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

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps. But then a whole bunch didn't flee. And they've been most handsomely rewarded for their loyalty to Israel.

Do you think they stayed out of loyalty?

They didn't leave to escape a massacre so that they could come back. That would be close enough to loyalty to satisfy most people.

Quote:

Quote:

I provided a link for your perusal. There are lots and lots more.

You linked to the Jewish Virtual Library. I wonder if they have any biased content?

Certainly they won't skew the facts to be anti-Israel which many such histories by pro-Palestinian groups do, but I have not found their scholarship to be sloppy. But, as I said, there are lots and lots of other sites to be consulted. I just linked the first one that covers all the bases being discussed that I came to.

Quote:

Quote:
The Israelis were receiving regular deadly internal sabotage, suicide bombers, and such as that before they put up the security wall. Such terrorist attacks are now infrequent and the few that get through or originated within are mostly intercepted and stopped before they can blow up a crowded market or a bus filled with school children and moms.

That's an answer (though inadequate) to the question of the wall's existence, not the question of its path, which was the one asked.

It's path was presumably to achieve its function. How was it inadequate. If you were living your life in constant danger of being blown to smithereens before the wall and not so much after it went up, is the path of the wall really that much of an issue?

Quote:

Quote:
If I knew nothing else re the situation that exists, ...

Are you interested in knowing much else about the situation? Or is it enough to sympathize with the Israelis?

This is a subject of which I am interested. I've read a whole lot of stuff from every possible perspective I believe, but if you have another, I would be interested in that too.

Quote:

Quote:
It is not Israel who has resisted a Palestinian state but the Palestinians themselves.

Arafat threatened to declare one in 2000 which was decried as a threat to the peace process. The Likud party's charter denies the possibility of one. And "facts on the ground" consisting of settlement blocks in strategic areas make it all but impossible.

The Likud Party is hard line for sure taking the view that Palestine merits neither trust nor consideration. But it is also the minority and does not get to decide the matter autonomously. Arafat refused to agree to a Palestinian State in 2000 when he met with Bill Clinton, nor would he recognize Israel's right to exist. Arafat was not loved or respected by most of the Arab world because he was so devious and deceptive and had double crossed them more than once, but he was far too much in bed with Syria to make friends with Israel.

Quote:

Quote:
But the bleeding hearts out there seem to think it is only Israel's duty to make concessions and accommodations and nothing whatsoever should be required of the Palestinians in order to be accommodated by Israel.

Israel has the power.

And that is all that has saved the Israelis from extermination by people who wanted them dead or gone from the very beginning.

Quote:

Quote:
Should the Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist, should they cease and desist in their rhetoric demanding the extermination of Israel, when they condemn, arrest, convict, and punish those who would presume to do violence to Israelis, and promise peace through both word and deed....should the Palestinians do that, and then Israel did not become a good friend and neighbor to the Palestinians, THEN you would see my criticism and contempt directed toward Israel and not the Palestinian leadership.

Yeah, I don't quite believe you. This laundry list of arbitrary demands on a people, many impossible due to Israel's imposed constraints, is nothing short of an enumeration of excuses and self-justification for refusing to do that which is right.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. I have been posting the same message for some years now and have no reason to change my mind about that.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If they had "equal rights" as many here claim, why do they need check points and walls?

They need checkpoints and walls to protect all the residents of Israel from infiltrating terrorist murderers.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It's path was presumably to achieve its function. How was it inadequate. If you were living your life in constant danger of being blown to smithereens before the wall and not so much after it went up, is the path of the wall really that much of an issue?

The operative word here is "presumably". Have you taken a gander at a link down the page to a thread that Robert Gentel started? Have you seen a map of the path of the wall? It is very difficult to look at it and not see that its purpose is to appropriate more land. In fact, one of the principle objections in Israel to it was that it would be a defacto border, which certain elements thought would prevent them from taking more land later. It is impossible to separate the land grab and the occupation from the terrorism.

Quote:

The Likud Party is hard line for sure taking the view that Palestine merits neither trust nor consideration. But it is also the minority and does not get to decide the matter autonomously.

I wouldn't call it a minority, though it's true that it can't do anything on its own. (Neither, by the way, could Hamas until the blockading of Gaza, which made them the sole government of that area.) I believe that the recent elections resulted in the necessity of a power sharing agreement between Likud, a rabid anti-Arab party whose name I've forgotten (and am too lazy to look up), and Kadima, which was an alliance of leaders from Likud and Labor(?) to begin with.

Quote:

Arafat refused to agree to a Palestinian State in 2000 when he met with Bill Clinton, nor would he recognize Israel's right to exist.

That's not really true. Have you read the agreement? Can you say it was a just deal? Arafat, btw, acknowledged the UN resolution designating Israel (alongside Palestine). What other form of acceptance is necessary? When Likud denies the right of existence of a Palestinian state, it's hard line. When it's a Palestinian political entity that doesn't accept the existence of Israel (in undefined borders) then that's somehow indicative of radicalism to the point that no negotiation can possibly take place.

Quote:

And that is all that has saved the Israelis from extermination by people who wanted them dead or gone from the very beginning.

That sounds very dramatic and may even have been true in 1948. But that time has passed. As someone else said, Hitler is dead. Some people see Hitler everywhere they look, but he's dead and gone and these people are not Hitlers.

Quote:

I don't care whether you believe me or not. I have been posting the same message for some years now and have no reason to change my mind about that.

Whether or not you have changed your mind doesn't change the fact that you are asking for some arbitrary demands to be met by the Palestinians without acknowledging that it takes two to tango. The Palestinian leadership has their culpability in this, but Israel has the power to make a just offer of peace by allowing and accepting the existence of a Palestinian state on some very small percentage of their ancestral home land.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

The only arguments that I have are those already made, FD, and to simply repeat them would be a did too-did not kind of circular argument that become tedious for both the participants and those who attempt to read the thread.

My point of view has been for some time and remains:
1. Israel was created by an action of the United Nations who believe the Jews had received sufficient unique discrimination and devastation so that the action was justified.
2. The Palestinians already there who chose to stay have been treated decently and enjoy full citizenship, freedom, and prosperity unknown to most of the Arabs in most of the remainder of the Middle East.
3. It is necessary for the Jews to retain a majority in Israel for if they do not, then Israel ceases to exist as does the one place on Earth that the Jews do not have to suffer discrimination within the country they reside.
4. The Palestinians chose not to accept the U.N. resolution and have rather demanded that the Jews hand over Israel to them for all these many decades since Israel became a modern nation. Their leadership to this day refuses to recognize Israel or its right to exist and has ordered or participated in terrorism against Israelis intermittantly during the entire period.
5. At such time as the Palestinian leadership recognizes Israel and its right to exist and takes proactive steps to stop terrorist acts committed by Palestinians against Israel, there is absolutely no evidence that Israel would not then give up all claim to all Palestinian land and become a good neighbor to the Palestinians as it is to Egypt and Jordan.

(Oh, and the best I remember is I think there are 118 seats on the Knesset or close to that number, and the Likud Party holds about 12 of them.)

1 Reply

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
And though you at least have much to offer in the way of insights and good information, Genoves, I do not appreciate hateful, unkind, personally insulting remarks from you directed at anybody either. While liberals so often cannot, I like to think that at least most conservatives can make their case without doing that. It isn't necessary.

end of quote

I do appreciate your comment concerning the fact that I have insights and good information, Foxfyre. Coming from someone who does a great deal of research, that means a great deal. However, I am saddened that you do not realize that the only way to fight fire is with fire. Should I reference five or six comments by Marcos Moulitsas--the esteemed leader of the daily kos?

When four American civilian contractors were on their way to work in Iraq, they were killed and dismembered by a gang of insurgents.
Moulitsas reacted to the news with this comment---"I feel nothing about the death of the mercenaries. They are there to wage a war for profit. Screw them"I must regretfully conclude that such comments,which can be found thousands of times on exremist liberal sites do indeed prove that "LEFT WING LOONIES"exist.

I learned long ago, when I was a soldier, that when someone wants to kill you or materially change your way of life, you cannot turn the other cheek but must meet the challenge posed in a much stronger way if you are to prevail.

I am certain that you know by now that reason and evidence and documentation is not effective with the far left wing extremists.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

1. Israel was created by an action of the United Nations who believe the Jews had received sufficient unique discrimination and devastation so that the action was justified.

A Palestinian state was created by the same resolution.

Quote:

2. The Palestinians already there who chose to stay have been treated decently and enjoy full citizenship, freedom, and prosperity unknown to most of the Arabs in most of the remainder of the Middle East.

That is certainly your opinion.

Quote:

3. It is necessary for the Jews to retain a majority in Israel for if they do not, then Israel ceases to exist as does the one place on Earth that the Jews do not have to suffer discrimination within the country they reside.

Quite so. So maybe they should stop grabbing land that prevents a Palestinian state's existence. It is in their interest to have a Palestinian state so that they can maintain a Jewish majority.

Quote:

4. The Palestinians chose not to accept the U.N. resolution and have rather demanded that the Jews hand over Israel to them for all these many decades since Israel became a modern nation. Their leadership to this day refuses to recognize Israel or its right to exist and has ordered or participated in terrorism against Israelis intermittantly during the entire period.

Actually, Palestinian leadership has accepted the UN resolution. They have said, and it's arguable, that a "right to exist" is meaningless. What exactly does that mean, anyway? Especially when Israel has yet to define her borders.

Quote:

5. At such time as the Palestinian leadership recognizes Israel and its right to exist and takes proactive steps to stop terrorist acts committed by Palestinians against Israel, there is absolutely no evidence that Israel would not then give up all claim to all Palestinian land and become a good neighbor to the Palestinians as it is to Egypt and Jordan.

No evidence? There is an abundance of evidence that Israel will not give up its settlements. Ariel Sharon (Likud, btw) basically admitted their strategic significance to the state of Israel. The Camp David offer was basically an offer of three disconnected cantons whose connections Israel would control, along with the border with Jordan. Israel has made it clear that she wants this land and this control over the Palestinians.

And while it's true that there have been several uprisings over the years that include terrorism, you are leaving out two key points. First, there have also been times of calm -- most notably after the Oslo Accords. In other words, when there is negotiation and movement toward an agreement, there is peace. Second, these uprisings are not unprovoked. Israel has engaged in reckless assassinations and violent appropriation of Palestinian land over this time as well. Their settlements and the roads connecting them slice and dice Palestinian territories making any movement and commerce controlled by their Israeli overlords. You cannot expect a people to live as slaves and not resist. I would prefer they do it non-violently, like Ghandi or the South Africans, but sadly that hasn't happened.

Quote:

(Oh, and the best I remember is I think there are 118 seats on the Knesset or close to that number, and the Likud Party holds about 12 of them.)

Right. That would be in 2006, immediately after Kadima was formed, taking some members of Likud with it. I believe they've gotten more than 50 seats in this past election, but I can't find final numbers. You are right that Likud is just one party, but they are hardly the only "hard line" political party in the Knesset. Maybe take a gander at the third place showing in the recent elections, Yisrael Beitenu, and their lovely leader Avigdor Lieberman. You'll be especially interested in his take on your assertion that Israeli Arabs enjoy all the freedom and prosperity of their Jewish compatriots.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Foxfyre wrote:
1. Israel was created by an action of the United Nations who believe the Jews had received sufficient unique discrimination and devastation so that the action was justified.

FreeDuck wrote:
A Palestinian state was created by the same resolution.

Palestine
In its broader meaning as a geographical term, Palestine can refer to an area that includes contemporary Israel and the Palestinian territories, parts of Jordan, and parts of Lebanon and Syria.[1][2] In its narrow meaning, it refers to the area within the boundaries of the former British Mandate of Palestine (1920-1948) west of the Jordan River.

0 Replies

@genoves,

you wrote

Quote:

I am certain that you know by now that reason and evidence and documentation is not effective with the far left wing extremists.

Yes, I am painfully aware of that, nor will anything we say likely sway the opinion of the truly bigoted/prejudiced, the true religious fanatic, or the true sociopolitical fanatic.

But on the chance that the truth might become evident to and/or make an impression on those who have not yet joined the ranks of the numbnuts with opinions engraved in granite, I do not wish to put them off with personally directed, cruel, or unkind snarky insults directed at other members. Such insults are not necessary to make the point, they detract from it, and can create such a negative reaction that good information becomes lost.

At the very least, it turns what should be a pleasant and cordial discussion exploring competing points of view into something distasteful and unpleasant for many, including me.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

2. The Palestinians already there who chose to stay have been treated decently and enjoy full citizenship, freedom, and prosperity unknown to most of the Arabs in most of the remainder of the Middle East.

FreeDuck wrote:

Quote:

That is certainly your opinion.

Fury as MPs compare Palestinians' treatment to Nazi ghettos

By Marie Woolf Chief Political Correspondent

Friday, 20 June 2003

Two MPS caused outrage yesterday by comparing the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza to the Nazi segregation of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.

Two MPS caused outrage yesterday by comparing the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza to the Nazi segregation of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.

Oona King, Labour MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, and Jenny Tonge, Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, who visited Gaza last week with the charity Christian Aid, said the situation was getting worse as the area in which the Palestinians live gets smaller.

Ms King, whose mother is Jewish, said: "No government should be behaving like that - least of all a Jewish government. It's the same in nature but not extent. Palestinians are not being rounded up and put in gas chambers.

"What makes it similar is what happened to the Jewish people in that time, which was the seizing of land, being forced from property, torture and bureaucracy - control used in a demeaning way over the smallest task. On top of that, building a wall around them, and that is precisely what the Israeli government is doing."

Ms Tonge said: "You are almost getting a situation like the Warsaw ghetto - people can't get in or out. They can't work, they can't sell anything. There is this gradual squeeze."

But Lord Janner, the Labour peer and Vice-President of the World Jewish Congress, said it was wrong to draw comparisons with the Nazi era. "Comparisons with the Warsaw ghetto is horrendously inappropriate and shows a sad lack of historical perspective," he said.

Yuri Dromi, of the Israel Democracy Institute, said: "Comparing someone in Gaza to the ghetto is really appalling. I think it is outrageous. The Warsaw ghetto was created to suffocate the Jews and to execute them."

The MPs' comments came as Tony Blair held talks in London with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli finance minister, about the peace process and the state of Israel's economy.

Yeah, sure, equal rights and treatment of Palestinian by the Jews of Israel.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

3. It is necessary for the Jews to retain a majority in Israel for if they do not, then Israel ceases to exist as does the one place on Earth that the Jews do not have to suffer discrimination within the country they reside.

FreeDuck wrote:

Quote:

Quite so. So maybe they should stop grabbing land that prevents a Palestinian state's existence. It is in their interest to have a Palestinian state so that they can maintain a Jewish majority.

From USA Today:

Quote:

Israel's new plan: A land grab
Posted 5/15/2006 8:48 PM ET
By Jimmy Carter
New Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has announced that Israel will take unilateral steps to establish its own geographical boundaries during the next four years of his administration. His plan, as described during the recent Israeli election and the formation of a new governing coalition, would take about half of the Palestinian West Bank and encapsulate the urban areas within a huge concrete wall and the more rural parts of Palestine within a high fence. The barrier is not located on the internationally recognized boundary between Israel and Palestine, but entirely within and deeply penetrating the occupied territories.

0 Replies

The new Obama administration in the U.S. has promised to present a friendlier face to the Islamic world than the previous one. Our new Secretary of State has already announced some new initiatives towards that end. Many of the left wing supporters of the Democrats are particularly sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, displaced from their former homeland or currently living under quasi Israeli military occupation. At the same time Jewish Americans, long affiliated with liberal (as the word is used here) political causes, are also largely Democrat supporters, and indeed are among the major sources of political contributions and votes for the party.

While in its purely domestic applications, there doesn't seem to be a great contradiction here, the confrontation of Israel with the Islamic world is becoming ever more polarized, both in terms of the internal politics of the nations involved and their stated public positions with respect to the conflict in Palestine.

How will this play out in terms of the domestic politics of the current U.S. administration? To what extent can the new administration turn a friendlier face towards the Islamic world and avoid a direct conflict with an increasingly intransigent Israeli government? This is particularly apt in that Israel's new government is fairly clearly determined to expand its new settlements in occupied territory and to continue the military confrontation even in the absence of any indication that it will yield any improvement in either the revulsion of most of the world towards Israeli policy or any weakening of the determination of the Palestinian people.

I am very curious to observe the play of these conflicting issues among Democrat partisans, strategists and office holders. How do others here think it will unfold?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I'm not sure how it will play out. I am, of course, hoping that this administration will lean harder on Israel, but who knows if that will really happen. On a barely related note, I read an interesting opinion peace this morning that makes the case that a more right-wing government in Israel will make peace more likely. I never thought about it that way, but it's kind of convincing.

Netanyahu better for America...

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

I don't see much improvements in Israel that will be influenced by Obama's administration.

From about a couple of years ago, it was suggested that there might be some progress towards peace, but with Hamas in Gaza that hope just disappeared.

I doubt very much the US has much influence in Israel; they'll continue to expand their settlements, and the usual suspects will continue to send their puny rockets into Israel as their only voice for a wider audience who remains deaf.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

I'm not sure how it will play out. I am, of course, hoping that this administration will lean harder on Israel, but who knows if that will really happen. On a barely related note, I read an interesting opinion peace this morning that makes the case that a more right-wing government in Israel will make peace more likely. I never thought about it that way, but it's kind of convincing.

Netanyahu better for America...

It doesn't seem likely to me. It was the Likud party that started the systematic expropriation of Palestinian trerritory in the occupied West Bank after the 1967 war. While after Sadat's initiative they traded the Sinai for peace with Egypt, that bargain didn't involve any of their vital interests - they didn't calculate they could long keep the Siani anyway. The Palestinian territory is another story and Netanyahu's position there is very clear - drive the Palestinians out and create a "greater Israel".

Unless they see a fundamental shift in the American guarantee, the Israelis have no incentive to make a just peace with the Palestinians. As long as we leave them with an implied guarantee of favorable vetoes in the UN and ultimate defense, they will continue as they have and we will have a century (or more) of confrontation. This dilemma now belongs to President Obama and his dear friend Hillary.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I think the case that the guy in the article made was that a hard line government is easier to take a stand against. His argument was that a unity government gave the hardliners the political cover to keep on doing what they've been doing. I don't know if it's true or not, but it was an angle I hadn't thought of.

0 Replies

I have a question for all of you that think Israel bears most of the responsibility for the problems between them and the Palestinians.

Lets assume, just for the moment, that Israel were to agree to the demands of the Palestinians and leave the west bank and Gaza, allowing the Pals to set up their own state.

Would you then say that Israel had the right to conduct a "scorched earth" policy on the areas they left?
Wopuld they have the right to destroy every home, business, school, hospital, road, water treatment facility, power station, and every other piece of infrastructure they built?
After all, if they were to destroy all of that, wouldnt they be destroying their own property?

And if the Palestinians want their own state, shouldnt they have to build their own infrastructure, and not be given the fruit of someone elses work?

Also, IF the Palestinians were to get their own country, then you would have to agree that Israel would have the legal right to close their borders to any Palestinian citizen, just like any other country has that right.
Also, Israel would not have to provide fuel, water, food, money or anything else to the Palestinian state, the Palestinain govt would have to provide that.

So, if Israel were to accede to the demands of the Palestinians, then Israel could legally and morally do everything I just mentioned and you wouldnt be able to accuse Israel of doing anything wrong.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

No, they don't have the right to destroy all the schools and hospitals, because they destroyed most of the Palestinian's homes, schools and hospitals. They also made it difficult to impossible to maintain businesses and jobs.

It's not only about "leaving the West Bank and Gaza." It has to do with all the properties taken illegally, equal rights, and taking down all the barbed wire and cement fences, and all the check points that restricts the free movement of Palestinians.

The Palestinians must stop all of the suicide bombings, and the sending of missiles to civilian targets. They must enforce this peace by their involvement in stopping the violence.

This is the only way they will ever find peace in Palestine/Israel.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

The issue isn't what you or I think: it is instead what the future will likely hold for Israel and the Palestinians on the courses they are on, and others they may contemplate.

Like it or not, Israel's moral standing in the eyes of the rest of the world has fallen substantially in the past four decades: opposition to her systematic oppression of the Palestinians is nearly universal. The U.S. is Israel's only remaining ally, and the political cost to us of our contiunuing support is growing daily, while the attitudes of the American public towards this anachronistic state are also changing fast. Equally alarming to Israel is the demographic bomb within and outside its nominal borders. Every year the minority population of Israeli Arabs grows relative to that of Israeli Jews, and the absolute majority of non-Jews in the territory of greater Palestine also grows. There appear to be no more sources of foreign Jews who wish to emigrate to Israel - the Russian exodus sustained them for a decade or so, but that is over now.

Israel has a tiger by the tail - dangerous to either hold on or let go. More to the point their situation gets worse with every passing day. The difficulties you infer in finding a just peace today are very real: the prospects were much better in 1967, - when Israel made the fateful decision for an extended military occupation of the West Bank while denying basic human and civil rights to its population and steadily expropriating their property and territory - , than they are now. However, in such a situation the fundamental law of holes applies -- when you are in one, it is wise to stop digging.

Israel and her apologists have used the boogeyman of the nasty, angry, intransigent Palestinians to rationalze their oppression of people subject to their military occupation and control for over four decades. Worse, they have used it to delude themselves into the belief that they have no responsibility for the delivery of justice to the people they have displaced in their pursuit of the anachronistic dream of a tribal/theocratic state that benefits only themselves. History provides many sometimes conflicting lessons for most situations, however, in this case there appears to be very little historical basis for the belief that Israel, in its present form, will long endure.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Israel will endure as long as the US supports it, and they continue with their military power. They think that insures their security, but it's doing exactly the opposite for the long term.

That US politicians continue to call it a democracy is mind-boggling.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Well, you used the word "anachronistic" twice, so may I assume that is a main ingredient to the logic of your position? However, I would use "atavistic." And, as an atavistic state, it is not that much different than many other states that have developed a nationalism based on ethnicity/religion. Now if you want to appreciate an "anachronistic" nation state, perhaps we should look at the Vatican? A nation state for high-priests! The ancient Israelites did not even have a separate state for the Seducees and Pharisees. Physician heal thyself?

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know