222 replies to this topic

[Julius]

And how many Arabs have you met that want to kill all Jews?

More than I can count. Egyptians who feel their military pride was stolen from them in 67/73 and want revenge, Jordanians resentful of the Palestinian influx into their country who blame Israel, Saudis who don't really give a reason, and Palestinians whose faces turn bright red with extreme anger at the mere mention of Jews or Israel.

[Joker]

There is hate-mongering on both sides. Neither side is right, and neither side is wrong. Both sides are right AND wrong, and figuring out how to arrive at some kind of peace is not as easy as just 'well, just make peace'.

Seems to me some of you are trying to shoe-horn this issue into some very black and white columns. "Why does my money support Israel?" Mostly because it's the only true democracy in the area, and as a true ally (unlike, say, Saudi Arabia we are allied with but who has their own agenda that doesn't necessarily align with ours), their intelligence and insight into the area are necessary for our own security (do you have any idea how much of our intelligence on terrorist activities comes from the Mossad? Do you know how difficult it is for westerners to infiltrate Arab groups?)

I guess that would depend on your definition of "true democracy" certainly Arabs and Jews aren't treated equally in Israel

[Joker]

More than I can count. Egyptians who feel their military pride was stolen from them in 67/73 and want revenge, Jordanians resentful of the Palestinian influx into their country who blame Israel, Saudis who don't really give a reason, and Palestinians whose faces turn bright red with extreme anger at the mere mention of Jews or Israel.

As has been mentioned earlier, having a problem with Israel doesn't equate to wanting to "kill all Jews"

[TheDHJ]

[Uncle Coulro]

And how many Arabs have you met that want to kill all Jews?

More than I can count ... Saudis who don't really give a reason

I lived in Riyadh the better part of two years. Every Saudi with whom I've discussed this has told me it's not about the religion for them - after all, they say, the Prohphet (PBUH), had several Jewish ministers - rather, it's about Saudi perceptions that the State of Israel is rogue and dangerous to the Arab population in Israel and the immediate surrounding region.

[Julius]

I'm in general agreement that settlers need to get out of the West Bank.

But there are some parts TECHNICALLY are in the West Bank, but basically are expansion of existing developments, just like there are some Palestinians areas that TECHNICALLY go into pre-1967 borders of Israel. Basically there needs to be a bit of a land swap.

Now put me in charge and I put a moratorium on the whole thing. At the same time adding a unit to an existing suburban Jerusalem neighborhood vacant lot is hardly a trail of tears.

I'd argue extreme Zionism is somewhat akin to Manifest Destiny in the US, only tempered by the amount of available land.

[Julius]

I lived in Riyadh the better part of two years. Every Saudi with whom I've discussed this has told me it's not about the religion for them - after all, they say, the Prohphet (PBUH), had several Jewish ministers - rather, it's about Saudi perceptions that the State of Israel is rogue and dangerous to the Arab population in Israel and the immediate surrounding region.

Kind of hard to argue with that. Seems pretty practical from their point of view.

[Julius]

Although Uncle C, I do have to say from living in London that the Saudis aren't exactly true to their nation's stated convictions. They drink, gamble, and womanize with the best of them.

[Uncle Coulro]

Although Uncle C, I do have to say from living in London that the Saudis aren't exactly true to their nation's stated convictions. They drink, gamble, and womanize with the best of them.

Some do those things, illegally, in Riyadh.

[phishNtrips]

no way i'd risk doing anything like that over there. Neither forty lashes or eath by stoning doesn't sound all that pleasant.

[TakeAStepBack]

There is hate-mongering on both sides. Neither side is right, and neither side is wrong. Both sides are right AND wrong, and figuring out how to arrive at some kind of peace is not as easy as just 'well, just make peace'.

Seems to me some of you are trying to shoe-horn this issue into some very black and white columns. "Why does my money support Israel?" Mostly because it's the only true democracy in the area, and as a true ally (unlike, say, Saudi Arabia we are allied with but who has their own agenda that doesn't necessarily align with ours), their intelligence and insight into the area are necessary for our own security (do you have any idea how much of our intelligence on terrorist activities comes from the Mossad? Do you know how difficult it is for westerners to infiltrate Arab groups?)

Our security issues are the result of a terrible foreign policy that meddles in the affairs of sovereign nations. I dont buy into the "terrorism" do to our freedoms bit. It's a snake oil sale. If we were less intrusive in the first place we would need less wasteful and often faulty "intelligence" programs.

I would prefer that Israel be condemned, the same as Palestine, by the USA until they can resolve their differences in a more mature and humane way. The way it stands now, both sides are grossly guilty of human rights violations and should be dealt with accordingly by the international table.

[Bone Daddy]

Sounds like the Gaza reservation is ripe for a few Wawa's and Mcdonalds.

[mug]

Mark Twain said " when you sit on a fence on an issue, you end up ripping your pants".
Homer Simpson once said "both parts and labor, pick one!"

[TakeAStepBack]

Israel urged to reconsider punishing Palestinians over UN campaign

US and European negotiators have urged Israel to refrain from taking punitive measures against the Palestinians if they press ahead with their bid to win recognition of a home state at the United Nations.

The Israeli government is considering a range of retaliatory steps, including withholding customs revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority under the terms of the Oslo accords. The amount, around 400m shekels (

[Deadshow Dan]

Palestinian statehood outside of a negotiated settlement violates and some would say dissolves the Oslo accords.

That's the context.


(please note I am not saying how I feel about this, just putting context to it) (except to say Lieberman is as nutty as most of the 2011 crop of GOP Presidential candidates)

[vic]

punishing them for a right to exist...which is what israel is constantly boasting about...way to go:clapping:

[vic]

Palestinian statehood outside of a negotiated settlement violates and some would say dissolves the Oslo accords.

That's the context.


(please note I am not saying how I feel about this, just putting context to it)

all due respect...you stance is biased

[Deadshow Dan]

all due respect...you stance is biased

I don't think what I'm saying is biased. It may be wrong, but it's not biased.

The Oslo agreement gave specific responsibilities to Israel in the context of there being a negotiated settlement. The customs tax (etc.) are part of the Oslo accord.

My understanding is that a non-negotiated statehood violates the accord. It requires a negotiated settlement of permanent issues. If Israel annexed the West Bank, it would also violate the Oslo accord, as that is a permanent thing.

Each side has been accused in the past of violating the Oslo accord.




(please note I am not saying how I feel about this, just putting context to it) (except to say Lieberman is as nutty as most of the 2011 crop of GOP Presidential candidates)

[TakeAStepBack]

punishing them for a right to exist...which is what israel is constantly boasting about...way to go:clapping:

Punishing them for even asking.

That's democracy paving its way to peace right there.

[Bone Daddy]

If the UN just created Israel, can't they just create a Palestine too?

[sarah b.]

This works in this thread, too:

[capt_morgan]

[capt_morgan]

i like jews though

[PieDoh]

I blame Jimmy Carter for the whole mess. He wants a Palestinian State...I say give them Georgia...

[capt_morgan]

give him something to stick in his face....ass....carters dumb

[Deadshow Dan]

If the UN just created Israel, can't they just create a Palestine too?

It is historically inaccurate to say the UN created Israel.

Basically with Britain pulling out of the area, it proposed to hand over to the UN administration of the land. In 1947 the UN voted on a plan to partition administration of the areas based on population. They had an Arab area and a Jewish area.

The local Arabs and Arab states rejected giving Jews any such rights, amassed an army, waiting for Britain to leave.... which was to be in ... I think it was August or September 1948. Meanwhile the British did not implement the UN decision.

In that context of Britain leaving and armies amassing, and in the context of raids and massacres by Arabs in Jewish settlements, in May 1948 the ...I think the translation is National Council ... met and voted on declaring independence. The initial vote was not unanimous, something like 6-3. They decided to use the UN partition plan as the borders they claimed.

It would have been an easy time for the Palestinians to take their own state, heck there never has been a Palestinian state.

Anyway, Israel did apply then to the UN membership and became a member a year after it became a state in 1949.

So, like I said, it is inaccurate to say the UN created the state of Israel

(and for those anti-Israel who think I'm wrong, just look it up in your favorite anti-Israel site. No doubt, they won't talk about the raids on Jewish settlements, etc. but you'll find that they use the fact that the UN did not create Israel as an argument to delegitimize the creation of the state.)

[Julius]

I suppose everyone has a right to an opinion. But if this is an issue you haven't studied, don't know the facts of, have never met and interacted with the people from the region, then maybe you should read more before spewing forth your uninformed babble.

[insolent cur]

I suppose everyone has a right to an opinion. But if this is an issue you haven't studied, don't know the facts of, have never met and interacted with the people from the region, then maybe you should read more before spewing forth your uninformed babble.

[TakeAStepBack]

This works in this thread, too:

[TakeAStepBack]

http://en.wikipedia....story_of_Israel

British Mandate of Palestine (1917–48)See also: British Mandate of Palestine
The British Mandate (in effect, British rule) of Palestine, including the Balfour Declaration, was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922 and came into effect in 1923. The boundaries of Palestine were drawn by the British and included modern Jordan. Britain signed an additional treaty with the USA (which did not join the League of Nations) in which the USA endorsed the terms of the Mandate.

In 1921, the Zionist Commission was granted official status as the Jewish Agency for Palestine in Article 4 of the Mandate. An offer to create a similar Arab Agency was rejected by Arab leaders.

The Mandate permitted the Jewish Agency to oversee Jewish immigration into Palestine and land purchases from the local Arabs. The Jewish Agency soon operated as an arm of the Zionist leadership. It ran schools and hospitals, and later formed a militia, the Haganah. Chaim Weizmann was the leader of both the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency until 1929. The Jewish Agency distributed entry permits to new immigrants (the number was fixed by the British) and funds donated by Jews abroad.[39]

From 1920, the Va'ad Leumi (or Jewish National Council, or JNC) was the main institution of the Jewish community ('Yishuv') within the British Mandate of Palestine. It was democratically elected and included non-Zionist Jews. This body functioned as a virtual government for the Jews in Palestine. The Political Department of the JNC was responsible for relations with the Arabs, ties with the Jewish Agency and negotiations with the British. As the Yishuv grew, the JNC adopted more functions, such as education, health care and welfare services, internal defence and security matters.

Most of the revenue raised by the Mandate came from the Jewish minority but was spent on funding the British administration. Therefore, with British permission, the Va'ad raised its own taxes[40] and ran independent services for the Jewish population.[41] Education and health care for Jews in Palestine were in the hands of the major Zionist political parties: the General Zionists, the Mizrahi and the Socialist Zionists, with each operating independent services and (except for Mizrahi) sports organizations funded by local taxes, donations and fees. The Zionist movement also established the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Technion (technological university)in Haifa (both 1925).

During the whole interwar period, the British, appealing to the terms of the Mandate, rejected the principle of majority rule or any other measure that would give the Arab majority control over the government of Palestine.

[edit] Jewish immigration and Arab oppositionBetween 1919 and 1923, 40,000 Jews arrived in Palestine, mainly escaping the post-revolutionary chaos of Russia (3rd Aliyah). Many of these immigrants became known as 'pioneers' (halutzim), experienced or trained in agriculture and capable of establishing self-sustaining economies. The Jezreel Valley and the Hefer Plain marshes were drained and converted to agricultural use.

The combination of Jewish immigration and the terms of the Mandate led to Arab rioting in 1920 and 1921. In response, the British authorities enacted a system of immigration quotas. Exceptions were made for Jews with over 1000 Pounds in cash (roughly 100,000 pounds at year 2000 rates), or Jewish professionals with over 500 Pounds. Arab attacks on isolated Jewish settlements and the British failure to protect them led to the creation of the Haganah ("Defense"), a mainly socialist underground Jewish militia dedicated to defending Jewish settlements.

By 1923 the number of Jews in Palestine had reached 90,000. Between 1924 and 1929, 82,000 more Jews arrived (4th Aliyah), fleeing anti-Semitism in Poland and Hungary and because United States immigration policy now kept Jews out. The new arrivals included many middle class families who moved into towns and established small businesses and workshops – although lack of economic opportunities meant that approximately a quarter later left Palestine.

The 1929 Palestine riots (see also the Hebron Massacre), led Ze'ev Jabotinsky to create a right-wing militia group called the Irgun Tzvai Leumi (National Military Organization, known in Hebrew by its acronym "Etzel").

Despite Arab opposition, the increased persecution of European Jews in the 1930s led to a marked increase in Jewish immigration. With the emergence of fascist regimes across Europe, Jews reverted to being non-citizens, deprived of all civil and economic rights and subject to arbitrary persecution. As countries came under Nazi rule or became Nazi allies (Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia were Nazi allies) the numbers of those wanting to flee grew more. Between 1929 and 1939, 250,000 Jews arrived in Palestine (5th Aliyah). The majority of these, 174,000, arrived between 1933 and 1936, after which the British increasingly restricted immigration. Migration was again mostly from Europe and included professionals, doctors, lawyers and professors from Germany.
In 1933, the Nazis negotiated the Ha'avara Agreement, under which 50,000 Jews and $100 million of their assets would be moved to Palestine. In Palestine, Jewish immigration helped the economy to flourish. With the completion of the port at Haifa and its oil refineries, significant industry was added to the predominantly agricultural Palestinian economy. With the British enforcing quotas and the situation in Europe increasingly desperate, Jews were forced to resort to illegal immigration. Illegal immgration, (Aliyah Bet or 'Ha'apalah') was organized by the Mossad Le'aliyah Bet, and the Irgun. Jewish refugees arrived in secret by sea, or, to a lesser extent, overland through Syria.

Increased Jewish immigration contributed to the large-scale Arab Revolt in Palestine (1936–1939), a largely nationalist uprising directed at ending British rule. The British responded with the Peel Commission (1936–37), which recommended that an exclusively Jewish territory be created in the north and along much of the western coast, the rest becoming an exclusively Arab area. Jewish opinion was divided as to the merits of this scheme, but it was rejected outright by the Palestinian Arabs as the plan involved the removal of 225,000 Arab people and just 1,250 Jewish people from their homes.

The Woodhead Commission (1938) reported that the Peel Commission was unworkable and recommended setting up smaller Arab and Jewish zones, but this plan was rejected by both Arabs and Jews. 20 years later, the Jewish Agency leader, Ben-Gurion wrote: "Had partition [referring to the Peel Commission partition plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed — most of them would be in Israel". Ben-Gurion responded to the Arab Revolt with a policy of "Havlagah" - self-restraint and a refusal to be provoked by Arab attacks in order to prevent polarization. The Etzel group broke off from the Haganah in opposition to this policy.

With war in Europe increasingly likely, the British tried to placate the Arab population of Palestine. The White Paper of 1939, stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now arrived in Palestine, the Balfour Declaration aim of "a national home for the Jewish people" had been achieved. The White Paper recommended an independent Palestine, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews, be established within 10 years. The White Paper agreed to allow 75,000 Jewish immigrants into Palestine over the period 1940–44, after which migration would require (unlikely) Arab approval. Both the Arab and Jewish leadership rejected the White Paper. In March 1940 the British High Commissioner for Palestine issued an edict banning Jews from purchasing land in 95% of Palestine.



As part of the understanding process for those that do not. I highlighted some areas where others tried to oversimplify the situation for gains. It is a very complex issue that requires some research to understand.

[Phishfolk]

:waives penis:

[vic]

I don't think what I'm saying is biased. It may be wrong, but it's not biased.

The Oslo agreement gave specific responsibilities to Israel in the context of there being a negotiated settlement. The customs tax (etc.) are part of the Oslo accord.

My understanding is that a non-negotiated statehood violates the accord. It requires a negotiated settlement of permanent issues. If Israel annexed the West Bank, it would also violate the Oslo accord, as that is a permanent thing.

Each side has been accused in the past of violating the Oslo accord.




(please note I am not saying how I feel about this, just putting context to it) (except to say Lieberman is as nutty as most of the 2011 crop of GOP Presidential candidates)

not nutty...he's a lobbyist in office

while we're on oslo, it's kinda funny that israel is hiding behind it (as well as palestine surely has as well)...israel has not met it's share either:

The English text of Resolution 242 is as follows:


The Security Council,


Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of the Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Affirms further the necessity (a) For guaranteeing the freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; ( For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; © For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the states concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this Resolution;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

http://clearview11.b...lution-242.html

perhaps the oslo accord should just be thrown out, since noone is living up to it...

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

hasn't happened

[TakeAStepBack]

http://www.guardian....-un-interactive

This interactive map is shocking.....

[vic]

http://www.guardian....-un-interactive

This interactive map is shocking.....

wow...says a lot...not just on this issue but on a slew of other global issues

[TakeAStepBack]

It really shows the root cause global issue. All of the others are simply symptoms of the root disease.

[Bone Daddy]

Hey, is this a non-biased report of this situation :
http://www.foreignpo...ian-conflict/0/

As opposed to this one:
http://www.erichufsc...lAndTheUSA.html

most of what I find googling is slanted one side or the other.

[Deadshow Dan]

Yes, less countries recognize the state of Israel.





What an awesome propoganda machine the anti-Israel lobby has.

Even smart people fall for it.

[Deadshow Dan]

Hey, is this a non-biased report of this situation :
http://www.foreignpo...ian-conflict/0/

If you think this is non-biased you are kidding yourself.

It is about as biased as yo can get.

[staggerlee024]

This could go down as the biggest mistake of the Obama administration

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, less countries recognize the state of Israel.





What an awesome propoganda machine the anti-Israel lobby has.

Even smart people fall for it.

Where do you see "less countries recognize Israel."?
If referring to the interactive map, it only speaks of Palestinian recognition as far as I saw....

Which part of what is the propoganda machine?
Since we're trying to make sure we bring accurate historical information into the discussion, that would be helpful and is encouraged.

[TheDHJ]

I suppose everyone has a right to an opinion. But if this is an issue you haven't studied, don't know the facts of, have never met and interacted with the people from the region, then maybe you should read more before spewing forth your uninformed babble.

Awesome.

I'm a Jew, been to Israel, prayed at the wall, been shot at in the Golan, stepped inside the West Bank...and I'm still not qualified to spew any babble.

[Joker]

I think Obama wanted to do the right thing but as has been the case in the past, when there's about to be a step in the right direction something comes up to derail things. If I recall correctly Israel has pretty much bitched slapped him at least a couple of times already.

Yet here we are once again, standing up to protect them, going against the vast majority of the world. Defending what is becoming more and more, an apartheid state.

[vic]

I suppose everyone has a right to an opinion. But if this is an issue you haven't studied, don't know the facts of, have never met and interacted with the people from the region, then maybe you should read more before spewing forth your uninformed babble.

quite a mighty high road youve taken there...so noone shold have any kind of opinion on any kind of foreign affairs unless theve been somewhere...

you werent alive in 1948 so you dont have a valid argument either?

[insolent cur]

quite a mighty high road youve taken there...so noone shold have any kind of opinion on any kind of foreign affairs unless theve been somewhere...

you werent alive in 1948 so you dont have a valid argument either?

i think what he's saying is that if you haven't had that first person experience and/or studied the conflict in depth, you ought to read more and flesh out your "facts" before presenting them as such.

[Joker]

i think what he's saying is that if you haven't had that first person experience and/or studied the conflict in depth, you ought to read more and flesh out your "facts" before presenting them as such.

Think before you speak??

It'll never catch on

[insolent cur]

Think before you speak??

It'll never catch on

though not just "think," but have a solid foundation, formed from broad-scope serious research, from which to form an opinion on such a complex and multi-faceted subject.

[Joker]

tl;dr

[TakeAStepBack]

i think what he's saying is that if you haven't had that first person experience and/or studied the conflict in depth, you ought to read more and flesh out your "facts" before presenting them as such.

though not just "think," but have a solid foundation, formed from broad-scope serious research, from which to form an opinion on such a complex and multi-faceted subject.

It is a very complex issue.

[vic]

i think what he's saying is that if you haven't had that first person experience and/or studied the conflict in depth, you ought to read more and flesh out your "facts" before presenting them as such.

research presents skewed 'facts' on both sides...everyone seems to be in agreement there

visiting there doesn't make you any keener on the issue at hand...what kind of company were you in when you were there? does that not matter? how much time did you spend there? a month? 2 or 3? that means you know everything or does it mean you got your facts from whatever company you were in? just cause you use having been there and a witty little condescending remark as muscle for your argument doesn't make you right

[Bone Daddy]

If you think this is non-biased you are kidding yourself.

It is about as biased as yo can get.

What is an unbiased web site giving a historical account of the region and actions of both sides?