I think we all knew from the start that tensions would rise when Israel was created. It only seems that from then on, Israel has taken the Sinai, West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza to "defend and protect herself". Seems a bit greedy to me. That's almost like taking Hawaii and Guam and placing military bases there to make our Pacific defenses stronger.......oops, we already did that!
Honestly, if Israel or any other "country" was to be created for the sake of it's people somewhere here in the United States, we'd be pretty pissed too.
Thanks Reggie. I wonder what law we relied upon to seize Puerto Rico, the Southwest, Hawaii, The Marshall Islands, etc.
Israel lived contentedly within the pre-'67 war borders, although there were continual attacks on it by the Pals and other neighbors. When attacked in that war, Israel had every right to seize land as prizes of war.
ican, You are one sorry individual; using georgeob's statements out of context. Do you have any ethics at all?
There should be a truism, if there is not one already, that you are bound to lose land should you continue making unprovoked attacks on a neighbor.
Israel never attacked Lebanon until the Palestinians set up bases there for attacking Israel. Israel then drove the Palestinians out and kept a security zone.
For many years, Syria used the Golan Heights to shell Israeli towns and individuals. It should be no surprise that Israel seized the area during the '67 war. It was a similar situation with regard to the WB and Gaza.
Advocate wrote:I wonder what law we relied upon to seize Puerto Rico, the Southwest, Hawaii, The Marshall Islands, etc.
Advocate wrote:There should be a truism, if there is not one already, that you are bound to lose land should you continue making unprovoked attacks on a neighbor.
Pretty unAmerican of you, Advocate...
A peak at peace?
Official: Most West Bank gunmen disarm
By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writer
57 minutes ago
RAMALLAH, West Bank - Most gunmen with ties to President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement have given up their weapons as part of an amnesty deal that seeks to improve ties between Israel and Abbas's moderate Palestinian leadership, a senior Palestinian security official said Sunday.
Relations between Israel and the moderate leaders in the West Bank have been improving rapidly since the violent takeover of Gaza by Fatah's rival, the Islamic militant Hamas, in June.
A major confidence booster for both sides has been Israel's amnesty offer for gunmen from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent Fatah offshoot that has carried out scores of attacks against Israelis since 2000.
Under the program launched last month, more than 300 Al Aqsa gunmen have surrendered their weapons to Palestinian authorities and pledged to refrain from violence, said a senior Palestinian security official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.
He said all but three Al Aqsa members have joined the program.
The official said 25 gunmen from Islamic Jihad also signed the pledge and handed in their guns, defying the group's leaders, who have vetoed the idea. Islamic Jihad shares the militant anti-Israeli ideology of Hamas, also gets backing from Iran, and has carried out several deadly suicide bombings in Israel.
Israeli officials said they could immediately verify the Palestinian officials account, but they did not express doubts about it. They also could not immediately say whether groups other than Al Aqsa were eligible for the amnesty program.
In another sign of renewed trust, Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are to meet Monday to prepare for November's U.S.-sponsored Mideast conference. The meeting is tentatively planned to take place in the West Bank town of Jericho, which would mark Olmert's first visit to a Palestinian town as prime minister.
Palestinian officials said Abbas and Olmert have begun talking about a broad outline of a future peace deal, which could be presented to the November conference in the United States.
The war with Spain through which we got Puerto Rico and the Phillipines was indeed an act of American Imperialism, done in imitation of the much vaster programs of Imperialism then being carried on by Britain, France,, The Netherlands, even Belgium and, with particular energy, by Wilhelmite Germany - a latecomer to the table..
Within 30 years of our taking of Puerto Rico, the island was a self governing democracy - and there were no enclaves or parts of either set aside for exclusive American use. Throughout, all the people of Puerto Rico were granted U.S. citizenship with unrestricted access to immigration to this country - many of them did exactly this. Soon afterward the people of Puerto Rico were given the iopportunity n an election to choose between continued association with the United States or complete independence - a choice which they recently reaffirmed in a second plebicite.
The contrast with what Israel has done with its 40 years of occupation of the West Bank & Gaza is stark indeed. It provides a very interesting comparison and reminds us that Israel has political and ethical values very different from our own.
Reggie wrote:I think we all knew from the start that tensions would rise when Israel was created. It only seems that from then on, Israel has taken the Sinai, West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza to "defend and protect herself". Seems a bit greedy to me. That's almost like taking Hawaii and Guam and placing military bases there to make our Pacific defenses stronger.......oops, we already did that!
Honestly, if Israel or any other "country" was to be created for the sake of it's people somewhere here in the United States, we'd be pretty pissed too.
Yes we would be "pretty pissed" if the UN in future resolved that a Mexican state be established within the United States, and Mexicans in the United States declared their independent state. The dispute would ultimately be resolved by the US Supreme Court, and not by the UN, since the US is a sovereign independent country--and has been such for over 200 years.
Your alleged analogy is a false analogy. The problem with your analogy is the Palestinian Arabs did not possess a state in Palestine within which the Jews declared their state. After Palestine was turned over to the UN by the British, the UN in 1947 declared two states in Palestine: one Jewish, one Arab. In 1948, the Jews in Palestine declared their independent state. At that time, the Arabs didn't have any government in Palestine, nor did they have a government in Palestine at any time in 1948, including the time in 1948 when their attempt to invade Israel failed.
The Arabs having first conquered Palestine in the 7th century, were reconquered in the 12th century. At no time after the 12th century did the Arabs regain control of Palestine
and govern it.
Israel lives in peace with its non-Jewish citizens. But the Pals outside of Israel have make it quite clear that they desire the destruction of Israel. In the face of that, Israel is not so stupid as to warmly embrace those Pals.
Figured you wouldn't understand when, how or why. Typical.
cicerone imposter wrote:Figured you wouldn't understand when, how or why. Typical.
Figured you wouldn't understand when, how, or why, or answer my question. Typical! That's typical pseudo-liberal behavior: that is, behavior of people who make accusations they cannot support rationally, and instead slander those with whom they disagree .
There is a fair amount of space between "warmly embrace" and military occupation; ethnic cleansing; the systematic suppression of economic development and basic human rights.
Palestine was, for centuries, a distinct province of the Ottoman Empire, which was taken (by contemporary standards, illegally) by Britain and France in WWI. The new borders and governance of the various provinces in the region were laid out in the Treaty of Versailles in accordance with a secret agreement concluded by Britain and France early the War. and subsequently vetted by the now defunct League of nations.
Lebanon, for example went to France - I haven't heard anyone suggest Lebanon is not or was not in 1948 a country. Palestine went to Britain which administered it as a Protectorate - much as they did Oman, Kuwait and many other parts of their Middle eastern Empire. In its pursuit of allies and financial support prior to WWI, Britain made deceitful and contradictory promises to Arab and Zionist parties regarding what it would eventually do with this part of an Ottoman Empire, which it had not yet taken. However, Palestine was then a country in every sense that Lebanon, Syria Jordan and Iraq were countries.
The Arabs of Palestine were victims of European Imperialism, made worse by the fact that they were induced by Britain to aid them in the overthrow of the Ottomans by utterly deceitful promises of independence and self-governance. They were subsequently the victims of Zionist occupation and ethnic cleansing done at the hands of European Jews who were, themselves the victims of European oppression, ethnic cleansing, murder and attempted extermination, and the betrayal of their former British patrons who, after the losses of WWII, had neither the ability or the imperialist hope of former years to carry out their plans (whatever they may have been) for the region.
After WWII there was a wave of systematic ethnic cleansing that swept across Europe in parallel with the realignment of prewar national borders (mass movements of Poles, Germans, Croatians and many others). This added to the horrors already faced by European Jews during the War and Holocaust and contributed to the mass migration of European Jews to Israel (and Cyprus - a way-station). I don't think there was any other practically achievable solution at the time and the desire of displaced European Jews for a homeland was certainly understandable.
However I believe that the Zionist leaders of Israel themselves soon became victims to the greed and imperialism of their European roots. This was conveniently rationalized by a combination of biblical folklore and socialist, egalitarian notions of creating a new 'perfect' state for Jews. The problem of course was that there was no place in any of this for the Palestinian inhabitants of the land they coveted. All this led to the body of lies and sophistry, some crafted with Talmudic precision, that have so infected the subsequent dialogue on the matter. "Palestine, a land without a people, for a people without a land"; "There was no country in Palestine"; "Jordan is the real country of the Palestinians"; are but a few of the prominent examples.
I believe a significant turning point in this sad story came after the Six Day war of 1967. After its stunning victory, Israel was clearly free of serious military threats from its Arab neighbors, and now in possession of all of the territory of the former Judea, and, along with it a large population of Palestinians. Israel had then the opportunity to establish a truly modern country in the region, one with an advanced economy and based on modern principles of justice, equality and democracy.
Unhappily Israel made the wrong choice. It, instead, chose to pursue expansion as a regressive tribal state, based on principles of inequality and injustice to those not of the favored tribe. This was an unwise choice: the Israeli leaders lost their heads (and perhaps their souls), in taking a course that would inexorably lead them to actions reminiscent of their worst European oppressors - an irony of truly historic proportions.
Worse, the United States unwisely chose to support Israel in all this. Partly as a result of our own imperialistic ambitions and partly as a result of the understandable, but ill-conceived, political action of American Jews, we became the dupes of the worst elements of the Israeli body politic, insulating them from the need to think seriously about the long-term consequences of their deeds and the growing antipathy of the rest of the world. In this environment new elements were added to the body of lies and sophistry used to mask the reality of what was going on. Now it was "the refusal of Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist" that was used to justify Israeli imperialism, ethnic cleansing and oppression. Never mind the fact that Israel itself had never recognized the legitimate existence of a political body known as Palestine, or that it demanded that its subject peoples accept the existence of the tribal state that oppressed them and clearly intended to drive them from their lands, as a precondition to negotiations.
All of this is dragging the United States further down a road that is contrary to both our fundamental political principles and our objective national interest. Israel has no immediate need to confront the contradictions it has created and the long-term conflicts that will inresult as long as it enjoys the protection we offer. There will be no good outcomes along this road for either party. It is time for a change.
George, from what Pal source did you lift that crap?
There was no ethnic cleansing. Before the attacks on Israel in 1948, the Pals were urged to stay and not leave at the request of the Arab armies. They chose to be traitors and leave. The Pals who stayed remained Israeli citizens.
I love the way you distort history. You seem to say that somehow the Turkish occupation was okay, but its displacement by Britain was somehow illegal. From there, you pour on more garbage.
Overall, it convinces me that you are a bigot, and that Jews can do nothing that is right and acceptable.
Advocate wrote:George, from what Pal source did you lift that crap?
There was no ethnic cleansing. Before the attacks on Israel in 1948, the Pals were urged to stay and not leave at the request of the Arab armies. They chose to be traitors and leave. The Pals who stayed remained Israeli citizens.
I love the way you distort history. You seem to say that somehow the Turkish occupation was okay, but its displacement by Britain was somehow illegal. From there, you pour on more garbage.
Overall, it convinces me that you are a bigot, and that Jews can do nothing that is right and acceptable.
It is not crap and it is not from a Palestinian source. It is instead an accurate portrayal of the history of the place since the dawn of the 20th century.
You are of course free to start the historical clock wherever you wish. Before the Ottomans the region was a part of the Eastern Roman Empire, and before that the Roman Empire (together comprising a period of over a thousand years). For a few centuries parts of it were ruled by Jewish kings who often were themselves subordinate to Imperial powers (Rome, the remnants of Alexander's hellenist Empire, or various Mesopotamian rulers). Before that the land was variously dominated by Egyptians, Persians, Hittites, and various contending local entities which are the stuff of the Old Testament of the Bible.
You imply there has been no ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories. How then did the Israeli settlements come about? Just what is it then that is contained behind Israel's wall? Where did the Palestinian diaspora who once inhabited the awful refugee camps in Jordan come from?
georgeob1 wrote:Advocate wrote:George, from what Pal source did you lift that crap?
There was no ethnic cleansing. Before the attacks on Israel in 1948, the Pals were urged to stay and not leave at the request of the Arab armies. They chose to be traitors and leave. The Pals who stayed remained Israeli citizens.
I love the way you distort history. You seem to say that somehow the Turkish occupation was okay, but its displacement by Britain was somehow illegal. From there, you pour on more garbage.
Overall, it convinces me that you are a bigot, and that Jews can do nothing that is right and acceptable.
It is not crap and it is not from a Palestinian source. It is instead an accurate portrayal of the history of the place since the dawn of the 20th century.
You are of course free to start the historical clock wherever you wish. Before the Ottomans the region was a part of the Eastern Roman Empire, and before that the Roman Empire (together comprising a period of over a thousand years). For a few centuries parts of it were ruled by Jewish kings who often were themselves subordinate to Imperial powers (Rome, the remnants of Alexander's hellenist Empire, or various Mesopotamian rulers). Before that the land was variously dominated by Egyptians, Persians, Hittites, and various contending local entities which are the stuff of the Old Testament of the Bible.
You imply there has been no ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories. How then did the Israeli settlements come about? Just what is it then that is contained behind Israel's wall? Where did the Palestinian diaspora who once inhabited the awful refugee camps in Jordan come from?
It is a fact that:
(1) That Arabs in Palestine neither ruled nor governed any part of Palestine between the years 1187 and 1949;
(2) In 1947, the British delegated to the UN the solving of their Palestine mandate problem;
(3) The UN resolved that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and a Jew state;
(4) The Jews in Palestine in 1948 declared Israel their own independent state;
(5) There are over a million Arabs living in Israel;
(6) Since the 1967 war Israel has been expanding into the lands it conquered in the 1967 war;
(7) More than once Israel has successfully traded for peace some of the land it conquered in 1967.
ican, What in the world are you talking about when you say "land conquered by war?"
ican711nm wrote:It is a fact that:
(1) That Arabs in Palestine neither ruled nor governed any part of Palestine between the years 1187 and 1949;
(2) In 1947, the British delegated to the UN the solving of their Palestine mandate problem;
(3) The UN resolved that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and a Jew state;
(4) The Jews in Palestine in 1948 declared Israel their own independent state;
(5) There are over a million Arabs living in Israel;
(6) Since the 1967 war Israel has been expanding into the lands it conquered in the 1967 war;
(7) More than once Israel has successfully traded for peace some of the land it conquered in 1967.
I'll agree with all that. In #6 you acknowledge that Israel has been illegally expanding into the occupied territories. However Israel has added no new citizens from those seized territories. This is, of course a result of their ethnic cleasnsing of the selected lands - together comprising a large portion of the West Bank. This is regarded as a crime against humanity by the international community and the UN.
The only land for peace deal I can recall is the one Israel concluded with Egypt. In this Israel returned largely unoccupied lands in the Siani to its rightful owner, in exchange for a peace treaty that both parties have largely observed. The United States is still paying bribes totaling about $10 Billion/year the parties to this treaty as an informal part of the deal.
None of this has anything to do with the illegal and unhumane treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, who have lived without basic rights under often capricious Israeli military rule for more than forty years now. Israel has made it impossible for a responsible government with meaningful powers to arise in the occupied territories and has cynically used the resulting "failure to acknowledge Israel's right to exist" as the excuse for their systematic and continuing ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and illegal absorbtion of selected territories into Israel. There is no progress towards peace - instead the situation has gotten worse with each succeeding year.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, What in the world are you talking about when you say "land conquered by war?"
I didn't say that!
I said: 'lands it [Israel] conquered in the 1967 war.'
Quote:to conquer: to gain or acquire by force of arms.
