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

Foxfyre wrote:

I wasn't talking about compensation. I was talking about finding a place for the Jews to hang their respective hats if they should be forced to leave Israel in order to survive.

If it turns out your house and/or the land it sits on used to belong to one of these Jewish families that were forcibly removed from it, are you going to hand over the deed and keys without a whimper? And then where will you go?

Those Jews, who return to Germany from Israel (about/over one hundred per year over the years, according to the Central Council of Jews in Germany) buy homes (with federal and state money as starting help) or rent flats like any others.

As oe pointed out, those who live there, got the houses/properties legally, the former owners have been paid.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Israel is not the "victim" here as many of its proponents would have us believe. As previously noted here, there have already been substantial payments made by Europeans to copmpensate the descendents of those whose property (and lives) were taken. In addition Israel has been the largest single recipient of U.S. government aid and grants for many years - a total many, many times greater than the largest estimate of the losses on European Jews in the past century. Israel has unlimited access to the U.S. market for its excports of all kinds - no restrictions whatever, they are treated as U.S. manufactured goods. Israel enjoys the benefits of a modern, high tech economy, and on any rational basis is far richer than any of its neighbors.

It would be verty difficult to describe the behavior of the Israeli government since the 1967 war as benevolent in any manner or form. They have held the West Bank and Gaza under military occupation for most of the past thirty-nine years, without granting any political rights whatever to its inhabitants. Throughout they have subjected then to steady and systematic expropriation of property (usually at the hands of Israeli Zealots, but always with the at least tacit approval and overt protection of the Israeli military) and deprived the inhabitants of the opportunity for organized economic development.

The various offers of land and independence of which the Israelis boast so frequently actually consisted of isolated, disconnected pockets of land, never constituting more than 40% of the captured territory of the West Bank (though they deceptively labelled it is more than that), and never offering the Palestinians the possibility of a choerent, contiguous state with political rights over air, water and mineral resources.

To be sure the Palestiniansd for their part have not shown any reasonable or constructive reaction to even the tentative and highly qualified offers the Israelis have made.

I believe the key point here is that there is no moral or ethicaL basis on which to prefer one side or the other in this awful conflict. The net effect of the intervention of external powers has been to prevent a desisive victory by either party - in short to prolong the conflict and the suffering it entails.

The moon bites through its tether and spins off towards Tau Ceti. Lions lay with lambs. Cheney shoots something not a human. A chevy somewhere does not break down even after a record-surmounting 20,000 miles. The rivers of hell freeze over and Tonya Harding is finally happy, skating arm in arm with her destined and pefect other, George Bush. And georgeob writes a post that I have no cause to contradict.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

He also talks about the Israelis' hatred of Arabs. Interestingly, due to their conduct, the rest of the world is learning to hate the Arabs. The Arabs themselves are all about hatred....

The problem is I-slam and not Arabs. Arabs were rational people prior to I-slam.

0 Replies

Quote:

All your own work, dear voters.

Or the work of a rogue political party willing to try to re-engineer the basic demographics of a nation in order to seize control over that nation.

0 Replies

second that Bernie

and mrs s thirds it...having taught the arab israeli conflict for many years.

0 Replies

One thing which few seems to grasp and which appears as a common denominator in situations in which somebody is accusing somebody else of large-scale land theft or expropriation, is that the land in question was usually only marginally inhabited to begin with. The United States and Israel are cases in point. Travellers to the holy land in the late 1800s described it as basically a ghost town with just a few Arab villages and scattered bands of nomads. Likewise, the United States experienced some sort of a catastrophic drought in the 1300s from which it never recovered, interior settlements and trade routes being lost forever, and there were basically just a few tribes living on the edges of the place when Europeans got here.

The claims of our stealing the American southwest from Mexico are equally ludicrous. Mexico had 300 years to settle California and the rest of the southwest before Anglos ever thought of moving there and, had there been any sizeable number of Mexicans living in California in 1800, it would still be part of Mexico. Mexicans began coming to California AFTER Anglos did all the heavy lifting to make the place habitable and there began to be jobs there.

0 Replies

OE writes

Quote:

Asking you back: What would you do if it was found that your house and/or the land it sits on used to belong to a, say, native American family which had been illegally expropriated, and it would found legitimate that you have to pack your stuff and leave your house and land to them? Would you hand over the deed and keys without a whimper?

No I wouldn't hand over the deed and keys without a whimper; not unless I was offered something at least as attractive (to me) as what I have and some compensation for the inconvenience of having to pack up and move. I would resist as vigorously as I could within the system, and as you, if I should lose, I would be highly resentful of those who stole my property and the government who allowed them to do it.

These sorts of scenarios occur periodically in New Mexico when an Indian tribe files suit to reclaim land that was 'sacred to their ancestors' or descendants of an old Spanish land grant rise up and attempt to take back the land legally or, in the not too distant past, by force.

Awhile back the US government decided to remedy continuing hostilities between the Navajo and Hopi peoples in Western New Mexico and Eastern Arizona by reordering the Indian lands to designate more clearly what was Navajo land and what was Hopi land. A fairly large number of Navajo families and Hopi families were required to uproot and relocate. This created a great deal of resentment among those people who were forcibly relocated and I'm not sure the government is done yet in dealing with all the claims that their new situations are far less satisfactory than the old. The Hopis, the smaller tribe, in particular think they got the raw end of the deal. Further some families refused to move and there has been 'illegal' encroachment and settlement in the designated areas sense, and these have caused continuing unpleasantries.

The mutually shared religious shrines and sacred land within the boundaries create even stronger bones of contention. And every time the government tries to remedy one issue, they make other people angry in the process.

It doesn't sound a whole lot different than the Israel vs Palestinian/Lebanon controversies don't you think?

As Advocate pointed out, most of the displaced (and refugee) Palestinians from back in 1948 have now passed on and it is their progeny and others who are fighting their fight.

Most of the Jews relocated to Israel in 1948 have also passed on and it is their progeny who have never known any other home and/or others who moved there believing it was their birthright to have the privilege to do that.

I honestly don't know what the best remedy is. I just believe there is one to be had if Israel and those friendly to Israel will keep looking for one. I have given up on the Palestinians and those friendly to them being willing to accept any reasonable remedy. I would like for them to prove me wrong about that.

0 Replies

dupe post caused by software deleted.

0 Replies

Another way of looking at the thing is to note that nature abhors vacuums, and ask yourself what might have happened to the Americas.

Sooner or later, either the Chinese or Japanese would have gotten here. Anybody really think the American Indian would have fared dealing with Chinese and Mongols or with Japanese that he did faring with Christian Europeans???

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the key point here is that there is no moral or ethicaL basis on which to prefer one side or the other in this awful conflict. The net effect of the intervention of external powers has been to prevent a desisive victory by either party - in short to prolong the conflict and the suffering it entails.

A few days ago I posted a piece in which the writer made a plea for the world to just let them fight until somebody wins this time with the suggestion that this is the only way that lasting peace would ever be achieved.

The only quarrel I have with your very well presented argument is one additional component that you did not address.

That component is that from Day 1 of Israel's existence beginning in 1948, it has had to deal with hostile neighbors who did not want it there and who would have obliterated it by now had they been allowed free rein to do so. One must sympathise with the angst of having your markets and schools and school busses randomly firebombed, and appreciate that you do not reward people who commit and/or condone such acts.

I have posted several pieces demonstrating that non-Jews in Israel who conduct themselves as peaceful productive citizens are afforded full citizenship rights and are treated no differently from anybody else except that Arab Israelis are not required to be in the military so that they are not required to fire on other Arabs. They are allowed to be in the military if they volunteer, however.

Of course there are innocent Palestinians who have suffered terribly through no fault of their own other than they are too afraid to protest the terrorist activities of their leadership.

But I think it is unrealistic to expect Israel to conduct itself democratically and altruistically with people who hate Israel and who commit terrorist acts with deadly regularity. How much of that kind of stuff do you tolerate before you just want it stopped by any means necessary and you no longer much care who gets hurt?

Condone Israel's activities in the Palestinian/Lebanon conflicts? No, I can't do that always. They almost certainly have had errors in judgment and have overreacted or done unnecessary violence in some circumstances.

Understand why they have done that? I certainly can.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the key point here is that there is no moral or ethicaL basis on which to prefer one side or the other in this awful conflict. The net effect of the intervention of external powers has been to prevent a desisive victory by either party - in short to prolong the conflict and the suffering it entails.

A few days ago I posted a piece in which the writer made a plea for the world to just let them fight until somebody wins this time with the suggestion that this is the only way that lasting peace would ever be achieved.

The only quarrel I have with your very well presented argument is one additional component that you did not address.

That component is that from Day 1 of Israel's existence beginning in 1948, it has had to deal with hostile neighbors who did not want it there and who would have obliterated it by now had they been allowed free rein to do so. One must sympathise with the angst of having your markets and schools and school busses randomly firebombed, and appreciate that you do not reward people who commit and/or condone such acts.

I have posted several pieces demonstrating that non-Jews in Israel who conduct themselves as peaceful productive citizens are afforded full citizenship rights and are treated no differently from anybody else except that Arab Israelis are not required to be in the military so that they are not required to fire on other Arabs. They are allowed to be in the military if they volunteer, however.

Of course there are innocent Palestinians who have suffered terribly through no fault of their own other than they are too afraid to protest the terrorist activities of their leadership.

But I think it is unrealistic to expect Israel to conduct itself democratically and altruistically with people who hate Israel and who commit terrorist acts with deadly regularity. How much of that kind of stuff do you tolerate before you just want it stopped by any means necessary and you no longer much care who gets hurt?

Condone Israel's activities in the Palestinian/Lebanon conflicts? No, I can't do that always. They almost certainly have had errors in judgment and have overreacted or done unnecessary violence in some circumstances.

Understand why they have done that? I certainly can.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Condone Israel's activities in the Palestinian/Lebanon conflicts? No, I can't do that always. They almost certainly have had errors in judgment and have overreacted or done unnecessary violence in some circumstances.

Understand why they have done that? I certainly can.

Exactly what George said:"There are no moral or ethical basis on which to prefer one side or the other."

0 Replies

More land theft.

Quote:

Israel to expropriate 275 acres near Hebron
George Rishmawi - IMEMC & Agencies - Thursday, 17 August 2006, 19:48

The Israeli government issued a military order on Thursday to expropriate some 275 acres of farmlands that belong to Palestinian farmers near Hebron, Palestinian sources reported.

Palestinian News Network said that the order includes property in the village of Beit Ummar, the town of Halhoul and Al-Arroub Refugee camp north of Hebron.

According to a source of the Palestinian Land Defense Committee, the order was issued by what is called "Deputy Chair of the highest planning committee in ."

The order number 20-T/901 includes wide areas of land close to a highway 60, a bypass road used mainly by Israeli settlers.

Road 60 was built after Oslo agreement was implemented to allow Jewish settlers to travel to and from their settlements without going through Palestinian cities. This road, however is entirely built on land confiscated from Palestinian farmers.

Israeli sources said a warning announcement was published allowing Palestinians farmers two months to petition to the Israeli high court of justice against confiscating their land.

Sources at the municipality of Halhoul said they never managed to stop from confiscating land even if they go to court. The source added that this latest order will allow the army to expropriate 90 acres which brings the area of the confiscated land from the town up to 700 acres, of the best farm land in the town.

On the other hand, the military order will expropriate 175 acres In Beit Ummar, raising the total of the confiscated area to 1500 acres, most of it is agricultural land.

It is likely that this expropreiated land will be used to expand the Gush Etzion settlement bloc which is located on the northern part of Hebron district.

Israel plans to annex the Gush Etzion settlement bloc, which is built on expropriated Palestinian land, into Israel in a final agreement with the Palestinians.

SOURCE

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Israel is not the "victim" here as many of its proponents would have us believe. As previously noted here, there have already been substantial payments made by Europeans to copmpensate the descendents of those whose property (and lives) were taken. In addition Israel has been the largest single recipient of U.S. government aid and grants for many years - a total many, many times greater than the largest estimate of the losses on European Jews in the past century. Israel has unlimited access to the U.S. market for its excports of all kinds - no restrictions whatever, they are treated as U.S. manufactured goods. Israel enjoys the benefits of a modern, high tech economy, and on any rational basis is far richer than any of its neighbors.

It would be verty difficult to describe the behavior of the Israeli government since the 1967 war as benevolent in any manner or form. They have held the West Bank and Gaza under military occupation for most of the past thirty-nine years, without granting any political rights whatever to its inhabitants. Throughout they have subjected then to steady and systematic expropriation of property (usually at the hands of Israeli Zealots, but always with the at least tacit approval and overt protection of the Israeli military) and deprived the inhabitants of the opportunity for organized economic development.

The various offers of land and independence of which the Israelis boast so frequently actually consisted of isolated, disconnected pockets of land, never constituting more than 40% of the captured territory of the West Bank (though they deceptively labelled it is more than that), and never offering the Palestinians the possibility of a choerent, contiguous state with political rights over air, water and mineral resources.

To be sure the Palestiniansd for their part have not shown any reasonable or constructive reaction to even the tentative and highly qualified offers the Israelis have made.

I believe the key point here is that there is no moral or ethicaL basis on which to prefer one side or the other in this awful conflict. The net effect of the intervention of external powers has been to prevent a desisive victory by either party - in short to prolong the conflict and the suffering it entails.

There's absolutely nothing in George's post here I would disagree with.

0 Replies

I have only one quibble with George's post. He writes: "It would be verty difficult to describe the behavior of the Israeli government since the 1967 war as benevolent in any manner or form." I would have written 1948, as from that time forward, the Palestinians were drive off their land. In 1948, the city of Gaza had a population of fewer than 100,000 inhabitants. In 1948 and 1948 alone, it soared to over a half a million. It is today more than one million. A similar influx of refugees into what is known as the West Bank began at the same time. Otherwise, i am with OE on this, George's post is an excellent exposition of the situation. My own point of view is that Israel consistently makes a dangerous bed, and complains of the necessity of lying in it. Due to guilt or political agenda, many people in western nations, and in particular the United States, join them in whining about the reality which Israel has created.

0 Replies

War protest growing

VIDEO - Protest against Lebanon war widens: IDF reserve soldiers are embarking on a protest march, letters and petitions are being sent to senior political and military leaders, and bereaved families are also voicing their criticism, as calls for top officials to resign in the wake of the war in Lebanon continue to grow.

Bereaved parents who lost their children in the war have embarked on a long march in memory of Egoz unit fighter Rafanel Muskal, killed at the beginning of the war. His father, Moshe Muskal, told Ynet: "It started as a march in memory of Rafanelat the end, on Mount Herzl, we'll be demanding the prime minister's resignation, because even if this war had objectives, they were not achieved, and he must bear the responsibility."

The bereaved father has already sent a letter on the matter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"Many parents who lost their sons in the war will join us," Muskal said, noting that the inability to secure the release of the abducted soldiers, the apparently temporary quiet on the northern border, and the loss of IDF life combine to constitute a failure.

"There are some here who see the snow on Mount Hermon (on the northern border) and think it's the Alps. They must realize there's a cruel enemy out there that must be defeated," he said, and added that many others have joined his call on the PM to quit.

"Olmert is being asked to go home without any commissions of inquiry and no PR spins. This demand is taking on a wide scope and it appears the entire nation is with us," Muskal said.

Should Olmert not resign, Muskal and other bereaved family members intend to arrive at the PM's Office in Jerusalem next week and stay there "until he realizes he must go home."

Meanwhile, parents to soldiers currently performing their regular military service are also initiating efforts to protest the conduct of the prime minister, defense minister, and top IDF officials.

Yisrael Yagal, 52, whose four sons serve in elite IDF units, wrote Olmert, Peretz, and Halutz, charging them with failing to perform their job.

"You didn't deliver the basic goods - defending Israeli residents," he wrote. "When the failure is big, there's no choice but to resign. Let others to carry out the difficult tasks."

'The protest is a good thing'

Elsewhere, reserve soldiers Ronny Zvigenbaum, 27, and Asaf Davidov, 28, embarked on a march Monday to the Prime Minister's Office along with other troops from their regiment. The protesters held up signs reading: "Citizens of Israel, our brothers, we must get out of the bubble."
The reserve soldiers said Olmert, Peretz and Halutz should take the initiative and resign now.

One of the protesters, Lior Dinamez, told Ynet those who managed the Lebanon war should pack up their bags and leave. Another reserve soldier said: "We want to protest what happened in Lebanon. We were stuck without equipment and foodorders changed every few hours, and we want those responsible to pay the price."

Former Shin Bet Director Carmi Gillon, who today heads the local council at Mevaseret Zion near Jerusalem, was also present at the event and backed the protesters.

Meanwhile, three reserve soldiers' groups are intending to join forces and hold a convention where they will be demanding the security establishment take steps to draw lessons from the war, while also taking steps against any military officer who failed in preparing the army for the conflict.

"The protest is a good thing, but we must direct it to a channel that will also bring results," one group representative said. "Otherwise, all the letters will be forgotten in two or three days. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3293894%2C00.html

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Condone Israel's activities in the Palestinian/Lebanon conflicts? No, I can't do that always. They almost certainly have had errors in judgment and have overreacted or done unnecessary violence in some circumstances.

Understand why they have done that? I certainly can.

Exactly what George said:"There are no moral or ethical basis on which to prefer one side or the other."

I have no problem saying that the one who attacks the other without credible provocation is more wrong than the one who defends itself against or retaliates against the attack. I have no problem whatsoever taking sides there.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Condone Israel's activities in the Palestinian/Lebanon conflicts? No, I can't do that always. They almost certainly have had errors in judgment and have overreacted or done unnecessary violence in some circumstances.

Understand why they have done that? I certainly can.

Exactly what George said:"There are no moral or ethical basis on which to prefer one side or the other."

I have no problem saying that the one who attacks the other without credible provocation is more wrong than the one who defends itself against or retaliates against the attack. I have no problem whatsoever taking sides there.

I quite agree with this statement from you, Foxy, as far as the attack-defense thing goes. The difficult part is the one about retaliation.

Problem is, after decades of perpetual hostilities between Israel and its neighbors, it's hard to say who is attacking without provocation and who is "merely retaliating". Sure, you can always look at an isolated incident and say, hey, in that case this side attacked, but I don't see how that would classify as a defensive action. Looking closer, you'll almost always find that in the context, it probably was "only retaliation" for an attack by the other side.

For example, Hezbollah claimed that the kidnapping of the soldiers was in solidarity with the Palestinians, and an answer to the ruthless attacks in Gaza. Does that mean they can claim the moral high ground? I doubt it.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Condone Israel's activities in the Palestinian/Lebanon conflicts? No, I can't do that always. They almost certainly have had errors in judgment and have overreacted or done unnecessary violence in some circumstances.

Understand why they have done that? I certainly can.

Exactly what George said:"There are no moral or ethical basis on which to prefer one side or the other."

I have no problem saying that the one who attacks the other without credible provocation is more wrong than the one who defends itself against or retaliates against the attack. I have no problem whatsoever taking sides there.

I quite agree with this statement from you, Foxy, as far as the attack-defense thing goes. The difficult part is the one about retaliation.

Problem is, after decades of perpetual hostilities between Israel and its neighbors, it's hard to say who is attacking without provocation and who is "merely retaliating". Sure, you can always look at an isolated incident and say, hey, in that case this side attacked, but I don't see how that would classify as a defensive action. Looking closer, you'll almost always find that in the context, it probably was "only retaliation" for an attack by the other side.

For example, Hezbollah claimed that the kidnapping of the soldiers was in solidarity with the Palestinians, and an answer to the ruthless attacks in Gaza. Does that mean they can claim the moral high ground? I doubt it.

That's the tough part. If you judge any nation on its past sins rather than on the current reality, you can justify just about anybody doing violence to anybody on any given day For me, the current reality is that Israel was not attacking either the Palestinians or southern Lebanon nor was targeting Hezbollah when Hezbollah rewarded Israel's peaceful stance by initiating hostilities. It is that one event that I judge for this particular war.

In the broader picture if you compare Israel's behavior, tectics, methods, and motives with those of the nations who wish to destroy it, Israel comes out looking not exemplary by any means, but certainly looking better than her enemies.

And some want to make it an issue of proportionality which has been discussed on this thread and on others. The theory here is that Israel has the right to defend itself, but it should hit back only in proportion to the degree in which it is hit.

I think at least some of us see that as a really dubious and inefficient policy if you ever want to see peace in the Middle East.

I believe Israel has demonstrated that it is willing to live in peace with its neighbors if left alone, and that it will counterattack with the ferocity of a swarm of bees if attacked.

I believe Israel's enemies have not demonstrated that they are willing to live in peace with Israel if they are left alone, and they claim Israeli brutality and agreesion if Israel responds in any way.

And it is on that point, that I can and do take sides.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

The difficult part is the one about retaliation.

Problem is, after decades of perpetual hostilities between Israel and its neighbors, it's hard to say who is attacking without provocation and who is "merely retaliating".....

In this particular case, it's pretty ****ing obvious. Maxmoud Ahmadi-najad needed some dog wagging to take heat off his spiffy atom bomb project (with which he means to fry large numbers of euro-losers as well as merely Jews and Israelis), and he ordered the hezbullies, who work for and take orders from him, to provide it.

What's complicated about that?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know