THE WAR IN GAZA

@georgeob1,

georgeob said

Quote:

I think you need to refresh yourself on the details of the history of the period: you are dead wrong on most of the key points here.

george, sometimes you display a subtlety that drops my jaw.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Bad news for the United States. AIPAC will redouble its efforts to lead our country by its nose, making us ever more a stooge for the Zionist ambitions of the extreme right wing of Israeli politics. So far it doesn't appear that Obama, who has not yet shown the balls to take on even Nancy Pelosi, will do much to resist.

Do not worry, your opinion, as expounded above, will have much company in the months ahead. Opinions regarding Israel, in my mind, are like a toggle switch, either for Israel or against her. There does not seem to be much middle ground. Your opinion will be in the majority, since this country still has a large population, I believe, that resents seeing Jews give up their historical image of "timid." Surprisingly, in urban Catholic America, where there is the most familiarity with American Jews, I believe, this sentiment finds its most ardent supporters. Perhaps, it is an atavistic trait from Catholic anti-Semitic Europe?

That is an unwarranted and contemptible slander. If you said it to my face you would soon find yourself looking at the sky through bloodshot eyes. Moreover, I think that you know that it is untrue. Interestingly you managed to provide a pointed example of your own prejudices (as well as an odd preoccupation with the supposed timidity of Jews) while falsely accusing me of the same thing.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

You use the word, "conspiring" , FDR with Churchill, criminy George, they were our allies! I think "communicating with" would be a much better choice of words than "conspiring."

You certainly are aware that the USA become a member of the Allies against the Axis powers on December 8, 1941? And the UK on September 3, 1939?

Weird reasoning, Walter. Britain and the U.S. were obviously allies before 1941, but we did not join the war and sign on officially as active participants together until the date you give. But to claim we were not allies, and that FDR and Churchill were "conspiring" is mighty weird language to use.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

Seeing the eventual necessity or probability of going to war does not indicate an anxiousness for doing it. I am surprised at the amount of revisionist history on the internet. My parents were visiting Europe, in Scandanavia in 1938 - 39, and they were told to come back to the U.S. right away, ahead of schedule. It was as if everyone knew what was going to happen. Yet, FDR did nothing for another 3 years, in terms of direct involvement. Hitler was having a cakewalk in the park for a good long while. He conquered Denmark in a matter of hours. Any sane president watching this would have to want to see this stuff stopped, eventually.

Denmark was invaded in April 1940 - half a year after the war started.

When did I say anything to contradict that, Walter?

Quote:

I'm rather sure that not only the British Admiralty viewed Scandinavia as a potential theatre of war in a future conflict with Germany ... in the late 1930's.

And......? How does that contradict anything I said?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

okie wrote:

You say I don't have my facts straight, but then you confirm my conclusion to a large extent. Hitler, I think, had every intent on taking Britain by ground invasion after he pounded them into submission in short order with the Luftwaffe, but surprising, the Brits dug in and although riddled, they were not beaten, and they kept turning out more aircraft at an unexpected rate. The main problem was having enough pilots, but in the end, they did enough damage to survive that Hitler decided to turn his attention elsewhere after he decided it would not be a cakewalk in the park. I believe alot of the credit goes to Winston Churchill, not much doubt, and if the U.S. had stepped further up to the plate sooner, it would not have been so severe of a test for them.
A rather rambling way to say that you now agree with me, but OK by me.

Fine, I got the impression you were correcting me, but then seemed to agree with me, and now you claim I have come full circle or something and now agree with you. I have been consistent here with what I have written, so I don't know what you are trying to prove here? But anyway, good, I am finally glad you agree that we agree.

Quote:

okie wrote:

Sheesh, FDR had to be drug kicking and screaming into the war, Steve, but thankfully we helped save Europe.

You use the word, "conspiring" , FDR with Churchill, criminy George, they were our allies! I think "communicating with" would be a much better choice of words than "conspiring." Sure, FDR saw the troubles ahead, and war was raging while we sat here, and only a sane president would begin to take the proper preparations, so I do not see this as evidence he was chomping at the bit to go to war. I think there was some thought that we might eventually be attacked here, explaining some of the preparation. From what I have read, I do not believe he was anxious for it at all, but finally there was no alternative. If he had been anxious, he had ample chance to do it sooner. You point out public opinion, fine, but I think it was partly his opinion as well. If he was here, we could ask him, but otherwise we can only look at his actions, and they don't seem to support the idea that he was in a rush to go to war.
I think you need to refresh yourself on the details of the history of the period: you are dead wrong on most of the key points here.

Most of the points? I don't think I discussed more than about one central point, that being how anxious FDR was to go to war. I concede I may need to backtrack on that, maybe, to a point. He could not have been all that fired up over it, because he did not until we had to, but I have been reading the apparent conventional wisdom that he was very anxious to get involved. I did not recall that from my parents recounting the war, and I do not recall that from a book I recently read, but I will have to read it again.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, here is an opinion that is closer to mine, in regard to FDR and his approach leading up to WWII. I think it is very reasoned and logical. And again I remind, actions speak louder than words. We only entered the war by virtually being pushed into it without any choice.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KNN/is_49/ai_n28048838

"Reappraising FDR's approach to World War II in Europe"

"A survey of Franklin D. Roosevelt's strategic thinking prior to American entry into World War II reveals that the traditional historical narratives present a false dichotomy. Typically, FDR is portrayed either as an isolationist and reluctant belligerent being pushed into the war, or as an ardent interventionist seeking to enter the war by almost any means. Rather, FDR blended both of these policies into a coherent and consistent strategic approach toward the situation in Europe. Although his actions seemed to draw the United States inexorably into deeper involvement in the European war, FDR continued to pursue his goal of keeping the United States out of the conflict. Rather than dissembling or wavering, Roosevelt charted a steady and rational approach based on his strategic perspective."

0 Replies

Here is an interesting piece that validates Israel's retalitory invasions of Lebanon and Gaza.

Are Hamas, Hezbollah Ready for Long 'Hudna'?
By NADIM KOTECIHPublished: March 17, 2009
HEZBOLLAH HALTS MISSILE ATTACKS -- Hezbollah has not fired a single rocket from southern Lebanon or any other place into Israel since the summer 2006 war came to a halt.

BEIRUT -- From Gaza to the Dahieh (Hezbollah-controlled southern suburb of Beirut) a new fact seems to be emerging. Hamas and Hezbollah feel they are forced to abide by part of the international community conditions: Freezing violence while resiliently refusing to recognize Israel.

Hamas, which is part of a Palestinian national dialogue taking place in Cairo to form a unity government with Fatah, vowed it won't recognize Israel and won't abide by previous commitments made by either Fatah or the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) saying, nonetheless, it will only "respect" them. Putting respect versus abidance is merely a linguistic maneuver that, in essence, resembles Hamas's refusal of PLO commitments.

The PLO which agreed to the Oslo accords with Israel in 1993 had committed to recognize Israel and abandon militant struggle.

However, while Hamas is loud about not recognizing Israel, it is interesting to note that the Islamic movement warned Gaza residents last week that it will act against those responsible for the "ill-timed" rocket firing into Israel. Some Gazans, mainly from the Islamic Jihad movement, were reportedly arrested, questioned and forced to sign obligations not to carry out attacks and to notify "authorities" of those who do or give order to do so.

Hezbollah seems to be on the same page.

The party's secretary general said his movement would never recognize Israel, rejecting a U.S. precondition for dialogue with the group that Washington considers a terrorist organization.

Nasrallah was referring to new reports that the United States expressed readiness to conduct dialogue with Hezbollah provided that the movement recognizes Israel and abandons violence.

"We reject the American conditions.... Today, tomorrow and after 1,000 years and even until the end of time, as long as Hezbollah exists, it will never recognize Israel," Nasrallah said, days ago at a rally celebrating the birthday of the Prophet Mohammad.

But what about the other condition: abandoning violence? Nasrallah used general emotional terms in stating what resistance (synonym to violence in the U.S. political lingo) corresponds to his party.

"Resistance is not to be abandoned. It is our dignity, existence and the holiest of what we carry."

Notwithstanding, Hezbollah did not fire one rocket from south Lebanon or any other place into Israel since the military activities of the July 2006 war came to a halt. Even when some Katyusha projectiles were fired into Israel from Lebanon during the last Gaza war and right after, Hezbollah was always among the first parties to deny any connection to these incidents.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 ended the bloodiest fight between Hezbollah and Israel and it embraced the "unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on August 7, 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in south Lebanon...." Another International force of 15,000 officers was deployed changing the whole situation on the ground which Hezbollah managed to vest in for decades.

"Those who don't want to fight," Nasrallah added "should not legitimize Israel or concede defeat, because the coming generations will stand and fight."

Hence, akin to Hamas, Hezbollah realizes the facts on the ground and seems to have come to the same conclusion: While fighting was made so hard, "we" are not forced to bestow legitimacy on Israel. Contrary to that "we" will keep investing in the animosity till the facts on the ground change one day.

Does this mean accepting a long term "Hudna" (truce) is in the horizon?

Hamas has already done it before and the ongoing talks in Egypt tackled the duration of this hudna. Some leaders of Hamas expressed in the past the movement's readiness for a 30 years hudna as part of a negotiated settlement with Israel.

For Hezbollah it might be easier. Lebanon and Israel already signed an armistice agreement on March 23, 1949. The Lebanese government has already requested that "(t)he U.N., in cooperation with the relevant parties, will undertake the necessary measures to once again put into effect the Armistice Agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel in 1949, and to insure adherence to the provisions of that agreement, as well as to explore possible amendments to or development of said provisions, as necessary." This request was endorsed, among others, in the UNSCR 1701.

While Hezbollah has rarely displayed commitment to state regulations when it comes to its struggle with Israel, the concept "hudna" might adhere to some theological dimensions in its ideology and, hence, facilitate its acceptance. Hudna is the Islamic concept and framework which controls and advices the relation with the "enemies of Islam" in times of no war.

Hudna is not peace. True. But solving the problem in the Middle East in one shot is not reasonable as well. Nevertheless, the long term hudna, if materialized, might be an opportunity for moderates and rejectionists to try to change the facts on the ground and I'm sure the former have better answers to offer to their societies.

I don't recommend talking to either Hamas or Hezbollah. Both movements seem to have started to partly accept International conditions even before any talks have started.

Talking about this hudna should start with Syria and Iran as part of their essential commitments toward the international community. Strategies, programs and policies will be developed later to assure that moderation prevails.

--

Nadim Koteich is a political analyst and host of "Studio 24," a daily prime time news analysis show that airs on the pan-Arab Future News channel, headquartered in Beirut. His e-mail is [email protected]

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate, this is one issue I agree with you. And one thing I have noticed over the years in regard to these organizations that represent the Palestinians, they seldom keep promises. And it was a known fact that PLO guy, Arafat, would speak out of both sides of his mouth, say one thing to us or the U.N., or Israel, and then go back and talk to his people and say things totally opposite. As I recall, this was standard operating procedure. There is no way that any of these people can be counted on to be trusted or to make peace. I've not seen any yet, not in my observation of the last few decades. Anwar Sadat of Egypt was one exception, if Israels enemy nations over the years can be reviewed, but we know what happened to him, it resulted in his assassination.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Interesting. First it's we won't talk to (or negotiate with ) them while they are firing rockets at us. Now, after Gaza has been largely destroyed and the rockets have stopped, the theme has (predictably) changed. Now it' s they (the Palestinians) are inherently untrustworthy, and therefore we won't talk to them.

Later the Palestinians will resume the rocket firing and.....

Meanwhile the United States will continue to foot the bill for all this in terms of new threats to our security, trade and political stature in the world -- all while our coddled bully client state in Israel continues to risk our money & security in continued attempts to achieve its own selfish objectives without regard to basic principles of justice and humanity.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Foofie wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Bad news for the United States. AIPAC will redouble its efforts to lead our country by its nose, making us ever more a stooge for the Zionist ambitions of the extreme right wing of Israeli politics. So far it doesn't appear that Obama, who has not yet shown the balls to take on even Nancy Pelosi, will do much to resist.

Do not worry, your opinion, as expounded above, will have much company in the months ahead. Opinions regarding Israel, in my mind, are like a toggle switch, either for Israel or against her. There does not seem to be much middle ground. Your opinion will be in the majority, since this country still has a large population, I believe, that resents seeing Jews give up their historical image of "timid." Surprisingly, in urban Catholic America, where there is the most familiarity with American Jews, I believe, this sentiment finds its most ardent supporters. Perhaps, it is an atavistic trait from Catholic anti-Semitic Europe?

That is an unwarranted and contemptible slander. If you said it to my face you would soon find yourself looking at the sky through bloodshot eyes. Moreover, I think that you know that it is untrue. Interestingly you managed to provide a pointed example of your own prejudices (as well as an odd preoccupation with the supposed timidity of Jews) while falsely accusing me of the same thing.

Not slander at all. I am not referring to you, nor ascribing to you anything other than having a large population with an allied opinion. If that allied opinion is based on a long history of anti-Semitism, in my opinion, that has nothing to do with what motivates YOUR opinion.

And are the following comments from your comments above, "AIPAC will redouble its efforts to lead our country by its nose, making us ever more a stooge for the Zionist ambitions" complimentary to American Jews? Jews making Americans "stooges"? "Lead our country by its nose"? You are making offensive comments about the American Jewish community that supports AIPAC, and you take umbrage with my opinion that American urban Catholics have a long history in its community of anti-Semitism (like in the past praying for the conversion of the Jews).

That is my opinion. It is not slanderous. You might not like it; however I am talking about a community's history. That does not mean everyone in the community, but enough individuals within the community, so it is an accepted part of urban social history.

And your comment about getting physical is your version of philo-Semitism? You do not like my opinion of the urban American Catholic community. That is my opinion, based on family that has lived here since the late 1800's. That is not slanderous. It is my opinion, that I am entitled to. Your hostile replies will not change that opinion, nor should it.

Also, the reason I say "urban" American Catholics is because my obervations have led me to think that many urban settings have Catholics as the long-time top dog group. Any Jews in the community are often treated with suspicion, inasmuch as there is a saying, "Jews take over." So in some ways the two groups have been competing in some urban settings, and the historical rivalry has only exacerbated any anti-Semitism that was emotional baggage from Europe.

Sorry, if my bluntness offends you. I would have thought you would be more amenable to my honesty about antagonisms between certain groups that only recently are less overt (they are still there though).

Also, please be specific as to what you are referring to when you say, "that is unwarranted and contemptible slander," since I am not sure what you specifically are referring to? My opinion of the historical anti-Semitism in the urban American Catholic community? Did you not spend decades in the military where people seem to get along? Civilian life is different.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Now it' s they (the Palestinians) are inherently untrustworthy, and therefore we won't talk to them.

George, where is your evidence that they keep their word? Or that they desire peaceful co-existence? Where is it?

1 Reply

More or less an aside:

Cologne/Germany is twinned with Tel Aviv as well as with Bethlehem.
And schools from all three towns are engaged in an exchange of pupils.

This year, Palestinian and Israeli high school pupils are together in a German 'Gymnasium' (high school/grammar school), joining a German class.

No problems at all but great fun ... and a lot of talking.

The Palestinian pupils arrived a bit later than thought: it took them two days to get from Bethlehem to their "nearest" airport, Amman/Jordan. Including a long stop at the border.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Now it' s they (the Palestinians) are inherently untrustworthy, and therefore we won't talk to them.

George, where is your evidence that they keep their word? Or that they desire peaceful co-existence? Where is it?

I think you are missing the point here. Just what are the conditions under which the Israelis will talk to or negotiate with the representatives of the palestinian people? Do any such conditions exist??

For about 42 years now the Israelis have limited or restricted any dialogue or negoitiations with the Palestinians, during which time they have seized and taken over more than half of the territory of the former West Bank, making of it an exclusively Jewish zone. Throughout this period there has been continuous conflict during which hundreds of Palestinains have lost their lives for every Israeli killed, and throughout the Israelis have defended themselves by insisting that they are ready to negotiate a peace if only the Palestinians would behave.

What conclusions should a reasonable observer draw from these facts?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

How do you negotiate with someone that you know ahead of time wants your demise? Unless you change this basic problem embedded into any potential negotiations, any potential negotiation will never go anywhere.

George, I am simply looking at the simple facts here. The dynamics of the foundation of the issue is out of whack, and until those dynamics are changed, anything built upon that foundation is destined to fail. The dynamic that I am talking about is the exermination of Israel. When you can provide evidence, good evidence, that the elected Hamas actually has decided not to exterminate Israel, let me know, and then there might be some basis for Israel to negotiate at that point. Any negotiation without that is a waste of time.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

How do you negotiate with someone that you know ahead of time wants your demise? Unless you change this basic problem embedded into any potential negotiations, any potential negotiation will never go anywhere.

Well, if you are so perceptive as to "know ahead of time" that your opponent won't negotiate, then I suppose you don't need any proof. Tell me what has given the Israelis and their supporters this super human power?

okie wrote:

George, I am simply looking at the simple facts here. The dynamics of the foundation of the issue is out of whack, and until those dynamics are changed, anything built upon that foundation is destined to fail. The dynamic that I am talking about is the exermination of Israel. When you can provide evidence, good evidence, that the elected Hamas actually has decided not to exterminate Israel, let me know, and then there might be some basis for Israel to negotiate at that point. Any negotiation without that is a waste of time.

The simple facts of Israel's behavior over the years since 1967 make it pretty clear that Israel is committed to the extermination of the Palestinians and of any semblance of political independence for them. How do you deal with that simple fact???????

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, the Hamas charter believes in exterminating Israel. It takes no superhuman power to know this, except to know how to read. Do you not know that? And if you can find any evidence of the same with the government of Israel, let me know? By the way, if Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, they could have done that long ago, as they have the military power to do it. If the same power had existed with the Palestinians, Israel would have been history long ago.

I answer this issue with simple answers, but it cuts to the chase and eliminates alot of hand wringing and equivocation. All you have to do is face the truth of the basics.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

And if you can find any evidence of the same with the government of Israel, let me know?

Sure. Here are excerpts from the charter of Likud (from the Knesset website):

the 'Peace & Security' chapter of the Likud Party platform wrote:

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

According to Likud, Palestinians don't have a right to their own state "west of the Jordan river".

the 'Peace & Security' chapter of the Likud Party platform wrote:

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.

According to Likud, Palestinians have no right to an "independent and sovereign state".

the 'Peace & Security' chapter of the Likud Party platform wrote:

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

These territories are part of the West Bank. They are not Israeli territory. According to Likud, annexation of those territories "are the realization of Zionist values", and Israeli settlement of Palestinian territory is "a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel".

2 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

the 'Peace & Security' chapter of the Likud Party platform wrote:
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

And the US govt flatly rejects the establishment of a Mexican state north of the Rio Grande river.

Does that make the US racist or does that mean that Mexico doesnt have a right to its own state?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
the 'Peace & Security' chapter of the Likud Party platform wrote:
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

And the US govt flatly rejects the establishment of a Mexican state north of the Rio Grande river.

Does that make the US racist or does that mean that Mexico doesnt have a right to its own state?

You know that both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are west of the Jordan river, right? Any kind of Palestinian state that would even vaguely be a home for a majority of Palestinians would lie west of the Jordan river. Unless you completely reject the idea that the Palestinians have any kind of right to their own state where they are currently living.

So, if you want to use your example, this would rather be the equivalent of the US government rejecting the right of Canadians to form their own state north of the Rio Grande river.

0 Replies

@old europe,

oe, your examples are not the same, Israel does not advocate the extermination of any existing state, that I know of.

2 Replies

THE WAR IN GAZA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know