15
   

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

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 08:54 pm
@McTag,
McTag wrote:

A good deal of misplaced humour, here. I was referring to physical attacks, such as on schoolchildren on a bus. What's funny about an increase in anti-semitic attacks?

Today, Jewish leaders in Britain came out against the attack on Gaza.

"....warning that its actions, far from improving the country's security, will "strengthen extremism, destabilise the region, and exacerbate tensions inside Israel"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/11/gaza-israel-letter-british-jews



No one said there is anything funny about an increase in anti-Semitic attacks.

But, not being a Jewish person (I am), you seem to be saying that this is news. To Jews, anti-Semitic attacks is old news. Happens quite often around the world. My comment was just my parrying your old news comment that might have seemed like new news, I believe, to your Goyisha Kup.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 09:01 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Advocate wrote:

...
What is more surprising is that the Bush Administration abstained on the resolution even though it had earlier said it would not accept such a one-sided resolution, and a few years ago said it would not support resolutions that did not explicitly mention the name of the terrorist organizations responsible for violence against Israel. ...
newsblaze.com


Do you believe that the new Obama Administration will be any more supportive of Israel in issues like this? Could this be an ominous sign that the political alignment of the Western World and particularly of the United States with the aims of Israeli Zionists is fading ?


Actually, Obama, I believe, will realize that one cannot have a one-sided conversation. But, if the U.S. became less of a staunch ally, I am not so sure Israel could not still win an all out war. It may require the entire country, from 18 to 55 in combat boots, but I think they could swarm just like African bees.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 09:30 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Quote:
We all want the conflict to come to a peaceful resolution.

But we will not get there if we allow the news media to distort the truth, downplay the crimes of Israel, and deny the Palestinians the compassion and understanding they deserve.

Palestinians not living in Israel, are very well understood. They seek to remove Israel from Palestine. They will not deserve any compassion as long as they continue to seek to remove Israel from Palestine. They will not deserve any compassion as long as they continue to attempt to murder Israeli civilians including children with their rocket attacks.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 09:35 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
... as long as they continue to seek to remove Israel from Palestine.


Yeah, how bloody presumptuous is that, actually wanting invaders out of your country.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 10:38 pm
Hamas is responsible for the civilian deaths.

It is quite telling that Hamas headquarters is now in the basement of Gaza's main hospital.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 10:25 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
... as long as they continue to seek to remove Israel from Palestine.


Yeah, how bloody presumptuous is that, actually wanting invaders out of your country.


Where did the British colloquialism, "bloody" come from? If one is American, then it only detracts from the logic of one's post, I believe.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:30 am

Roughly one-fifth of Israel's 7 million citizens are Arabs. Israeli Arabs enjoy officially full citizenship rights - however, today the Central Election Committee banned Arab political parties from running in next month's parliamentary election.
(This decision does not affect Arab lawmakers in predominantly Jewish parties or in the country's communist party, which has a mixed list of Arab and Jewish candidates. Besides that, Arab lawmaker will challenge the decision in the country's Supreme Court.)
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:06 pm
Well, colloquialism's aside, misconceptions and rewrites of history continue unabated on this thread to wit:

Quote:
Yeah, how bloody presumptuous is that, actually wanting invaders out of your country.


The invader was actually Great Britain I believe who held the legal title to the land as of 1948.

Again a brief synopsis:

Contained in Jewish lore for at least four thousand years as recorded in Gensis: God told Abraham, "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you." Mount Moriah - now the Temple Mount in Jerusalem - is where Jewish and Christian tradition holds that Abraham almost sacrificed his son Isaac. Isaac's son Jacob was renamed Israel by God, and given the promise of the land of Canaan (now Israel) and a covenant that he and his descendants would be "God's people."

Israel became a nation in about 1312 B.C. under the authority of King David, and since then Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. In 586 B.C., the first Jewish temple (on today's Temple Mount) was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzer, king of Babylon and the people scattered to return decades later by permission of the then conqueror, Cyrus of Persia.

The Jews would later re-establish governance of the land until approximately 67 BC, when General Pompei marched into Jerusalem to claim Judah (now Israel) as part of the Roman Empire. In 70 A.D., when the Jews foolishly challenged Rome's authority, the Romans destroyed the second Jewish Temple, slaughtering or driving out much of the Jewish population.

The Romans called the land Palestine.

Over the next 1,878 years various peoples, religions and empires, including Christian crusaders, the Ottomans and, briefly, the British marched through Jerusalem. None was interested in building a nation there.

Included in these "invaders" were the Arabs. In 636 A.D., Arab marauders came to the land and uprooted many Jews, but they did not form an Arab nation, certainly not a "Palestinian" nation.

The name "Palestine" is mentioned four times in the Bible, not once in the Koran. The name "Jerusalem" is mentioned 767 times in the Bible, not once in the Koran.

No nation, other than ancient Judah/Israel and the reborn nation of Israel in 1948 has ever reigned as a sovereign national entity in the land of Canaan.

During WWII Hitler's policies murdered, savaged, and displaced the Jewish population as no other single force had ever done. Recognizing the plight of the Jewish people who had lost so much and who had no place to go, there was broad international support for establishing a safe haven for the Jews.

At that time, Great Britain held the lawful title to the land and was willing to release it for that purpose.

In November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly voted to partition the British mandate of Palestine into two territories that were envisioned as future states - one predominantly Jewish, the other Arab. Six months later, on May 14, 1948, hours before the British withdrew, the state of Israel was proclaimed and immediately recognized by the United States and the Soviet Union.

At that moment 54 years ago, the Palestinians had a state, or a territory designated for a creation of their state. If reason had governed, two small nations might have thrived as neighbors at peace. But it was not to be.

On May 15, one day after Israel's declaration of statehood, the Arab regimes of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria set their armies in motion with the stridently declared objective of driving the Jews into the sea. History shows they failed.

The Arabs had 250 million people; Israel, 3 million. The Arabs had 1.5 million square miles of territory; Israel, 7,500 square miles.

The Arabs failed again in 1956 at Suez and, even more decisively, in the Six Day War of 1967, which ended in humiliation, especially for Egypt, whose soldiers threw down their weapons and fled on foot back across the Sinai, with some 10,000 perishing in the retreat.

The final failure was in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which began with an Egyptian and Syrian attack on Oct. 6, the Hebrew Day of Atonement and the 10th day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

After four wars and tens of thousands of Arab and Israeli deaths, the Arab states had enough. In a series of historic blunders, they ensured the Palestinians' continued statelessness. Having spent lives and treasures to no point, Egypt and Jordan agreed to peace.

The Israelis did not take any land from the Palestinians via invasion/aggression but rather took it in battle from the Arab nations that attacked them. Through 25 years of confrontation and 28 troubled years since, no Arab country except Jordan has allowed Palestinians to immigrate in significant numbers, extended rights of citizenship or committed resources to relieving the misery in the refugee camps.

About 2 million Palestinian refugees have lived in camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt since 1948, and about 1 million live in the West Bank and Gaza. If the oil-rich Arab regimes and the Palestinian Authority have such compassion for the refugees, why do they leave them in camps?

Israel has absorbed 2 million Jews from the Soviet Union and the Arab nations, at great expense, yet there are no Jewish refugee camps.

It seem that a "Palestine' is an excuse for the Arabs to justify murder of Israeli civilian men, women and children. Generations of young Arabs have no profession but violence, no ambition but martyrdom, no creed but rage.

So today, Palestinian youths strap explosives to their bodies and blow themselves to eternity, somehow imagining it will help secure for their people the state they could have had in 1948, except for the tragic miscalculations of their Arab brethren. The virulent hatred is flamed by militant Muslims, who have declared a holy war of terror against Israel - and the United States for supporting Israel.

Without us, they would again try to drive the Jews into the sea, and if Israel could be destroyed, some believe the Jews and the United States would no longer be the enemy. While of coure there is room to criticize Israel for its methods and/or policies, what nation among all nations is above any reproach? Yet there are those who make Israel the sole villain and think if the Arabs were alllowed to prevail, then there would be peace for the United States.

Some of us know better.



Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:11 pm
@Foxfyre,
Pretty succinct explanation of the FACTS.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:26 pm
@Foofie,
I think so. It comes from my own stuff and some was borrowed and I failed to update some of the 20th century time lines/dates cited--it should be 62 years ago the Palestinians had their own state instead of 54 years ago for instance. But essentially, I think it is a pretty honest assessment of how it has all gone down.

An important consideration is that those "Palestinians" who lived in what is now Israel in 1947 and who did not flee hoping for the Jews to be driven out and/or who did not take up arms against the Jews were made full Israeli citizen with all the rights, perks, and benefits that are included in that. The Jews begged those "Palestinians" who fled to stay and stand with them at that time. And now the Jews are being condemned for not allowing those who wanted to exterminate the Jews to return as citizens.

It is really amazing.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:27 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Compare that to Palestine, where no Jew would be allowed to stay alive.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:33 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

The invader was actually Great Britain I believe who held the legal title to the land as of 1948.


Certainly depends on how you translate "invader", especially during a war.

But I don't say that it's wrong - perhaps you shopuld have mentioned that it was the result of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.





Quoting the Old Testament as an historical source is a bit ... well, adventurous.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:21 pm
@Foxfyre,
Just two questions, Foxfyre: why did you leave out in your essay
a) the Roman vassal kingdom (Herodes Magnus)
b) the two centuries of the Kingdom of Jeruslem?

A third question, if you don't mind, related to my above "point b)".
You say that "None [of the invaders] was interested in building a nation there."
I think that "nation-building" (or §national states") is a quite modern concept; actually, it didn't come up before 1648. (Called the "Westphalian system" in reference to the Treaty of Westphalia).
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:24 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Because I'm not as anal as you are Walter and those were not essential to make my point. (In writing the history of Judaism that I teach, I am now in my fourth volume. I left out a LOT of stuff in the little synopsis here.)

You are certainly able to add whatever additional facts you consider to be pertinent. I honestly doubt I would ever be able to write anything about anything that you would not find some fault with, and I have decided to just accept that. Okay?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:27 pm
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/01/israel_bans_arab_parties_from_coming_election.php

Israel bans Arab political parties from the next election.

Just another sign of what caring, tolerant, and un-racist people we're dealing with here...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
As said a couple of times: I don't teach history, never taught it but only studied it.

And I think it's dishonest to change facta. If you call that "anal", well, ... history teachers (and teachers in general) here in Europe have obviously different ethics.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:41 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Yeah well, nit picking isn't my style and it is yours. So I'll just leave you to it, okay? I doubt I would ever be able to do it to your satisfaction or so that you thought it wasn't 'dishonest' anyway.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:43 pm
@Foxfyre,
No, I'm sure that you meant me to be anal seriously. Thanks for that psychoanalytic analysis.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:55 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Yeah well, nit picking isn't my style and it is yours. So I'll just leave you to it, okay? I doubt I would ever be able to do it to your satisfaction or so that you thought it wasn't 'dishonest' anyway.


There's a difference between 'nit-picking,' and leaving out salient facts which significantly change the historical analysis and meaning of a situation.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 02:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
If I had thought the point 'salient' I would have included it. As it was not necessary to make the point however, I didn't include it. In my opinion, what I did include made the point without corrupting the history in any way. That is my prerogative.

Walter sees it differently. That is his prerogative.
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 08:28:41