Approaching a Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians

Why that's easily explained, really. Wolf Blitzer, anchor of CNN, once held a high position at AIPAC and he definitely has an agenda. Besides, most American media will not criticize Israel, because a number of significant American newspapers are Jew-owned, hence, that is the reality of it. Rupert Murdoch, the undisputed kingpin of News Corp., has shrieked out at others who criticize him as anti-Semitic. "And isn't there something rich in a complaint about media ownership by the man who controls Fox News, the Fox broadcast network, 20th Century Fox, the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Times of London, the Sunday Times, Sky News, HarperCollins and other properties"?!?!

Oh, Advocate, for your additional info, Stephen Hawkins, the brilliant physicist, now Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at Cambridge, has joined the boycott against Israel. See below:
______
"The celebrated physicist Stephen Hawking became embroiled in a deepening furore today over his decision to boycott a prestigious conference in Israel in protest over the state's occupation of Palestine.

Hawking, a world-renowned scientist and bestselling author who has had motor neurone disease for 50 years, cancelled his appearance at the high-profile Presidential Conference, which is personally sponsored by Israel's president, Shimon Peres, after a barrage of appeals from Palestinian academics.

The move, denounced by prominent Israelis and welcomed by pro-Palestinian campaigners, entangled Cambridge University – Hawking's academic base since 1975 – which initially claimed the scientist's withdrawal was on medical grounds, before conceding a political motivation.

The university's volte-face came after the Guardian presented it with the text of a letter sent from Hawking to the organisers of the high-profile conference in Jerusalem, clearly stating that he was withdrawing from the conference in order to respect the call for a boycott by Palestinian academics.

"The full text of the letter, dated 3 May, said: "I accepted the invitation to the Presidential Conference with the intention that this would not only allow me to express my opinion on the prospects for a peace settlement but also because it would allow me to lecture on the West Bank. However, I have received a number of emails from Palestinian academics. They are unanimous that I should respect the boycott. In view of this, I must withdraw from the conference. Had I attended, I would have stated my opinion that the policy of the present Israeli government is likely to lead to disaster."

Hawking's decision to throw his weight behind the academic boycott of Israel met with an angry response from the organisers of the Presidential Conference, an annual event hosted by Israeli president Shimon Peres.

"The academic boycott against Israel is in our view outrageous and improper, certainly for someone for whom the spirit of liberty lies at the basis of his human and academic mission," said conference chairman Israel Maimon. "Israel is a democracy in which all individuals are free to express their opinions, whatever they may be. The imposition of a boycott is incompatible with open, democratic dialogue."

Daniel Taub, the Israeli ambassador to London, said: "It is a great shame that Professor Hawking has withdrawn from the president's conference … Rather than caving into pressure from political extremists, active participation in such events is a far more constructive way to promote progress and peace."

The Wolf Foundation, which awarded Hawking the Wolf prize in physics in 1988, said it was "sad to learn that someone of Professor Hawking's standing chose to capitulate to irrelevant pressures and will refrain from visiting Israel".

But Palestinians welcomed Hawking's decision. "Palestinians deeply appreciate Stephen Hawking's support for an academic boycott of Israel," said Omar Barghouti, a founding member of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. "We think this will rekindle the kind of interest among international academics in academic boycotts that was present in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa."

Palestinian academics sent a barrage of letters to Hawking in recent weeks in an attempt to persuade him to join the boycott movement.

Samia al-Botmeh, of Birzeit University in the West Bank, said: "We tried to communicate two points to him. First, that Israel is a colonial entity that involves violations of the rights of the Palestinians, including academic freedom, and then asking him to stand in solidarity with Palestinian academic colleagues who have called for solidarity from international academics in the form of boycotting Israeli academia and academic institutions."

Hawking's decision to withdraw from the conference was "fantastic", said Botmeh. "I think it's wonderful that he has acted on moral grounds. That's very ethical and very important for us as Palestinians to know and understand that there are principled colleagues in the world who are willing to take a stand in solidarity with an occupied people."

Comments on social media in Israel were overwhelmingly opposed to Hawking's move, with a small number engaging in personal abuse over his physical condition. A minority of commentators supported his stance on Israel's 46-year occupation of the Palestinian territories.

In addition to the letter sent by Hawking to the conference organisers, a statement in his name was sent to the British Committee for the Universities in Palestine, confirming his withdrawal from the conference for political reasons. The wording was approved by Hawking's personal assistant after consultation with Tim Holt, the acting director of communications at Cambridge University.

On Wednesday morning, following the Guardian's revelation that Hawking was boycotting the Presidential Conference, Holt issued a statement saying: "Professor Hawking will not be attending the conference in Israel in June for health reasons – his doctors have advised against him flying."

However, a later statement said: "We have now received confirmation from Professor Hawking's office that a letter was sent on Friday to the Israeli president's office regarding his decision not to attend the Presidential Conference, based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott."

More inside link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/08/hawking-israel-boycott-furore

Correction here. I should have written Jewish-owned instead of Jew-owned. "Jew-owned" might be translated in the minds of some as offensive or anti-Semitic....I regret using the term.

Blitzer, who I guess is Jewish, is an an anchor who does little more than read from his monitor. I doubt very much that he makes any news, or every weighed in on the Liberty issue.

Hawking probably should stick on science matters. He is so wrong in the boycott issue. Of course, you and the Pals would celebrate his position.

name 1 jew who agrees with you
1
just 1

Advocate wrote:


I think an anchor should not approach reporting the news with a past like Blitzer. True he reads from a monitor but sometimes he can refuse to report certain things regarding Israel and or by using myriad nuances. How do you know what Blitzer does? Are you and he comparing notes? All I am sure of is where Wolf Blitzer is coming from and where he's been and that he was a prominent member of AIPAC and very well may still be.

Advocate wrote:


Stephen Hawking is an outstanding physicist with many honors under his belt; because he is a physicist does not mean he's unable to make astute intelligent decisions with respect to non-physics issues. He is also joined in this endeavor of opposing the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian's West Bank by Avram Noam Chomsky, an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, historian, political critic, and activist.

These are two distinguished eminently qualified persons we dare not ignore, Advocate, as they have something solid to say.

There is tremendous ignorance among those opposing Israel. When you pin them down, they don't know how Israel and the US have moved heaven and earth to reach a settlement, and how the Pals always find ways to wiggle out of recognizing Israel and reaching an agreement. They also don't realize that any Pal leader who is willing to recognize Israel and reach an agreement will be assassinated forthwith.

In his heart, Obama is one of those opposing Israel.

My, are you not the master Israeli propagandist, Advocate. Truth be known, it is Israel who has always stalled for time, impeded all legitimate avenues towards a settlement. You claim the Palestinians do not recognize Israel's right to exist and I proved you wrong with a link sometime ago. The Arab league offered to recognize israel, engage in trade with them if they would return to their '67 borders, but Israel gave them the finger. The Palestinians asked in good faith for the Israelis to stop settlement building until an agreement could be reached regarding borders, but Israel refused...in effect saying screw you to the Arab League...the US has our back and our influence is so powerful we tell them what to do via AIPAC.

I remember during the first Bush administration when George Herbert Walker Bush refused to give Loan Guarantees to Israel unless the tiny country stop building settlements in the West Bank. That period in US/Israel relationship was indeed a bitter struggle. Because of Israel's poor credit rating at the time it needed the US to guarantee a $10 billion dollar loan guarantee for the Zionist nation to epand housing and other infrastructure for new immigrants. Israel could not find lenders at attractive rates without US guarantees.

The then Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, rejected such linkage and went into a temper tantrum saying "no power on earth will prevent Israel from building new settlements in the West Bank." Bush senior dug in refusing to budge. Later, the senior Bush came before the American people and explained to them what had happened. He said: "Here I am just one little guy" and all the Israeli lobbies are descending on capital Hill to attack the congress and through them, me." There was some blowback; some American extremists reacted, slashing tires in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods,painting swastikas on Synagogues. One New York prominent leader said she "received many death threats and had never been so frightened in her entire life."

George Herbert Walker Bush only served one term, and under Bill Clinton, the Israeli government received its $10 Billion loan guarantee.

The Pals want concessions before giving up anything. For instance, some in the Arab world say they will recognize Israel if Israel does this or that. Should Israel say, pull back to the '67 borders, then the Pals will demand even more, still not giving up anything.

The Pals should go ahead and recognize Israel and then sit down prepared for mutual concessions.

No need to back-peddle, in my opinion. You are in the company of a great swath of English speaking gentiles. As long as you don't spit when you say it (read humorous but true).

"At the time of the 1917 Balfour Declaration there were about 600,000 Arabs in Palestine and about 60,000 Jews. Over the next thirty years the ratio narrowed as Jewish immigration increased especially as a result of the anti-Semitic policies of Adolph Hitler. However, on the eve of the 1947 UN plan to partition Palestine, Arabs still were a large majority, with Jews amounting to only one-third of the population——608,225 Jews to 1,2237,332 Arabs. When Max Nordau, an early Zionist and friend of Zangwill, learned in 1897 there was an indigenous Arab population in Palestine, he exclaimed: "I didn't know that! We are committing an injustice!"

"Not only were a people already in Palestine, but they had a well-established society that was recognized by other Arabs as uniquely "Palestinian." It consisted of respected intellectual and professional classes, political organizations, and a thriving agrarian economy that was expanding into the crude beginnings of modern industry. Observes scholar John Quigley: "The Arab population had been stable for hundreds of years. There was no substantial in-migration in the nineteenth century."
*******

"It was only strong pressure exerted by the Truman administration that secured passage of the UN Partition Plan by the General Assembly on November 29, 1947, by a vote of 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions and 1 absent. Among those nations that succumbed to US pressure were France, Ethiopia, Haiti, Liberia, Luxembourg, Paraguay and the Philippines. Former Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles wrote: "By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear by American official upon those countries outside of the Muslim world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition. Representatives or intermediaries were employed by the White House to make sure that the necessary majority would at length be secured."

"The partition plan adopted as Resolution 181, divided Palestine between "independent Arab and Jewish states and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. Future Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett argued that the resolution had "binding force," and Israel's Declaration of Independence cited it three times as legal justification for the establishment of the state. But the General Assembly, in contrast to the Security Council, has no powers beyond making recommendations. I cannot enforce its recommendations nor are they legally binding except on internal UN Matters.

"The Palestinians, as was their right, rejected the plan because it granted the Jews more than half of Palestine despite the fact that they made up only one-third of the population and owned only 6.59 percent o the land. In addition, the Palestinians maintained that the United Nations had no legal right to recommend partition when the majority inhabitants of Palestine opposed it. Nonetheless, by rejecting partition Palestinians did not reject their own claim to an independent nation. Their opposition was to a Jewish state established on Palestinian land, not to the Jews' right as a people.

"Jewish leader David Ben-Gurion advised his colleagues to accept partition because, he told them, "There is no such thing in history as a final arrangement––not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements."

"One of Zionism's great pioneers, Nahum Goldmann, expressed pragmatism in a different vein: 'There is no hope for a Jewish state which has to face another 50 years of struggle against Arab opposition.' "

I guess the anti-Semites here will forever dredge up ancient and one-sided history to support their arguments. This is boring as hell.

Boring, you say? OK, Advocate, let me try and spice things up for you.

The article in my previous post is composed of constructive criticism....not by anti-Semites. You have the gall to claim there is no such thing as a native Palestinian when truth be told the people of the area were there before ancient Israel and were there to greet modern Israel. These people are referred to as the indigenous population. Modern Israel might not be there today if President Harry Truman who was running for re-election had not been bribed by the Rothschilds with $2,000,000 as a contribution; that two million dollars swayed Truman to act decisively in the Zionists' favor. Two million dollars back in 1948 was a LOT OF MONEY.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a long-festering impulse that is continually fueling the anger in the Arab world.  As long as the US is seen one-sided.....on the side of Israel while they continue to occupy and kill Pals...... then the threat to US national security and interest world wide will be threatened...This is also not helpful to Israel's future.

There is the belief among some that the NEOCONS constitute a “fifth column” aimed at subverting American foreign policy in the interests of Israel especially since the NEOCONS were the driving force to get rid of Saddam Hussein. During the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein sent missiles into Israel. The Zionist nation believed Saddam might use nerve gas in these missiles and Israel had all its citizens wear gas masks. That left such an impression on Israel that it had to have the US get rid of Saddam Hussein, and after that, the neocons planned war with Iran. Invading Iraq for Dick Cheney was a three-purpose goal....get rid of Saddam Hussein, take control of the oil wells and profiteering for Halliburton, and rearranging the middle east for Israel. As we can see, Dick Cheney's venture broke our economy (he got bogged down in Iraq, never expecting opposition), sending the US almost into a 1929 style-like depression....fortunately, it was a serious recession instead, with lethal effects influencing the global market.

"Israel has become cruel in its occupation, similar to WW2 with the Jews being outcast; the Palestinians are stigmatized by Israeli propaganda when all the Pales want is their piece of the pie, i.a., a state which is really their land, every bit of it; Israel wins every battle but is losing the war." These quotes are by retired Israeli spies for Shin Bet, Israeli Security Service.

Palestinians are new to the area, which is the homeland of the Jews.


History of Palestine and the Palestinians

In recent history the area called Palestine includes the territories of present day Israel and Jordan. From 1517 to 1917 most of this area remained under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.

Ottoman Empire was dissolved at the end of World War I. Its successor, modern republic of Turkey, transferred Palestine to British Empire control under the Lausanne agreement that followed WW I.

In 1917 Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". In 1922 Britain allocated nearly 80% of Palestine to Transjordan. Thus, Jordan covers the majority of the land of Palestine under British Mandate. Jordan also includes the majority of the Arabs who lived there. In other words, Jordan is the Arab portion of Palestine.

The residents of Palestine are called "Palestinians". Since Palestine includes both modern day Israel and Jordan both Arab and Jewish residents of this area were referred to as "Palestinians".

It was only after the Jews re-inhabited their historic homeland of Judea and Samaria, that the myth of an Arab Palestinian nation was created and marketed worldwide. Jews come from Judea, not Palestinians. There is no language known as Palestinian, or any Palestinian culture distinct from that of all the Arabs in the area. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. "Palestinians" are Arabs indistinguishable from Arabs throughout the Middle East. The great majority of Arabs in greater Palestine and Israel share the same culture, language and religion.

Much of the Arab population in this area actually migrated into Israel and Judea and Samaria from the surrounding Arab countries in the past 100 years. The rebirth of Israel was accompanied by economic prosperity for the region. Arabs migrated to this area to find employment and enjoy the higher standard of living. In documents not more than hundred years, the area is described as a scarcely populated region. Jews by far were the majority in Jerusalem over the small Arab minority. Until the Oslo agreement the major source of income for Arab residents was employment in the Israeli sector. To this day, many Arabs try to migrate into Israel with various deceptions to become a citizen of Israel.

Even the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Arafat himself, is not a "Palestinian". He was born in Egypt. The famous "Palestinian covenant" states that Palestinians are "an integral part of the Arab nation" -- a nation which is blessed with a sparsely populated land mass 660 times the size of tiny Israel (Judea, Samaria and Gaza included).

All attempts to claim Arab sovereignty over Israel of today, should be seen with their real intention: The destruction of Israel as a Jewish state and the only bulwark of the Judeo-Christian Western civilization in the Middle East.

-- science.com

Baffle them with bull ****.

Is that all you got? If you don't know anything, just utter anything.

Do you recall the UN Resolution, 242?

The passage of Resolution 242 by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, was a major diplomatic achievement in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and contained the formula that has since underlain all peace initiatives––land for peace. In exchange for withdrawing from Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian territory captured in the 1967 war, Israel was promised peace by the Arab states. The resolution provides the basis on which the talks between Israel and the Arabs begun in Madrid, Spain in 1991 were being conducted.

{Menachem Begin, prime minister in 1977, said “Neither this international document [Israel’s 1949 armistice with Jordan] nor resolution 242 forms an obstacle to the Jewish People’s basis claim that the Land of Israel belongs by right to the Jewish People.”}

A major confrontation on the interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 erupted between the United States and Israel after Menachem Begin came to power in 1977. Although previous Israeli governments accepted the applicability of the resolution to all territories–the Sinai, the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights–Begin argued that the resolution did not apply to Jordan’s West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, as she insisted on calling it. When Begin first declared publicly that Resolution 242 did not negate Israel’s claim to the West Bank, the U.S. Department of State immediately responded by declaring publicly: “We consider that this resolution means withdrawal on all three fronts in the Middle East dispute….This means no territories–including the West Bank–are automatically excluded from the items to be negotiated.”

A 1978 State Department study of the issue, made after Begin continued to put forward his unique interpretation, concluded: “We have researched the records of the public and private negotiations leading up to adoption of Resolution 242 and the explanations of vote at its adoption, and we conclude that there is no room for doubt that members of the Council, and Israel…shared a common core of understanding that the principle of withdrawal was applicable to all there fronts.”

This stand was later authoritatively endorsed by the resolution’s author, Lord Caradon of Great Britain, who wrote: “It was from the occupied territories that the Resolution 242 called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan, and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict; it was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.”

U.S. officials have reiterated this position in public many times. In June 1977, the Carter administration released a paper on its views of the elements of a comprehensive peace. The paper pointedly said that Israel, “within the terms of Resolution 242, in return for this…peace, clearly should withdraw from occupied territories. We consider that this resolution means withdrawal on all three fronts––that is, Sinai, Golan, West Bank-Gaza…No territories, including the West Bank, are automatically excluded from the items to be negotiated.” More than a decade later, Secretary of state George Shultz said: “The provisions of Resolution 242 apply to all fronts.”

UN Resolution 242

Facts dont seem to work with you so we'll try insults.

242 also requires peace between the parties, which is something the Muslims never accepted. Moreover, 242 requires the aggressors to retreat to the '67 borders. However, Israel was not in the least the aggressor. The Pals and the Muslim nations were the aggressors.

The withdrawal language is in the preamble to 242, and not the operative provisions.

I might remind you that, despite hundreds of attacks on Israel, Israel essentially never set foot in the WB and Gaza until the Muslim aggression in the '67 war.

If you feel forced to merely flame me, I will just ignore all your posts.