ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

cicerone imposter wrote:

And some people don't understand the response from a group of people whose land and property are being taken away at will - without any legal rights.

Some people's myopia is a disease of the brain.

Oh, that's your excuse for your myopia?

In the following, let non-Israel Palestinians = nonIA; and Israelis = I

Tell those nonIA people whose land and property are being taken away at will--without legal rights--that their declarations and actions to remove the takers away, the I people, are the cause of their own problem. After the nonIA grant to the I their right to exist in Palestine, then and only then fault the I for not giving back land to the nonIA.

Also, The Arabs first conquered Palestine in the 7th Century and were themselves conquered in the 12th century. The Palestinian Arabs did not re-conquer Palestine since. The British ruled Palestine before the 1947 UN resolution to partition Palestine.

0 Replies

Once again, here is strong support for the premise that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were he aggresors in 1967

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/Six-Day_War.html

0 Replies

I don't know; advocate, this just seems rather one sided to me.

0 Replies

I thought it was balanced, and in accord with other respected sources.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I thought it was balanced, and in accord with other respected sources.

I'm sure you did.

0 Replies

Wow! Brilliant riposte!

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Wow! Brilliant riposte!

Why thank you, Advocate, you ole flatter you. I do try. :wink:

But seriously the reason I mention about me thinking that article a bit one sided is because I don't know history too well and I have a hard time finding balanced history accounts.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Once again, here is strong support for the premise that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were he aggresors in 1967

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/Six-Day_War.html

The end of your link describes well the situation after the Six-Day war:

Quote:

On November 22 the UN passed Resolution 242, which called for Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories; in return Arab states would recognize Israel's independence and guarantee secure borders for Israel. Events, however, did not follow Resolution 242. The Arabs and Palestinians declared their intention to continue fighting Israel, and Israel refused to return the Occupied Territories under such conditions. Terrorist attacks and reprisals persisted, and Israel and Egypt continued to engage in artillery, sniper, and occasional air attacks for several years. As a result, the Six-Day War was followed by what has come to be known as the War of Attrition. Although cease-fire agreements eventually ended this situation, the region remained volatile.

Israel moved to secure its position in the Occupied Territories by extending its lines of defense to the boundaries of the Arab states. The Sinai, West Bank, and Golan Heights were all fortified, and parts of these areas were lightly settled with Jewish Israelis. Israel also announced its intent to secure Jerusalem as its undivided and eternal capital, further antagonizing the Arab states. These disagreements eventually led to the 1973 Arab-Israeli War of 1973. Nonetheless, Resolution 242, which followed the Six-Day War, created the foundation of the peace process that began to yield results in the late 1970s.

0 Replies

I inadvertently failed to link the earlier pages in the source, of which you can easily avail yourself.

0 Replies

George, could you tell me what the Arab Christians did that they were so brutalized and driven from Palestine by the other Pals? Perhaps you will be able to somehow blame Israel for this.

0 Replies

I made no assertion whatever with respect to the Christians of Palestine. Intolerance and sectarian disputes of all kinds were increased first by the Anglo/French plundering og=f the Ottoman Empire and later by the Zionist migration and the establishment of Israel.

Palestinian intolerance is no justification for Israeli intolerance and injustice. I am not arguing that we should prefer either side in the dispute between Palestinians and Zionists. The motives of both antagonists are equally antithetical to our values.

0 Replies

Equally George? You don't think one side is a bit more or less then the other?

0 Replies

My point is that the Islamist Pals are equal-opportunity slaughterers. They even slaughter (without trial) their women, as well as so-called informants. But I guess, in your view, the devil makes them do it.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Equally George? You don't think one side is a bit more or less then the other?

Not enough to make a big difference. Israel has a far more modern economy and better developed social systems for its citizens. Perhaps it looks a bit like us on the surface, however, that is an illusion. Israel defines itself as a sectarian tribal state - hardly different from what exists in the Arab world. Certainly the United States has no strategic interest in which side wins this struggle. Unfortunately we have wasted huge sums of money, and. more importantly, our own stragecic security in politically motivated, but strategically unwise support for Israel - a high price to pay for Truman's victory in the 1948 election.

The emotional bonds of Jews living in other countries for Israel is - particularly in view of the awful history of the last century - entirely understandable. In their shoes, I would likely feel the same way. However it is an observable fact that there is no more mass migration of Jews in Western countries to Israel. It is time to rethink the basic premise of Zionism in view of current realities. That, of course is a matter for Zionists to decide on their own. However the real strategic interests of the United States should no longer be held hostage to now outdated political & tribal goals that are inconsistent with the basic principles of our founding and our constitution.

0 Replies

So what might those outdated and tribal goals be, George? Defending a historical ally, a tiny country to live in peace without constant threat of obliteration, is that an outdated tribal idea, or am I mis-interpreting what you are saying here?

0 Replies

I don't know if or what you may have misinterpreted here or anywhere. More than anything it appears to me you haven't read the words I wrote or interpreted them at all.

I believe my words were simple and clear.

The "threats of obliteration" in the region are mutual. No difference there. The actual obliteration that has occurred in the region, from lebanon to Gaza is heavily on the Arab side, not Israel's.

The historical persecutors of Jews are in Europe, not the Middle East.

The creation of Israel and the attendant displacenent of the native population has certainly worsened the existing discord and intolerance of the Arab population. The destruction of stable government among the Palestinians has loosened the dogs of violence, discord and revolution among them in a way that does not exist among Israelis. However Israel had(and has) a decisive hand in that process. In terms of the respective aims and expressed values of the conflicting states, Israel is every bit as tribal and intolerant as its adversaries. Unlike them it is an orderly, efficient state, modern in its industry and methods. However we should not confuse that with virtue, tolerance, justice and enlightenment. Nazi Germany was also an efficient and orderly state, thoroughly modern in its industry and methods.

0 Replies

And then, there's this.

Israel Rebuffs Palestinian Unity Government

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, March 19, 2007; Page A09

JERUSALEM, March 18 -- The Israeli cabinet voted Sunday to limit future talks with even moderate Palestinian officials to shared security and humanitarian concerns, ruling out a formal peace process until the new Palestinian government recognizes Israel and renounces violence.

In officially rejecting the Palestinian unity government that was sworn in over the weekend, the cabinet also stated that "Israel expects the international community to maintain the policy it has taken over the past year of isolating the Palestinian government."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

And then, there's this.
...
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, March 19, 2007; Page A09

JERUSALEM, March 18 -- The Israeli cabinet voted Sunday to limit future talks with ... Palestinian officials ... until the new Palestinian government recognizes Israel and renounces violence.
...

This Israel policy is long overdue.

Once the Palestinian government recognizes Israel and renounces violence, they'll find Israel to be very cooperative.

I would love it if the Palestinian government voted to recognizes Israel and renounces violence on condition Israel did the same thing.

0 Replies

More BS from George. Israel is essentially a secular democracy, something nonexistent in the rest of the ME. It has always been a strong and valuable ally of the USA.

No country in the world would embrace a unity government that doesn't recognize that the former has a right to exist.

0 Replies

How can a secular democracy define itself in terms of a single religion?

This "right to exist" nonsense is a red herring. Has Israel recognized the Palestinians' right to exist in self determination?

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know