displaced on the Arab side. I won't try to explain all of my views
about this right here, but if you want to know more about my understanding
of history, check this site out: http://www.eretzyisroel.org


borders.) If Sharrone and his party refuse and he "is pushed into the
sea," so be it.

Whoa! Hold on. First of all, this shows me that you're not trying to
understand the complexities of the situation nor empathise with both sides.
You are seem to be saying that you're willing to damn Israelis to a death
sentence. This attitude is dispicable, and I hope that you would be willing
to study the situation more, gain an understanding of both people, try to
balance your beliefs and change your mind. Kill 'em all is not an option -
morally or pragmatically, for either side. Please see that.

This is a different world now, that we have been
dragged into. As more and more members of the nuclear club pop up,
hard-liner positions, if allowed to stalemate any real resolution, are
going to sooner or later end in the unthinkable. Small tac nukes
exist, the rusting iron curtain remnants are penniless... individual
underworld figures will not loose any sleep over an immoral sale ...
You connect the dots. Prior to 911 you would be laughed out of any
security meeting if you had suggested that box-cutters would bring
down some of our greatest icons.

But then again what do I know? I'm just a Yankee Doodle Dandy that
does not allow the liberal media to tell me what to think.

Pacpyer
Desert Shield/Desert Storm CATAF

Pac, yes this is a dangerous world we are living in. America suddenly found
out it has enemies with surprising strength on 9/11, and its administration
is doing what it thinks is most prudent given their understanding, knowledge
and capabilities. Whatever you think of the current administration and its
actions, we are lucky to be living in a country like the United States, with
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom to vote. It's not
a perfect system, but it's the best thing out there. If you're not happy,
be loud about it. Have conversations about the issues. Try to influence
people. Vote.

But please, please, please, educate yourself - don't indoctorinate yourself.
This means being skeptical and trying to see things from different
perspectives. You can do this by exposing yourself to a variety of
different media outlets, personal research, and best of all, travelling and
speaking with people of different opinions. This ties back to aviation
beautifully - nothing else has connected people globally as much as the
invention of the airplane, and by conquering geography, nothing else has the
potential to foster more understanding. We just need to fly more :-)

Blue Skies,
Aviv

Pac,
I don't think I misrepresented what you said. I just took what you said
and followed the logic. This was my thought process:

Pac said:
I have, like many Americans, felt we should not support
Israel in any shape or form unless they recall the methods they used
to gain a homeland, many many years ago, and agree to give the
Palestinians sovereignty (recognize a Pal. state with hard Pal.

This does not say that Israel has no right to exist, but following the
logic, if you believe that the way Israel came to be is illigitimate, then
that would also mean that you believe that Israel is illigitimate. If
that's not what you meant, then please shed some light on what you did mean
by this expression.

A history lesson, albeit from Israel's point of view:

Modern Israel came to be after millenia of sustained presence in the region.
Most of the Jews were spread out all over the world in the Diaspora, but
especially to Arab, North African, European, and North American countries.
However, a small group of Jews always stayed in the region. In the late
19th century, in response to ever increasing hostility toward the Jews in
Europe, Theodore Hertzl's Zionist (Jewish nationalist) movement began. Jews
from the Diaspora began joining their fellow Jews in the region under the
Ottoman Empire rule, buying land and settling down. Do you object to this
so far?

Then, after WWI, the British controlled what is now Israel and Jordan. The
land east of the Jordan river was completely forbidden to Jews and became an
Arab state. The Jews were severely restricted from entering the region, but
many tried anyway. Could you blame them? European countries were hostile
to Jews to the point of Genocide, no Arab country would take them, and even
the United States was not terribly welcoming. Ever hear of the ship Exodus?
Can you fault the future Israelis here?

Now, the moment of truth. May 1948. The British withdraw from their
mandate of the region, and the United Nations votes to partition the land
into two - a Jewish state called Israel and an Arab state called Jordan. Do
you think this process was flawed? How else could this have been resolved?

The next day, rejecting the partition plan, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, et al. attacked Israel in an attempt to push the Jews into the
sea. I am not being melodramatic here - this was their stated goal. So,
there was a war, Israel survived, the Arab armies were defeated, and arabs
that lived in newly won Israeli territories either fled to Arab states or
stayed and became Israeli citizens. The ones that stayed in Israel now
represent 20% of Israelis and are a powerful political force in the Israeli
parliment.

About 750,000 arabs fled Israel into Arab countries. Conversely, about
600,000 Jews fled Arab countries into Israel. History was not kind to
either of these groups, but the difference is that the Jews were absorbed
and welcomed into Israel, while the palestinians inexclicably are still
living in refugee camps (poor cities, really) in the surrounding Arab
countries.

So I ask again, what is illegitimate about this? How else could this
conflict have come to a resolution?

Fast forward fifty years, 4 wars, and one occupation later. The
Palestinians have grown a very strong national identity (which they didn't
really have in 1948 - they just considered themselves Arab), and they want
their own state and will not be satisfied with Jordanian, Egyptian,
Lebanese, or Syrian citizenship. That's understandable. That's what the
peace process is all about. Israel has always welcomed overtures of peace,
it's just that no peace overtures were made at all until Oslo. Even then,
Israel was dealing with Yasser Arafat, a noted terrorist with a lot of blood
directly on his hands, yet Israel negotiated with him anyway. He ostensibly
made the transition to statesman, so his record was set aside.

The Oslo process, after much hand wringing, hit its pinnacle with the 2000
plan for a Palestinian state. This was rejected by Arafat and NO
COUNTEROFFER was made. I don't know of a faster way to kill hopes of peace.
He returned to his office in Rammallah, and apparently has decided that the
Palestinians can gain more through a continuation of terror. He has said so
very recently, in so many words. He has said so with the propoganda
broadcast by the Palestinian Authority Television, which he controls. LOTS
of music videos about suicide bombers there.

So we are at the current impasse. The United States and Israel are united
on at least one point - whatever the eventual agreement for a Palestinian
state will be, its terms cannot be dictated by terrorists. Period. This is
another reason that the United States has been so supportive of Israel.

Pac, I have to point out that I do equate cutting off support to Israel as
damning Israel. If you didn't think that this would be the case and it was
not your intention to imply that noncompliance with America's terms should
result in letting Israel be pushed into the sea, then I don't take any
offense.

However, please realize that there are more issues than the Palestinian
issue. Don't forget that Israel is surrounded by powerful neighbors with
strong armies. When you said "if Israel rejects [ the U.S. Palestinan peace
resolution ] this confirms to me they are the most unreasonable agitator in
the region, then let them defend themselves." that implied that you are
willing to leave Israel fending for itself among its hostile neighbors.
Remember, weakness spells bloodshed in the middle east. I don't think you
want that. I don't think anyone wants that.

Also, which side rejected the U.S. backed proposal in 2000? Did that side
prove to you with this action that they are the "most unreasonable agitator
in the region" and that we should let them defend themselves?

So once again I think we are off topic, but hopefully this was profitable to
follow for people interested in the region and in peace. It does help to go
through the arguments in order to understand the other side.


Blue Skies,

-Aviv





"pac plyer" wrote in message
om...
Aviv,

No need to misrepresent what I posted. No one said anything about not
recognizing Israel's right to exist. No one said
anything close to "kill em all." You seem to be making the assumption
that cutting off support to Israel is the same as
"damning them". I made no such comment. I do not wish to commence
"damning" anyone. I do however, feel dictating a
resolution is in fact a reasonable role for the U.S. to play. If
Israel rejects it, this confirms to me they are the most unreasonable
agitator in the region, then let them defend themselves.

Aviv,

Sorry did not get back to you, was busy fighting windmills. I think
many of your points are very valid and that you're a very reasonable
and intelligent guy. I don't feel Israel is illegitimate! However, I
fear funding Israel merely emboldens them to be more aggressive,
perpetuating endless violence. The underdog here in my mind is the
Palestinians. Although we, the U.S. will not negotiate with
terrorists, we old Americans have a penchant for sticking up for the
underdog. (remember WWII?) My family is all from North Carolina and
has roots on both sides back to Jamestown in the 1600's. In the
1700's, many Revolutionaries like Ben Franklin, were considered by the
Royal Crown to be "terrorists" or translated: "rebels." So the term
"terrorist" in my mind is a very relative term. I suspect anyone who
commits acts that threaten others lives or security could be
considered a "terrorist" by someone somewhere. (But CNN is deluded to
reject the use of the term altogether!)

Underdogs have extremist elements in their ranks which make life
terrible for the rest of their population. So I guess I should give
up on solving the world's problems and accept the paleontologist view
of the world:

"No single species has ever ruled this planet for more than a few
million years.
And Homo Sapien is not going to be the first!"


Aviv, I wish the best for you, and for Israel. Enjoyed the banter.

Very Best Regards,

pacplyer

"pac plyer" wrote in message
om...
Aviv,

Sorry did not get back to you, was busy fighting windmills. I think
many of your points are very valid and that you're a very reasonable
and intelligent guy.

Thank you. The feeling is mutual.

I don't feel Israel is illegitimate!

Good. This is critical for any reasonable discussion about the conflict.

However, I
fear funding Israel merely emboldens them to be more aggressive,
perpetuating endless violence.

The word 'perpetuating' suggests that Israel has the power to single
handedly stop the 'endless violence'. I disagree. I just hope that our
exchange highlighted that the whole thing is complicated, and that no single
move by either side will stop the violence. There has to be a process to
gain trust, and this includes both sides taking care of their own
extremists.

The underdog here in my mind is the
Palestinians.

This is where our perspective differs, and that's fine. However, I'd like
to point out that I'm less intersted in labeling either side 'victim' or
'terrorist' and more intersted in finding a pragmatic political solution. I
think this is where we agree, and it's by far more important.

Although we, the U.S. will not negotiate with
terrorists, we old Americans have a penchant for sticking up for the
underdog. (remember WWII?) My family is all from North Carolina and
has roots on both sides back to Jamestown in the 1600's. In the
1700's, many Revolutionaries like Ben Franklin, were considered by the
Royal Crown to be "terrorists" or translated: "rebels." So the term
"terrorist" in my mind is a very relative term.

I can see your point about perspective, but does ANYONE deserve to be bombed
while eating pizza with their children? To be ripped to shreds while
celebrating a holiday with family? To be killed in cold blood on the bus to
work? To be murdered in their own home by knife wielding 'Shahid?' Did
anyone here deserve 9/11? I don't see a moral equivalence between current
Palestinian terrorist tactics and the American struggle for independence
from England. There is a way to solve this conflict diplomatically, but
this is not going to happen so long as we grant terrorist acts any bit of
legitimacy. I am not willing to accept it under any circumstances. I know
you don't think that the above terrorist murders were justified - you
merely recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian desire for a state of
their own. I do too. But we need to be careful not to send the message
that terrorist murders are 'understandable' given a particular grievance.
Terrorism is NEVER justified. Ghandi did not use suicide bombings, yet he
had a legitimate grievance. He got a lot further with his tactics of
nonviolence.

I suspect anyone who
commits acts that threaten others lives or security could be
considered a "terrorist" by someone somewhere. (But CNN is deluded to
reject the use of the term altogether!)

We can go on about the semantics of the definition of 'terrorist' all we
want, but in my value system, the killing of RANDOM people as a lash out for
your cause is a terrorist act. The fact that CNN is no longer using the word
to describe clearly terrorist attacks irks me to no end.

As an aside, if you want to do a comparison between the violence inflicted
by Israel on Palestinians versus the violence done by Palestinians on
Israelis, take a look at this link:

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/resea...m?researchid=2

What you should notice is that the population of Israelis killed by
Palestinians cuts across the board with respect to age and sex. The
statistics clearly show indescriminate killing. Compare this with
Palestinian casualties. Virtually all killed on the palestinian side are
male (95%) and young. In fact, there is a huge jump in the number of deaths
of Palestinians after the age of group of 15-19 (graph 2.29).

This erases moral equivalency for me. Terrorist violence is by definition
indescriminate. The statistics tell a very clear story of which side is
lashing out in terrorist violence. Something tells me that if you did a
similar study on revolutionary war violence, you would not find that the
Americans killed random people on the street. Hence, American
revolutionaries did not, on the whole, use terrorist violence and hence were
not terrorists.

Having said that, I wish to express my dismay at the continuation of killing
on both sides. If there is strong enough political will to go through with
the road map, then the killing will stop and the conflict can draw to a
close. It ain't gonna be easy, though. This is where the United States and
the Quartet comes in. To help create the political will. It seems to be
working better than anyone ever imagined so far.

Underdogs have extremist elements in their ranks which make life
terrible for the rest of their population.

Yes.

So I guess I should give
up on solving the world's problems and accept the paleontologist view
of the world:

"No single species has ever ruled this planet for more than a few
million years.
And Homo Sapien is not going to be the first!"


No! Don't give up. Sheesh... I'm Israeli and I haven't given up... :-)
I think we both want the same ultimate goal: more justice, security, and
stability in this world. I think it is important to keep pressing for
(better word than 'fighting for') peace. In the Israeli-Palestinian
context, I think the Road Map is correct. Terrorism must be eliminated
first in order to achieve a peace. We can't make excuses for it, because it
has always been the principle agent for stopping peace.


Aviv, I wish the best for you, and for Israel. Enjoyed the banter.

Very Best Regards,

pacplyer

Enjoyed it too, Pac.

-Aviv