Suppose The United Nations gave away our Land to some people

[opihimoimoi]

who needed a Nation... we got out voted. We have to move out so the new owners can come in. We can stay and work, own businesses, be a Doctor, etc, but we have lost our Nation.

We would not be passive....we would be fighting tooth, nail, and bombs to reverse the UN Decision.

After all, Our Nation is 230 years old and we have lived here all our lives....

But wait...Those Palestinians lived in Palestine for over 7,000 years, long before the Old Testament came to be.

Those Palestinians want their Land Back...end the war, ....give it to them, its only the right thing to do.

They should rename the place Palestine and allow the Palestinians to run the place. They owned the place from the git go.

In 1947 ....The UN screwed up big time....

[manic expression]

1. Well said! n/t

[cantstandbush]

57. Suppose the most barbaric people on earth traveled across the ocean

and took your land?

[Ravenseye]

58. Suppose we sailed across the ocean

and kicked "the most barbaric people on earth" out of their homes and into refugee camps while we stole their land. Would we expect them to just turn around and walk away from their homeland?

[sgxnk]

94. the vikings?

[hfojvt]

104. nah, the 1986 Bears were way more barbaric.

The Purple People Eaters never took quarterbacks out like that group of thugs. :P

[sgxnk]

111. saturday night live

<SNL>
da bears
</SNL>

[manic expression]

97. Suppose we honor the treaties we signed

That would be a measure of justice, would it not?

What we did to the Native Americans is quite similar to what Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians (and Lebanese).

Perhaps the only difference is that the Israelis haven't utilized germ warfare (as of yet).

[alarimer]

115. For Native peoples everewhere that was the case

since colonialization began.

[theboss]

120. What about the native Jews in Palestine?

It's not like all of Brighton Beach showed up in Israel in 1947.

[alarimer]

123. No, you're right about that

But why should one group get a country at the expense of another, who are held for years in refugee camps, etc. I do believe that Israel as a nation is not going anywhere. Nor should it. One of the (possible) solutions is a Palestinian state. Now because of historical religious hatreds, whether they could live alongside one another is debatable.

[theboss]

125. The only solution is a Palestinian State....and the UN gave them one.

It's not the State of Israel that is the problem. It was the refusal of the Arab States to accept a Palestinian homeland.

Actually, from a Palestinian perspective, the best thing that ever happened to them was Israel winning its war of independence. Otherwise, they would be under Syrian and/or Jordanian control right now.

[barb162]

312. And the native Christians

[cushla_machree]

218. Unfortunately Israel is colonizing in modern times

If it wasn't for that pesky UN and the press everywhere. Otherwise they could have been done with this decades ago.

Here is my issue. Before Israel was a country, there were arabs and christians and jews living in that area in relative peace. Israel comes into being, and starts importing people in who have NO claim to the land. IS it like europeans coming to america? Yes. But this is today, and its not like there are more jews, they are going to be outnumbered. Here in america, we beat the native americans out by sheer numbers. Unfortunately the palestinians are not going to be 'assimulated', and in fact, there is no place for them in Israeli society, at least here in america we gave them land (albeit crappy) and let them keep their identity.

Maybe we should send all the gypsies back to 'ROMA' and carve them out a nice country. Are you saying Roma doesn't have a right to exist?

[ComerPerro]

194. my thoughts exactly

[sabbat hunter]

262. so you believe

israel has no right to exist as a nation where it is located?

a simple yes or no will do

[Name removed]

299. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Erika]

2. Yep. They were screwed big time

They aren't getting over it.

[silverojo]

52. The Germans were screwed big time, too

by the Treaty of Versailles.

Was that a justifiable excuse for the horrors Nazi Germany wrought upon the world?

Which reminds me, modern-day Israel was intended to be a haven for some of the Jews who survived the Holocaust.

And the Palestinians think THEY got screwed? Were 6 million of them exterminated by a madman? Were they displaced to somewhere as far away as Israel (from Europe) as the Jews were? As far as I can tell, they couldn't have been displaced TOO far, as evidenced by the fact they've been present to cause trouble for modern-day Israel since 1947. And FWIW, they've made a great business out of moving to Israel and getting on Israel's welfare system. (Bad, bad Israel! Supporting Palestinian families so they don't starve! SHAME on you!)

Instead of fighting with the descendants of those who escaped Hitler's "final solution", maybe the Palestinians ought to grow the f*ck up and have a little compassion for a people who were taken away from the lands they loved, after having been subjected to the atrocities of the Holocaust.

[Bluerthanblue]

63. no, the way the germans were treated by the treaty of Versailles

was NO excuse for what they did to the Jews, the Gypsies, Gays, Mentally Ill, and countless other humans they chose to hate and destroy-

Yet, the reality of what was done by the Nazi's doesn't excuse ANYTHING that the Jews who survived the Holocaust do that is equally prejudiced, motivated by anger, fear and hatred. Yes, the holocaust WAS an atrocity beyond words- but it is not a license to treat others with cruelty. When you make the case you are trying to make, what you are actually saying is that the Jews are still being used by the Nazis, because they are committing awful acts against innocent people, and going against the teachings of their own Torah and Talmud- The people of the Jewish faith, have historically been people of tolerance, intelligence, and compassion. Israel as a Nation state, does not represent the people of the Jewish faith.

There have been many holocausts throughout history- not in the scale of the Nazi's- but does the fact that only thousands were decimated make their deaths any less deplorable???- Do you know anything about the clearances of Scotland????- of the Armenian slaughter? What about Sarajevo? Rawanda?.... It is ALL wrong- It is all humanity at its worst- 'do unto others' applies to Israels treatment of the Palestinians, as it does to our treatment of Iraqi's- Afghani's Cubans, Chinese, Mexicans, Native Americans, Koreans, and on and on and on.....

The circle of hatred only stops when one has the self control, wisdom, and COURAGE to say - ENOUGH- NEVER AGAIN!!!! This will stop right here, right now- I will not be a part of continuing the cycle of violence, oppression and hate.

I believe there are people with that courage, I have witnessed it- I have recognized the hope it holds out to the hopeless- and in a very minuscule way- i have lived it-

Healing will never come to the nation of Israel, if they face their pain and sorrow and fear, with aggression, wanton violence, and the denial that innocent life exists outside the boundaries they choose to define as 'Us', but extend to the ends of the earth. And the killing of innocent life, is something that the Holocaust survivors should NEVER dismiss 'out of hand' or as not of very deep importance.

Those who have suffered so much, have a choice to make- to live their lives to ensure that NEVER AGAIN is more than a slogan, and that it applies to all life- or to become the monster that sought their souls.

[TomInTib]

3. As Vo Nguyen Giap told MacNamara..

"It was our Country"

[Warren DeMontague]

4. So, you admit that the destruction of Israel as a nation is the real goal.

That's good. At least we can get past all the BS about how if they just get out of this occupied territory or that one, then the attacks on them will stop.

Intellectual honesty. How refreshing.

[manic expression]

10. So, you are once again mistaken

I like how you conclude that saying there was a screw up in 1947 means Israel has to be destroyed.

What this shows is that Israel's creation was not one of any real fairness.

Please explain yourself, because your post is as insipid as it is ignorant, not to mention purely wrong.

[adriennui]

38. why not complain about jordan being given away

to the hashemites (who were nomads and certainly not palestinians).

[manic expression]

98. Please explain n/t

[adriennui]

101. trans jordan (aka palestine)

were divided by the british...one part becoming the jewish state (israel) and the other becoming jordan (the muslim state).
problem is palestinians weren't allowed to head the gov't, istead control was given to the hashemites (the late king hussein is a descendant). palestinians didn't seem as pissed off at jordan in spite of the fact they weren't considered full citizens.

[The Magistrate]

134. Far From The Actual Case, Ma'am

The Emirate of Trans-Jordan was divided out of the area formerly under Ottoman rule and under English military occupation after the Great War. It was never part of the Palestine Mandate from the League of Nations, establishment of which gave the Balfour Declaration force of international law at the time. The Balfour Declaration did not in any way specify the entire Mandatory territory was to become the "Jewish national home", but only that such a thing be cultivated there. How iy was to be achieved was left quite vague, and Mr. Churchill, commenting at the time on the White Paper that was incorporated on the Mandate, stated plainly that persons who imagined it meant that the Mandatory territory would be come "as Jewish as Manchester is English" were quite mistaken, and that the policy of England was not to bring that condition about, not was it the meaning fo the Balfour Declaration.

The idea Trans-Jordan was "really" the Arab Palestinian state is simply false.

[adriennui]

186. thank you for the information.

[nealmhughes]

234. The Hashemite Family is originally from Mecca.

They were the Sharifs of Mecca until ibn Saud kicked them out when he took over all the smaller kingdoms starting with his own of Nadj to form Saudi Arabia. They were far from being nomads! I believe you confuse them with the former majority population of the Kingdom of Jordan, who once were mostly Bedouin...the big fight with the PLO came about due to the Palestinians conflict with the Hashemite/Royal Jordanian Army in the early 70s. The Jordanians had a Palestinian state within a state, of Palestinians against Bedouin and vice versa.

It was formed as a separate mandate in the aftermath of the Ottoman defeat/downfall.

The Kingdom of Transjordan was formed, and also Palestine.

Palestine was then further divided into Israel and the Arab mandate...Jerusalem was supposed to have been an international city, under UN control.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. I quote from the OP:

"Those Palestinians want their Land Back...end the war, ....give it to them, its only the right thing to do.

They should rename the place Palestine and allow the Palestinians to run the place. They owned the place from the git go. "

That sounds to me an argument that Israel, the nation as it currently exists and was created in '47, should cease to exist. Be "Destroyed". But what do I know- I'm insipid, ignorant, and purely wrong. (Got any more names you want to call me?)

As it is, I think it's important to lay these kinds of cards on the table, because they help explain the history of the region. Large numbers of Israelis have sought peace- but if "peace" really means "your country needs to be eliminated - but we'll come in and 'run it', because it's 'ours'" then you know what? There's a reason why the Israeli peace movement is foundering.. because if there is no chance that certain of Israel's neighbors will ever accept Israel's existence- and Israel is NOT going away, so sorry about that- then I hate to admit it, but the Israeli right has been correct all these years in saying that self-defense and survival are all that matters.

If the Israelis can't pull out of Gaza -destroying settlements in the process, something they should have done a long time ago IMHO- without having rocket fire immediately begin coming into their territory, where is the incentive for them to pull out of the west bank, thus putting Tel Aviv in range of the same rockets?

You can sit on a tree stump and pontificate -as the OP clearly does- about how Israel as a nation shouldn't exist (and I'm sorry, but that's the gist of the thread) but with that kind of attitude, what does anyone honestly expect in return from the Israelis?

[manic expression]

96. And

that is fair. Giving land back to people who should have it and doing away with the failed two-state system is certainly warranted and reasonable. So yes, those adjectives seem to apply to you once again.

"Large numbers of Israelis have sought peace- but if "peace" really means "your country needs to be eliminated - but we'll come in and 'run it', because it's 'ours'""

Funny, because ISRAEL eliminated Palestine and has been running it into the ground ever since. Look up the history. 750,000 Palestinians evicted by force, a great amount of land stolen outright, the rest is occupied with settlements (ethnic cleansing), oppression for an entire people. I could go on. Israel has NEVER sought peace, it has only instigated and injured. The fact is that Israel has never shown any shred of non-belligerence or decency toward others, and so they have responded as would be expected.

The reason no one will accept Israel is exactly because it has never wanted peace. They have constantly and consistently heaped injustice after injustice upon populaces and nations. If Israel did not occupy entire regions, oppress those living there, evict people for no reason and set up their own purely Zionist settlements on OTHER PEOPLE'S LAND (there's more), then those people would not fight against them (when girls and boys are getting shot down by Israelis, do you really expect Palestinians to accept that? When a family is shelled on a beach at a picnic, do you really think anyone will take it?).

Funny how Israel "pulled out of Gaza", yet kept control of Gaza's borders, airspace, beaches and continued to bomb the area whenever they wanted to. When they can (and have) close Gaza's border with Egypt and practically render the country cut off, is that fair or justified? Furthermore, if you may recall, Israel is controlling the West Bank as well, so it is only natural that Palestinians would want to fight for them as well. The incentive to pull out of the West Bank is that it is the right thing to do, and if Israel actually gives Palestinians a shred of decent treatment or respect, they will not face significant responses.

The fact is that Israel should give a right of return to all Palestinians, Israel should stop occupying the areas they have stolen and oppressed, Israel should stop killing innocent people, Israel should give control of Palestine to the Palestinians (as in what HASN'T happened in Gaza). There's more but that's the gist of it. If you go back to the beginning of Israel, what happened was a crime and an injustice, and that same crime is being perpetuated and perpetrated upon the same victims today. It's time to right those wrongs.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. So, you spell out what it is you think is reasonable.

i.e. "doing away with the failed two state system", instead- a Palestinian state from the Jordan to Tel Aviv?

Your sense of history is seriously warped. The Palestinians could have had a state ("Palestine" as a national entity never existed. Sorry.) in 1948 if they could have accepted the existence of Israel. They chose war instead. The impetus for the '67 war and subsequent occupation was a direct result of the surrounding nations' expressed intent and preparation to wipe Israel off the map.

Certainly, if you define "peace" as "the end of the state of Israel", the Israelis haven't been terribly interested in "peace"! Go fucking figure.

Speaking of what anyone "should accept"- for all the talk about Israeli injustices to the people in the occupied territories- and I'm the first to admit there have been many- why is it that the stated goal of Hezbollah in kidnapping IDF soldiers was the release of this guy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1669305&mesg_id=1669305

Yeah. Most important thing to Hezbollah is the release of a psychopath (or "hero") who smashed in a four year old girl's head with a rifle butt.

A right of return for 3 Million Palestinians into Israel proper (a country of 6 million) isn't going to happen. Sorry. Arguing for that is tantamount to arguing that the state of Israel should be dismantled- but I guess that's what you're arguing, anyway. Guess what? The huge numbers of Jews who were forced out of various Arab and other nations in '47 and '48 aren't going to get to go back, either.

Doesn't mean there can't be some form of compensation worked out. I think that's always been on the table.

As for the shelling on the beach, the rockets from Gaza came first. Again, after the Israelis pulled out. After the settlements were dismantled. Why is that incentive for them to pursue peace? Most Israelis think the settlers are assholes- but if you want to encourage peace minded Israelis -of whom there are plenty-, there have to be honest, realistic opportunities for peace: That means ACCEPTING ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST and STOPPING ATTACKS AND TERRORISM ON ISRAEL'S LAND AND CITIZENRY.

Period.

[manic expression]

185. Your assumptions are ridiculous

It would most likely be very beneficial to not have states starkly opposed to one another. Splitting up the region for different groups was a stupid idea in the first place, it was a mistake in the Balkans, it was a mistake in India and it was a mistake in Palestine.

"Your sense of history is seriously warped. The Palestinians could have had a state ("Palestine" as a national entity never existed. Sorry.) in 1948 if they could have accepted the existence of Israel. They chose war instead."

That is clearly incorrect. The Palestinians were supposed to have a state (which contained less land than the Zionist state), but Israel began to sieze their land by force. Both sides fought, but the Zionists stole the Palestinian land and basically threw 750,000 people off their land and committed a few massacres on the way. So as a matter of fact, the Zionists destroyed what was to be the Palestinian state and stole a great amount of its land. Israel chose theft.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

The war in 1967 started with an Israeli attack on Egypt. Israel then stole more land, displacing another 500,000 innocents in the process. Oh, and your attempt to justify such an action with a petty persecution complex is patently laughable.

I define peace as the absence of war, something Israel has done nothing to work for, as it continues to be belligerent and hurtful and worse toward other peoples. No, Israel is not interested in peace, at all, and it never has been.

"He (a Hezbollah leader) says Israel must agree to release some of the Lebanese prisoners it is holding, although he did not say how many."
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-07-12-voa61.cfm

Nice try. It is clear that your assertion on the demands is dishonest and incorrect.

So people who have had their land stolen from them getting some justice "isn't going to happen"? That is ridiculous, the only reason it will not happen is because Israel knows they stole land and doesn't care. Israel greedily wants to keep its ill-gotten goods, Israel wants to keep those innocent people disenfranchised. Face it, it should happen, but it won't, because "should" doesn't mean anything to Israel and its base and disgusting aims.

I guess fairness means Israel can't exist? The fact is that if Israel is unwilling to let people have what was wrongly stolen from them, that is wrong and it shows the true nature of Israel.

Ask yourself why those Jews faced eviction during those years.

And no, it was never on the table, Israel has been unwilling to seriously negotiate anything. It is a fact that Israel has only offered to let people be squatters, that is Israel would keep control over the land, the water, everything on the land, the resources and more. So no, that's simply not true.

First, Israel kept its iron fisted control over the borders, airspace and coasts (and more) of Gaza. They went from an occupation to a siege. How is that acceptable? Let me give you a hint: it isn't. Recognize that. Second, Israel was attacking Gaza prior to the incident as well. Schools and homes were bombed by Israel, and do you think that would not elicit a response? Please. Third, Hamas was observing the ceasefire quite admirably, even though Israel was shooting down girls and boys during that time. Fourth, are you trying to justify the shelling of an innocent family with the rocket attacks? What? That is absolutely perposterous, as that family was murdered in cold blood, no ifs ands or buts. Get a clue.

No reasonable person would accept Israel's "right" to oppress entire populaces, occupy entire regions, steal swathes of land, murder and evict countless innocents and more. If Israel gave Palestinians a shred of respect or decent treatment, perhaps then there could be peace. As I said before, Gaza was under siege, so your argument there is delusional. As I said before, Israel has never really pursued any fair agreement. Try to stop the real injustice and terror and maybe the responses will stop with it (and Hamas' ceasefire only further shows this).

[opihimoimoi]

192. Thanks for the post, very informative....and now we all know the rest of

the story.....

[Warren DeMontague]

212. Right. The part that isn't true.

But don't believe me. Do your own research.

[manic expression]

221. What part isn't true?

show me which part, and show me evidence to the contrary.

Until then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/default.stm

[Warren DeMontague]

242. What part isn't true? Lets see. I'll use your own limited BBC source:

Which condenses an awful lot of history down to just a couple paragraphs of what I think is clearly an anti-Israeli tack. Oh well.

"The Palestinians were supposed to have a state (which contained less land than the Zionist state), but Israel began to sieze their land by force. Both sides fought, but the Zionists stole the Palestinian land and basically threw 750,000 people off their land and committed a few massacres on the way. So as a matter of fact, the Zionists destroyed what was to be the Palestinian state and stole a great amount of its land. Israel chose theft."

The UN set up a special committee which recommended splitting the territory into separate Jewish and Palestinian states. Palestinian representatives, known as the Arab Higher Committee, rejected the proposal; their counterparts in the Jewish Agency accepted it.

The partition plan gave 56.47% of Palestine to the Jewish state and 43.53% to the Arab state, with an international enclave around Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, 33 countries of the UN General Assembly voted for partition, 13 voted against and 10 abstained. The plan, which was rejected by the Palestinians, was never implemented.

Hmmm. That's funny. According to you, "both sides fought", but the reason the Palestinians didn't get their UN Mandated State was because of all those greedy, grabby Israelis running around takin' their land. Nothing about the fact that the Palestinians rejected the UN plan, and the Israelis accepted it.

Lets try this alternate narrative for a bit:

"On November 30, 1947, the day after the UN approved the partition resolution, Palestinian Guerrillas attacked Jewish settlements throughout the country and blockaded the roads between. The Zionists' response was restraint, lest the UN, shocked by the violence it wrought, deem partition unworkable."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195151747/002-5164372-1155223?v=glance&n=283155

Page 4.

This, again, is from your BBC source:

"The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel but were repulsed"

Not a whole lot of time for them to pursue this peace that you keep saying they've never been interested in, there.

[opihimoimoi]

244. Therefore, the initial problem was rejection of the deal by the Arabs

Palestinians included.

There was no concensus....no agreement.

The root of the problem since 1947....forced loss of land/homes/businesses/etc./ via the UN. and Israel.

Someone takes my home away without permission...I gonna get mad.

[theboss]

267. Nobody "lost" their homes

Control of the "territory" was simply transferred from one entity to another. This happens constantly throughout history. Christ, by this logic, the Sicilians have lost their homes 200 times over the centuries.

[Warren DeMontague]

211. "Ask yourself why those Jews faced eviction during those years."

Here's an idea... how about you tell me?

This is priceless.

"The war in 1967 started with an Israeli attack on Egypt. Israel then stole more land, displacing another 500,000 innocents in the process. Oh, and your attempt to justify such an action with a petty persecution complex is patently laughable."

(Oh. And what happened with some of that land Israel "stole", when Egypt decided to accept Israel's existence and sign a peace treaty with 'em?)

A Petty Persecution complex. That's a laugh, it really is. Oh, this has been fun- really, fun. Where do you get these facts? I'm seriously curious. How about posting some sources?

'cuz, see, somewhere buried in all my shit, I have copies of cartoons- cartoons from ARAB newspapers, published immediately prior to the '67 war, showing Hero-to-all-Arabs Egyptian leader Abdel Nasser's head popping out of a tank, rolling up the base of the bed of then Israeli PM Levi Eshkol. Saying "Good Morning!" That's one of the more, well, civilized cartoons. Some of the others had skeletons of Jews hanging from trees- very celebratory and festive.

You have to be joking if you don't or won't grasp -a historical fact as indisputable as the Holocaust- that the entire Arab world was gearing up in 67 to finally be rid of Israel- and if they had, there wouldn't be this late-in-the-game historical revisionism attempting to call Israel's victories "unjustified" and based on a "petty persecution complex".

Seriously, man. I'd like to see where you're getting these "facts" from, but I'm fairly well sure it's not really worth my time.

[manic expression]

220. How about

you think for a second. What was going on during those years at the time? How would the two relate? Figure it out, it's not that difficult.

The whole reason the war in 1973 happened was because Egypt (and other nations) COULDN'T get their land back by diplomatic means.

"Unable to regain the territory they had lost in 1967 by diplomatic means, Egypt and Syria launched major offensives against Israel on the Jewish festival of the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1973.stm

Oops, I guess facts contradict you yet again.

Great, so cartoons now justify an attack on Egypt. Brilliant. So now Saudi Arabia can invade Denmark, too, right? :eyes:

You have to be joking if you think that a.) Israel acted with any shred of justification; b.) was justified in holding the land they held at that point (they stole it prior to 1967); c.) Israel could ever be "defending itself" by attacking first and asking questions later (while hoarding even more land in the process).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/six_day_war.stm

Try the facts, maybe then you'll get somewhere.

[Warren DeMontague]

236. Cartoons clearly demonstrate the state of mind in the countries at

the time. They aren't religious, they are clearly military in theme. If the countries are celebrating imminent kicking of the Jews into the sea, I think it's a little disingenous to argue that Israel was suffering from a "persecution complex" by believing they were about to be attacked by the troops massed on their borders.

They were predicting military victory, and annihilation of Israel.

Speaking of Annihilation of Israel- and Israel not being justified in holding the land that they held at that point ("they stole it prior to 1967")- so, they were holding on to land they didn't have a right to.. in fact, they don't have any right to any land, and they should just go away- but "I must be joking" if I think those nice folks in Egypt and Syria had any intent of attacking them.

Right.

I'd post the cartoons, but they're pretty vile and anti-semitic. Probably would violate some rule or other.

If you want to see them, track down this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195151747/002-5164372-1155223?v=glance&n=283155

I think it's pretty clear that, although it was a complex situation, the surrounding Arab states were fully committed to Israel's destruction in '67. (And why shouldn't they have been? According to you, Israel just kept stealin' land. Only fair they'd want it back, right?)

But don't believe me. Read the quote from Egyptian General Sa'ad Ali Amer on his oct. '66 military delegation to Damascus: "We are confident that we are making fast strides toward the realization of our common goal- the elimination of Israel and full unity"

I don't even know what we're debating about- you've made it perfectly clear that you don't believe Israel has any claim to legitimacy, whatsoever. I just don't understand why you would accuse a nation surrounded by people who also feel that way, that has been attacked continuously for some 60-odd years, of having a "persecution complex".

[Douglas Carpenter]

226. I think if you check with more recent Israeli historians such as

Benny Morris -Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva - arguably Israel's most prominent historian of the Arab and Israeli conflict -- it is pretty much his conclusion and pretty much the consensus of the newer generation of Israeli historians that in spite of their rhetoric and bluster -- neither the Egyptian Army or other Arab armies were in attack position -- they were in fact in a defensive position on the eve of the 1967 war. The Egyptian Army had in fact moved into a defensive rather than an attack position in the Sinai. They may have been acting on faulty information supplied by their Soviet allies. Or they may have been seeking to bolster the Syrians who were complaining about Israeli encroachment into the DMZ leading up to the Golan. Professor Morris presents evidence that the senior leadership of the Arab armies knew that they could not possibly prevail in a war against Israel.

I would add that Dr. Morris is an absolutely ardent Zionist and his book, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001, is very much an apologias for Israel and the history of Zionism. Nonetheless Professor Morris, while acting in the spirit of serious and critical scholarship, attempts to dispel many assumptions which his scholarly work has lead him to believe are historic misinterpretations.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0679744754.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679744754/ref=sr_11_1/104-2240026-0639147?ie=UTF8

For a non-Zionist (some might say very sympathetic to the Palestinians)recently updated history of the Arab Israeli conflict by an Israeli historian -- Haifa University's Ilan Pappe's work -- A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples is very good.



link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521683157/104-2240026-0639147?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

[Warren DeMontague]

237. Dr. Morris may be an "ardent zionist", but I'm not.

I don't consider myself one. I don't even know what that word is supposed to mean. I do support the right of Israel to exist. Last time I checked, that wasn't such a radical place to be, philosophically.

You can find books by allegedly "committed liberals" supporting George Bush, or the Christian Right. Labels don't impress me. But I'll keep my eyes open for those books. I agree that the situation preceding the '67 war was complex- but there had been a de facto state of war since '48, and clearly Israel had very good reason to believe the chess pieces were being arrayed against them for what Gen. Amer of Egypt called in '66 "Our common goal- the elimination of Israel".

Again, if Peace had been seriously sought by Israel's neighbors in the years preceding- peace that included recognition and acceptance of Israel, mind you- (that should go without saying, but in this thread it seems that's not a given) I'm pretty convinced the issues could have all been settled.

Here's a very good source on the '67 war, IMHO:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195151747/002-5164372-1155223?v=glance&n=283155

[Douglas Carpenter]

255. I might recommend listening to a very informative and very civil

debate between former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and Professor Norman Finkelstein on the broader question of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict:

listen or download or read transcript - link:


http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

[opihimoimoi]

277. Thank you for a wonderful source: It explains things in a very clear way

The Palestinians were robbed of their land and NOW WHAT?

No one seems to know?

[Douglas Carpenter]

298. here are 2 links to 2 organization you might find interesting:

http://www.endtheoccupation.org/

http://www.nimn.org/

[opihimoimoi]

306. Thank you, both are on my icon screen for later reading.... :o)

[MrPrax]

256. Right said...

You nail it...

The 'Israel existence' arg is a red herring. It's 2006 and the anomosity towards Israel is strictly the same as it was twenty years ago -- it's border violations and occupation of it's immediate neighbours.

The propagandists love to include the whole Arab world -- but the fact of the matter is that any resistence to Israel by it's region's neighbours is simply because of these disputes. Any country that is in a gross violation of international law can't expect full recognition by those impacted by those violations and Israel and it's supporters are mostly just liars in not accepting this basic fact.

They are disingenious -- they actually support the vision of a Greater Israel that includes all of the 'captured' territories. They just don't have the guts to admit it and they don't support any peace plan that deviates from this goal. The public is consistently fed 'hate' propaganda to cloud the issue, which will and always remain, Israel's violations of international law. Israel has no claims to nothing other than it's sanctioned borders -- if Israel is being attacked by an insurgency movement, then it is understandable considering Israel's intransigence on negotiating in good faith.

Same thing in Iraq...the insurgency there has grown in direct proportion to the length of time the US continues to occupy the country. In hindsight, we can see that there were some response just after the invasion to co-operation. But after three elections, continued US-led violence and the growing belief that the US wasn't going to leave, has created the situation in Iraq. Iraqis know this and realize that the only hope they have are fighting occupation. That's why it is worst now, than two years ago -- Iraqis had hope.

In Palestine, the same thing -- the Palestinians and everyone else has lost hope and any optimists on both sides adon't even have a 'process' to point to anymore. Israel and the US can demand all they want -- but that don't mean anyone is going to listen. The American public is the biggest loser of course because they are footing the bill for it and if you notice, there has been NO real public airing of just what exactly has Bush accomplished...virtually nothing if look at it and simply a series of spectacular failures that the US public seems to have a great deal of tolerance towards.

[opihimoimoi]

296. I can go with that: Bushies Failure Rate is Spectacular......

Bush never was a Solver...more like a THORN/INSTIGATOR

[coalition_unwilling]

126. Israel as a nation should exist, but not on Palestinian land.

I recommend setting aside about half of today's Germany for said project. Anyone with me?

[opihimoimoi]

144. Me. Isreal should exist ...where is another question.

Germany? Poetic Justice?

[Marie26]

151. Angela Merkel, Germany, & the EU

might have an issue w/that.

[Lurking Dem]

162. So uprooting

the then 850,000 and now 3,000,000 Sephardim from the Middle East and transplanting them in Germany is okay with you?

[Marie26]

164. And uprooting the Germans,

and moving them to... Antarctica? This is just silly.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. And how would you react to a proposal to move all the Palestinians out

of the West Bank and Gaza?

Noxious? Offensive?

[manic expression]

223. And move them where?

To the places that their families rightfully belong?

[treestar]

189. Maybe it shouldn't. Maybe it was all a big mistake that didn't work.

What is it to us in the US? Why does it matter to us whether there is an Israel or not?

[Warren DeMontague]

216. Maybe those of us who aren't Christians will need somewhere to go

when the Talibornagains crank up the inquisition full throttle.

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. Israel only existed has a nation

for about 70 years during the reign of King David and King Solomon before the UN took Palestine and turned into what is now modern day Israel.

This is not about the right of one people to exist or not. That is a red herring. Don't the Palestinians have the same right?

Apparently not.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. "Palestine" has NEVER existed as a nation. nt

[theboss]

269. They were given a state too; they rejected it

The UN divided this crappy land between the Jews and Arabs. The Israelis said, "Thank you" and proceeded to build a prosperous modern democracy. The Palestinians said "Pffffffttttttt" and immediately began life as an ignored Jordanian protectorate.

[jonnyblitz]

65. I believe it is for some. but you need to look at why they want it

and not just the symptoms. this is common sense, not an endorsment. you can't treat the symptoms if you don't acknowledge the cause.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. As Tom Friedman put it, Hamas & Nasrallah (of Hezbollah) have replaced

"land for peace" with "land for war".

I spent a lot of time in my life arguing that the Israelis should pursue the former. I'm not sure how anyone can argue with a straight face that they should accept the latter.

You want to talk about 'cause'- that's great. The repeated attempts at, and continued and explicitly expressed desire for Israel's destruction over the past 60 years is a direct cause of the situations we are witnessing, particularly the occupation of the territories since '67.

[anewdeal]

204. A Palestinian country probably couldn't survive.

There is very little oil in Israel.

[JI7]

5. well, Native Americans lived here for longer than 230 years

the same goes for other parts of the world.

[tuvor]

6. Are you just as prepared to return America to its original settlers?

I just noticed the parallel, that's all.

[opihimoimoi]

13. The difference is Our native Indians are somewhat comfortable

and no sign of suicide bombers....yet. So the question is moot.

[JI7]

15. are you being serious with that type of response ?

[Selatius]

18. Maybe you should let Native Americans determine what is "comfortable"

Instead of trying to speak for them.

[opihimoimoi]

20. I did say SOMEWHAT...meaning some are comfy and some are not

but the point is, they are not planting roadside bombs...etc.

It was a statement...I am not talking for them.

[manic expression]

23. Look up AIM

specifically the Wounded Knee standoff.

Plus, the "roadside bomb" era of the Native Americans was in the latter part of the 1800's, until they were basically beaten into submission and near oblivion.

[opihimoimoi]

31. 23% live in poverty almost double the National Average.

77% are making it.

[Nye Bevan]

24. So if the native Americans start "planting roadside bombs...etc"

we should dissolve the USA and give them their land back?

[opihimoimoi]

27. Just suppose the Natives plant enough bombs to spread Fear and Death

to the point of 5 million peeps a month getting killed maimed. And we are stymied to stop them, ....somewhere at some point...there will be concessions...

In that case, no one wins as the natives will be hurt just as much as we are. A weak wounded Nation is not fun to live in.

[shadowknows69]

30. With global warming and the potential ecological catastrophe

we are facing,with apparently no end in sight to the apathy towards things like AL Gore's movie (present company excepted of course)that are trying to wake up the world I have a sinking feeling that mother earth will soon be "the decider" of where people are able to live on this planet.

[opihimoimoi]

33. Where is the WAR on IGNORANCE??? I wanna KNOW.

[coalition_unwilling]

128. Where is the WAR on GREED? I wanna know! (n/t)

[opihimoimoi]

175. Not in the Republican Party...dats fer sure

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. How Are The Native Americans Going To Amass That Kind Of Power?

They would be crushed.

I can't imagine the firepower one would need to killor maim 5,000,000 Americans a month.


They could only accomplish thisif Russia gave them their ICBMS and then how would they launch them?

From where?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Hmmm

"they are not planting roadside bombs (because they had the fight knocked out of them in the nineteenth century)

Here's a good primer book on the destruction of the American Indian:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bury_My_Heart_at_Wounded_Knee

[zonkers]

26. Comfortable is a fat casino and bingo parlor hemmoraging cash.

[H2O Man]

47. Please. n/t

[LostinVA]

50. Our Native Americans aren't the least bit comfortable

And most live in Third World-type poverty.,

However, I do agree that the Palestinians have a real axe to grind, and have been treated horribly since 1947. Many "terrorists" were created because of this treatment. And, I put "terrorists" in quotes, because not everyone who fights for freedom is a terrorist. Arafat was created.

Just like the IRA, this is how I feel about certain terrorists organizations in that part of the world: I don't like how they try to get their point across, but I do understand the historical fury alot of it stems from.

[opihimoimoi]

76. 23% in Poverty, very high compared to 12% National Average

[tuvor]

62. Weren't thousands massacred over the years?

[rman]

81. millions, actually

"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million."
http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html

http://www.alternet.org/story/4391/

-

Most were killed.
Probably the largest genocide in known history.

[Igel]

257. Yes, but the initial population reduction

was hardly intentional, and in most cases European probably weren't even aware that it had occurred for quite a long time.

Think a "New World" version of the Black Death, only worse, and faster. What saved some tribes was their hostility to their neighbors.

[Bonobo]

69. ????????!!!!!!!!!

[Mabus]

84. Yeah, mom was real comfortable being locked in a basement with rats

My mother was taken by the United States government as a 5 year old child and forced to attend government boarding schools. When she arrived at her "comfy" boarding school she was stripped, covered with a green snotty goo (to kill any potential of cooties) that was washed off with kerosene after which she was allowed to wash kerosene off. They would wash them with the green snotty goo every so often, usually after another child had gone home and then returned to their lovely boarding school. The process was designed in part to keep them from going home and to discourage visitors to the boarding school.

Several times as a child when she mistakenly used her native language she was locked in the basement with the rats. She was usually locked in overnight in the basement where they kept the boarding school's supplies. She talked about hearing the rats scurrying about and once in a while she would feel them brush against her leg. I've got the tapes of her talking about it. She talks about the darkness, the loneliness and how she felt abandoned. She talked about how she wanted to die after the beatings for speaking her language or her mind. Before she died ten years ago, I sat by her hospital bedside as she drifted in and out of comas. Sometimes, when she came out of a coma she would talk about seeing her relatives who beckoned her to join them on the other bank of the river. She's comfortable now.

Is this the comfort you speak of? Being ripped from your parents as a child and being forced to learn a language and culture that is foreign to you? Do you think that is comfortable?

It is quite apparent that you do not know the real history of American Indians or the conditions that many of us live under today. Please don't use us as examples when you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Mabus]

88. You're sounding like Barb Bush talking about Katrina survivors

After all, aren't we Indians better off than we used to be?

[theboss]

That's because they are all dead

Did you honestly just say this?

[RagingInMiami]

199. "somewhat comfortable"?

If it weren't for casinos, they would all still be living in poverty. As it is right now, they have plenty of social problems. They are not comfortable. They are just ignored.

[opihimoimoi]

229. True, all too many live in poverty, according to stats 23%

But not all Indians are in poverty....23% are. Some are very comfy and some are just making it above the bread line. Thats what I meant with SOMEWHAT.....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. I am.

I'd like to keep my house, thanks, but I'd be happy to obey the laws and apply for citizenship in whatever Indian Nation has claim to the land it's built on

[The Stranger]

158. Native SOUTH AFRICANS were restored the right to vote, citizenship.

THAT IS THE PARALLEL. Not Native Americans.

[YankmeCrankme]

249. A definitive yes...

Not only would I agree to return America, I would accept living under their rules if they would allow me to remain here. Not sure where I would go if they didn't, though.

[YankmeCrankme]

250. Let's look at things in perspective...

Around 1097 AD, a bunch of western christians decided to go to the Holy Land and establish western christian kingdoms out of land occupied by Arabs and Muslims. For the next 300 years or so these same Arabs and Muslims fought to remove them and finally succeeded.

Fast forward, in 1947 the U.N. backed by western states imposed a new nation unto these same Arab and Muslim lands. There has been fighting for only the last sixty years...seems we might have a long way to go.

Maybe if we look at it from the view of the people who have had this done once before we might see the problem. But, I don't hold my hopes out.

[Igel]

258. Presumably the Europeans should have marched

and called for a withdrawal of the occupation forces.

Although, to be honest, by that time the assimilation of the locals had been largely accomplished. Not entirely, of course, the Arabs had only had about 300 years or so to accomplish their Arabization and Islamicization. Submission was enough, until recently.

[Selatius]

7. You should lay your blame at the feet of the British Empire as well then

They were the ones who originally brought the issue forward before passing it off to the UN out of pure frustration with dealing with the militants on both sides.

[coalition_unwilling]

131. In fact, certain israeli luminaries (like Menachem Begin) were

called "terrorists" in their time by the Brits, because of their membership in Irgun Zva'i Lum (not sure of spelling exactly) -- Jewish paramilitary organization that specialized in blowing up buildings in Palestine pre-'47.

OK, before outraged responses pour in, Irgun Zva'i Lum made every effort to make sure civilians were out of the building before they blew them up, from what I know.

[unschooler]

8. The British took Palestine away from the Palestinians before the

U.N. or the Israelis moved in. It sucks, but the Pals were screwed well before 1947.

[AngryAmish]

129. Turks had control before that

[Marie26]

139. And Romans before that.

Was Palestine ever an independent country? When did the name "Palestine" even begin to be used?

[rockymountaindem]

215. "Palestine" was first used by the Romans

After the Bar-Khokhba by the Jews of what was then the Roman province of Judea in 132-135 AD, the Romans decided they had had enough. This was after the Great Revolt of 66-70 as well. So, the Romans expelled the Jews as best they could, and renamed the province from Judea to "Philistia", after the long-gone Philisines of Biblical times. This was done in an attempt to diminish the Jews' sense of attachment to the land in which some of them were still living and from which many had been expelled or sold into slavery abroad.

[opihimoimoi]

241. Had to be the RedCoats....Damn

[Selatius]

9. If the UN gave some US land to Native Americans, I'd willingly accept

It was originally their land.

[opihimoimoi]

14. Many Tribes have land and some have casinos as well....

[JI7]

17. most Native Americans are living in poverty

funding for basic needs are being cut by the administration.

[opihimoimoi]

34. Stats reveal an appalling percentage.23%...77% are making it to the bank.

[LostinVA]

51. You actually are quite clueless about the plight of the majority of Native

Americans... throwing around statistics doesn't tell the story. Drive around Pineridge, Rosebud, etc. Drive through some Navajo reservations. These all have literal Third World conditions. While we piss away more than $1 billion a day in Iraq. Ever been to Neah Bay in Washington? It's a literal slum in a beautiful part of America.

This is not a good analogy to make, unfortunately.

[opihimoimoi]

77. Apparently, what you see in the areas mentioned are part of the 23%

Many live off the reservation, married with kids, jobs, home, car, boat, tv, etc.

[silverojo]

56. Funding for EVERYONE'S needs are being cut by Bu$hCo

Not just the Native Americans...no matter what your race or skin color, if you're not wealthy, you're getting screwed by this administration.

[AlienGirl]

21. They do not have *all* their land

Nor do they have more than a tiny portion of the profits that have been made off of that land by Europeans and the descendants of Europeans. The US government has awarded everything from mineral rights to grazing rights to people who do not belong to the tribe. There are little old ladies on reservations with oil wells in their backyards who are being paid $5 a month for the oil and who can't afford to heat their own houses with it.

Which is why I propose a voluntary un-settlement of North America, and hope all those who want land returned to the Palestinians will help publicize it and join the cause.

Tucker

[Mabus]

86. my 2005 per cap check from casinos was about $60 last year

Yep, we're just rolling in the dough. As for the land, it is still under government trusteeship which means if we want to build an outhouse we have to get everything approved by the US Government before we take a shit.

Don't talk about stuff you have no idea about.

[JNelson6563]

198. Some do fare better

not that that excuses anything. I believe that the Native Americans got one of the rawest deals ever dealt and many continue to receive such. Others do a bit better. Where I am the casinos do very well and the Native communites provide fairly well for their own and seem to do better each year, I am happy to report. And let us not forget that some tribes do so well they throw millions of dollars around in the political influence market (i.e. Jack Abramoff). I can't help but wonder what the poorest in those particular tribes feel about that sort of spending.

Just my .0125

Julie

[KamaAina]

154. ...but closer to home, Native Hawaiians still have no recognition

thanks to more double-dealing by Frist the cat killer (ka ho'omake o na popoki).

There's a good one, right in our own backyards: Hawai'i had been settled for 1400 years, give or take, and had been an independent monarchy for about 75. It had treaties with countries like Denmark, and was even a member of the Universal Postal Union. Then a phony "revolution" led by wealthy, mainly American sugar planters was backed by U.S. Marines, and within five years, the Vichy-like republic had given way to outright annexation by the U.S.

Today Hawaiians are about 20% of our islands' population, and they're at the bottom in almost every conceivable category relating to income, health, education and the like. An increasing number, displaced by the booming housing market, are living on the beaches -- the ones unfavored by the visitors who are driving the prices up to begin with.

edit: spelling, of the English, not the Hawaiian. Go figure.

[opihimoimoi]

232. To be honest: many on the beaches(homeless) and parks are there because of

choices:

Poor attitude in early and high shools results in poor grades, performance wise they do poorly...many end up on drugs(ICE) is mega problema here.

A vicious cycle...low level comprehension due to low level school grades results in low level jobs...leading to drug dealing to make up the cash shortage diff. Not all are of this scenario but many are.

The Hawaiians want their land back...or at least some fair compensation...the Pubs killed the move.

[KamaAina]

310. True dat -- but these days we're seeing *families* out there

The vanguard of the homeless may indeed be people who have made poor choices. I would submit that they still shouldn't be homeless; that's what shelters, missions, halfway houses and the like are for, or would be if only Bush** et al. hadn't slashed their funding.

But more and more, we're seeing whole families turn up on the beaches and streets, including the one I walk down to get to the bus stop after work. Many of them even have breadwinners -- but a low-wage job isn't always enough to keep a roof over your head out here.

By no means all of these families are Hawaiian, either. The vicious cycle you describe does not discriminate; haoles in places like Appalachia are subject to it, too.

P.S Welcome to the Dungeon! :evilgrin:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. So Would I As Long As It Wasn't My Home

See the problem.

[Selatius]

103. It depends. Nobody is legally within their right to cleanse the land

If they simply signed over administration of the land to Native Americans and said all I had to do was pay taxes to the new sovereign government of the land, I have no problem with that. However, to forcefully remove people from their habitations is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

[silverojo]

55. Um...our govt. DID give Native Americans land

These parcels of land are called "reservations", and they have their own governments and police forces. I live in a city that borders a reservation, and to give you some idea of how much power a reservation has: There was a dispute over how much my city was paying the reservation to use the northbound side of a major road right on the dividing line between the city and the reservation. The tribe didn't think they were getting a good deal (and they were right).

So they just calmly declared the northbound side of that road shut down, put up barricades, and there wasn't a thing the city, state, or federal govt. could do about it. (I was laughing my butt off, as I was on the tribe's side!) The city finally agreed to pay them a more reasonable amount, the barricades were removed, and there was much happiness in the land as traffic began flowing freely again.

Of course, there is a lot of poverty on reservations, but there's also a lot of poverty in inner cities. People joke about casinos, but they've given a lot to Native American communities, in terms of jobs and money. Slowly, change is taking place.

The bottom line is, the UN doesn't have to give US land to Native Americans. Because the government already has.

[bloom]

74. That is what I see as the difference

At least the Native Americans have some land. (And I think that the US should be more generous in helping with their continuing social problems).

From what I have been reading - Israel has no intention of allowing the Palestinians any sort of sovereign situation.

I now think that any kind of talk on the part of Israel - that they are interested in peace is just Orwellian speak.

The New Middle East

Secondly the creation of a Palestinian state is no longer popular or possible. While the Arabs in the territories aren’t going anywhere else, they are not about to get a state.

http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1865#more-1865

The End of Israel's "Peace Through Weakness"
By Michael Reagan
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 20, 2006
We were right all along, and that gives us the right to say “we told you so.”

Nobody wanted to listen when former Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and a lot of American conservatives warned that you cannot negotiate with terrorists such as Arafat, Hezbollah, and Hamas, or their sponsors in Syria and Iran. We were accused of being warmongers and told that the future of Israel lay not in defending itself, but in making concession after concession to an enemy sworn to demolish the Jewish state and drive its people into the sea.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23446

I think that the Palestinians never thought that Israel was serious about wanting peace. I'm thinking they were probably right.

There have been some people that were serious. Those are not the people in power - just like here. If it were up to me - the US would seriously reduce it's military and spend the money on social programs. But it's not up to me.

And I would be lying if I said that just because _I_ want peace - that that meant that the US is a peaceful nation. That would really be quite ridiculous.

[Selatius]

105. With due respect, many of those resevations were bum deals to begin with

Tribes who, for instance, lived in the forests of the east coast have been removed to treeless, flat plains over a thousand miles away and are confined to live there got a good deal with that land?

I'm not saying I would find it acceptable if the UN gave back all the land to the Native Americans. What I am saying is with respect to your claim of the gov't giving them land, while it may be true they did give them land--even though it was originally taken from them--you seem to be overlooking the fact many of them were forced into accepting those agreements or tricked into doing so.

What I am saying is if the UN gave them back some land with stipulations that simply said Native Americans could not forcefully remove the inhabitants on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin on that newly won piece of land, I wouldn't mind if I was living on that piece of land because then all I'd be doing is paying my taxes to the Native American nation instead of to the US.

But when we talk about Israel, they have forcefully uprooted the indigenous populations and replaced them with their own populations. It was this that provoked my original comment with respect to Native Americans. When Israel began building settlements, it often made excuses to appropriate Palestinian land, made the Palestinians move off the land, and then bulldozed their homes to make way for Jewish colony settlers.

[AllNamesHaveBeenUsed]

66. Why not give 'em back Manhattan?

[NoPasaran]

207. That was bought fair and square by the Dutch n/t

[GreenTea]

11. Suppose a country bombed us, killed our citizens, stole all our resources

forced their way of life and their form of government on us, they build their bases, air strips and a huge fortress embassy on our land to carry out bombing raids on neighboring countries, then they installed a puppet regime and decide to occupy our country and never leave to keep control of our resources???

[opihimoimoi]

19. Yup, we would e PISSED as HELL..many of us would fight to the death

as we resist.

[sandnsea]

12. Ottoman Empire 1299-1923

Maybe we should just give the whole mess back to Turkey.

[coalition_unwilling]

133. I actually favor the Assyrians myself. (Yossarian, in Catch 22, is

identified as Assyrian and an AnaBaptist to boot, if I remember correctly.) Total friggin hoot.

[Marie26]

157. Whatever happened

to the Assyrians, anyway? Shouldn't their land of Assyria (?) be returned to them?

[rockymountaindem]

217. My Assyrian friend from college assures me

they're just laying low until they can return to dominance :)

[hughee99]

181. What about the Canaanites? n/t

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hughee99]

274. I believe this is the first time on DU

that I've seen someone reference the bible for it's "historical accuracy".

[opihimoimoi]

280. Please read WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN Merlin Stone

Much research and accurate with a long bibliography

confirmed the passages in the Bible...Old Testament

[tritsofme]

16. It all started 50,000 years ago

When modern man had his hand in the extinction of the neanderthal.

Its been a bloody experience of genocide, death, and destruction ever since.

Look no further than the Angles and the Saxons dominating England and driving the Celts to the corners of the island.

Not to mention our own bloody past with the Indians.

[opihimoimoi]

22. How Odd we can land a man on the moon, build bridges across

wild rivers and bays , etc, but cannot solve the puzzel of PEACE

[manic expression]

25. Conflict is something that just happens

just think about the last fight you've witnessed or have been a part of. Everyone can see that it doesn't HAVE to happen, but eventually it starts and people hurt each other. That's warfare in its most basic form, it's the same irrational thing just on a different scale.

[cali]

251. and no wonder

just look at the ignorance and callousness on this charming thread you started.

[opihimoimoi]

282. and where the hell are your solutions other than whine?

Are you a trouble maker?

[The Magistrate]

28. The Circumstances Were Somewhat Unique, Sir

And unlikely to be repeated.

The area was for several hundred years ruled by the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed with the Great War, leaving the land in the hands of the victors. Colonialism was, then as for the whole preceding millenia of human history, the normal practice, and looked on as nothing untoward. When the new League of Nations was endowed with authgority over the former colonial possessions of those defeated in the Great War, this was looked on as something of an advance. The Mandates granted by the League to administer its territories kept them seperate legally from the administrative power's imperial possessions, and required the administrative power to foster self-government with an eye towards eventual independence.

When the League of Nations collapsed, its successor the United Nations retained authority over the remaining Mandate territories, of which Palestine was just one. Thus, the new world body had a perfect legal right to dispose of it as it saw fit. The Partition was a compromise between competing claims, as well as the only practicable solution apparent at the time for the settlement of the displaced Jewish survivors of the Second World War in Europe. It did not deprive anyone of land, at least as it was intended to operate. Most Arabs in the Jewish Zone never did depart, and so were not deprived of anything; most of the flight occured in areas originally assigned to the Arab Zone that became involved in the war that commenced over the Partition, and had there been no war, these people, too, would never have been deprived of anything.

It was not the United Nations that "screwed up big time", but rather the political leadership of the Arab Nationalist movement in Palestine, and the Arab League and its constituent nations, that resolved upon a response that led to disaster, disaster that could have been avoided.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. I think if you check with Benni Morris, Avi Shlaim, Shlomo Ben-Ami

and a whole range of other modern Israeli historians--there is now an acknowledgment that a very real and forceful disposition did occur. I would mention that most of these historians are ardent Zionist. There is some disagreement. Benni Morris would say that it was an accident of war. While Shlomo Ben-Ami would say it was intentional. Nobody believes in the "Arab radio broadcast" tale anymore. They would all agree that the crucial moment came at the end of the war when the indigenous Arab population wanted to return and with very few exception were forbidden and never compensated.

Even Benni Morris would acknowledge that Ben Gurion and other Zionist leaders always saw the original boundaries granted to Israel in the UN partition as only a stepping stone to a much bigger Israel.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

67. That Forceful Dispossession, Sir, Occured

Is a fact, and it is my practice to acknowledge facts. Among the facts is that Arab populations in the zone allocated to the Jews were in several instances instructed to depart by Arab Nationalist leadership. This is well documented in Haifa and Jaffa, and these departures were an appreciable proportion of the total, and set a certain tone. Further waves occured as normal flight for safety from battle, and as a result of deliberate driving off by Israeli military forces. These further waves occured mostly in areas originally allocated to the Arab Zone by the Partition plan.

You are quite correct, of course, that the crucial moment was the prevention of people returning across the armistice line established.

Whether early leaders of Israel saw the Partion as a stepping stone to bigger things does not really affect consideration of the events. They would have had tremendous difficulty acting on that desire had the partition been accepted by the Arab Nationalist leadership, and any attempt on their part to do so, absent the Arab Nationalist rejection, would have found little support in the world at large, even among Jews. Mr. Ben Gurion in particular was a savvy enough political animal to have recognized this, and acted accordingly.

[opihimoimoi]

35. Sir, I salute you, Thanks for the POST, very informative

Sending beer and ribs...

[The Magistrate]

68. Much Appreciated, Sir

As such a good natured and wise fellow as yourself must have noticed with sorrow on occassion, there do occur situations in life where all the choices available poor and bad, and one is faced with the task of trying to find the course that will do the least damage all around, if things go well. Little good ever comes from such circumstances.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. One point - you say "Most Arabs in the Jewish Zone never did depart"

are you sure about that? Because here are the United Nations figures for populations in the proposed zones, at the end of 1946:

The figures given for the distribution of the settled population in the two proposed States, as estimated on the basis of official figures up to the end of 1946, are approximately as follows:

                     Jews Arabs and others Total

The Jewish State  498,000     407,000      905,000

The Arab State     10,000     725,000      735,000

City of Jerusalem 100,000     105,000      205,000

In addition there will be in the Jewish State about 90,000 Bedouins, cultivators and stock owners who seek grazing further afield in dry seasons.

1947 UN Report

That shows only a small majority of Jews in the proposed Jewish state - which then expanded its boundaries into Arab majority areas. I think a significant number of Arabs must have left the proposed Jewish state for the clear majority of Jews the country ended up with.

[The Magistrate]

71. Checking Figures, Ma'am

"Most" is a slight exaggeration, my recollection of matters that years ago were ready at my fingertips having proved faulty, though not by much. The Arab population remaining within the Jewish Zone was about 160,000, which is about two fifths of the original total. The course of the war in '48 left about half the proposed Arab Zone within the Israeli side of the armistice line, and the greatest proportion of the flight did comprise persons who lived in those areas. The Partition did not envision anything remotely resembling the armistice line, which resulted from the outcome of battle.

[ninkasi]

29. Ophi, I see through your words...

You are daring to advocate PEACE for our troubled world. You are trying to impose fairness on people. You do not think that all disputes have to be settled with bombs and guns. You wish for things to be fair to all involved. Oh, dear Ophi, you are a dreamer, dear one.

There are some who only thrive when the bullets fly, and the bombs drop, and innocent lives are cut short. They can keep their ghoulish tally of who is killed on which side, and if I look at a photo, can I really tell the difference between the slaughtered Israeli child, or the slaughtered Lebanese child? I can see the photos, and I do...and both little lives were cut short for decisions they had no part in. Both were pawns in a never-ending game of who has the biggest arsenal. They were both innocent. If they had lived to adulthood, they might very well have gone on to kill each other.

In my time, I raised three of my own children, two step-children, and two younger brothers. I learned long ago to say, " I don't CARE who started it, it stops now!" I would not listen to either sides complaints, I only told them to stop, and to stop then and there. It worked.

Ophi, in all of my years at DU, I have seen you try to lighten up people, to try to spread love and peace. I pray that your way will win out, and that the war loving, hateful others will give up. Thank you for your post. You are a beautiful person.

[opihimoimoi]

36. Mahalo nui loa dear Ninkasi....thank you...we Peace lovers are dreamers

but sadly outnumbered.

Humanity have yet to learn cooperation and bond building. Xenophobic and Ignorant, we plow on...into what many call Destiny...

Missing are the many OPPORTUNITIES for our ADVANCEMENT....

We are so dumb and we don't even know it.

Peace and Love to you.

Come, we go stroll the squeaky clean sand at Kahuku Beach, smell the salty air, and wish for Peace.

[silverojo]

59. You THINK it worked....

"In my time, I raised three of my own children, two step-children, and two younger brothers. I learned long ago to say, " I don't CARE who started it, it stops now!" I would not listen to either sides complaints, I only told them to stop, and to stop then and there. It worked."

Just because they shut up doesn't mean they learned anything from the experience. Yelling at kids like that doesn't teach them much about negotiating calmly with other people. Kids whose parents say that to them invariably grow up to be the ones that can't handle negotiating with a spouse, etc., because they were simply never taught how to do it.

My mother had a much better solution. She told us to stop arguing, and gave each person a chance to speak his/her piece without interruption. Then she asked us to try to understand the other side of the argument, and try to reach a compromise, while she supervised and didn't interfere. She made us feel important and responsible, so we ACTED responsibly.

"I don't care who started it" is right up there on the Immatur-o-meter with, "Because I said so!" Kids are supposed to be guided, not yelled at.

You can bet your last dollar that the most war-like people in our society are those whose mothers yelled at them instead of teaching them the ways of peace.

[ninkasi]

93. What makes you think I yelled at them?

You are mistaken when you claim that I yelled at the children. I didn't yell, I just didn't give in the the childish game of getting a parent to take sides when they were arguing about something. I didn't have to yell, but as I explained to the children, if I wasn't in the room at the time, the routine of "he hit me" and "she hit me first", or "did not", "did so". My point in using children as an example came up because the whole Mideast unrest comes down to claims of past injustices on both sides.

Rather than relive hundreds of years of abuses on all sides, something must be done not, at this point in time, to work out a solution that all sides can live with. At some point, the fighting has to stop, and talking to each other has to start.

Now, in response to my post, I reread it, and still don't know how you came up with the conclusion that I was yelling at children. It's nice to use the example of how you own mother handled things, but at the time I was mentioning, I was talking about 2 and 3 year olds, not older children. By the time they were teen-agers, the kids rarely argued, and that continues to this day. They are sweet, thoughtful people, and your last sentence
"You can bet your last dollar that the most war-like people in our society are those whose mothers yelled at them instead of teaching them the ways of peace." seems to be an attack on me personally, although you reached your conclusion based on your own interpretation of how you think I raised my children.

I did teach them the ways of peace, but one of the first lessons was that there can't be peace when one keeps score of each and every act of the parties involved. My grown children are all liberal, and all peace lovers, and did not have a mother who yelled at them.

 

[Marie26]

182. Yeah, me too.

But I'm not seeing the same thing you are.

[cali]

39. Whatever.

Your post and other similar ones recently elicit a shrug from me. So what that Israel may have been a mistake. It's there now. It's been there for almost 60 years. Looking back doesn't profit us. Much of the world is based on similar wrongs, and ever has been. The challenge now is to look forward; how can peace be made between the two parties? How do we even get them talking again? How do we get to a viable Palestinian state, side by side with Israel?

And I must say, I'm more concerned with what I see as Israel's current transgressions.

Just one more thing: An Israeli Rabbi once said that the creation of Israel was like someone jumping out of a burning building and landing on someone standing below. It's not the fault of either party. You have to heal both of them.

[jonnyblitz]

82. good post, Cali.

I disagree with you on some other things but your posts are always worth reading. this is one. :thumbsup:

[cali]

87. Thanks, Jonny

I actually enjoy out exchanges even though we often disagree.

[SoCalDem]

146. True...but, 60 years is NOT a long time in historical terms

It's unreasonable to ask a people to "get over it" or "just forget" that they lost their country.. Here in the US, we actively celebrate events that happened 230 years ago..we do it every year..

National memory is a LONG one. It's nice to think that people can forget long-ago transgressions against them, but the fact is...they don't... Their leaders implore them NOT to.. "Rememebr the Alamo".."Remember the Maine"..."Never Forget" (the holocaust).. Israelis, themselves have spent nearly 60 years tracking individual Nazis (most of whom probably were dead all along) ...Perhaps the reason we HAVE memory to start with, is to allow us to remember who our enemies are..:shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

43. If only that was how the creation of Israel happened.

:eyes:

[burythehatchet]

70. Profound and informative

you never fail provide insight to the challenging issues of the day.

[Behind the Aegis]

99. .

:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. If We Were Honest With Ourselves

If we were honest with ourselves we would admit that other nations were built or born under similar circumstances. Australia expropriated the Aborigines, the United States expropriated the Native Americans. I am sure the list is much longer.

And at least Israel has a better claim to their land than most Americans do to there though it still doesn't make everything right.



However Israel is a fait accompli, to displace seven million people is tantamount to genocide. Yes, hopefully one day all the parties will have to come to a resolution that trades land for peace.

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Small correction...lest you get gobbled up by the anti-Israeli crowd...

"However Israel is a fait accompli, to displace seven million people is tantamount to genocide. "

It would not be genocide, but rather "ethnic cleansing." Also, only 6 million would have to be moved, the others are non-Jews.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. It Would Be Genocide

Despite some of the fantasies I have seen spun on this board I doubt most would leave peacefully.

Back to the original poster's question, I do know that Jews have had a continuous presence in that land land for 3, 700 years, and that area has been ruled by several different groups with the Israelis being the latest ones.


But history only takes us so far. It would be nice to see the parties to the problem sit down and peacefully end the dispute through transfers of land and monetary compensation for those displaced.

If I have a dog in this fight or am a partisan I am a partisan for those on both sides who want peace and realize maintain irredentist claims is a prescription for more pain.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

54. What the heck??? What a nasty, personal attack

I don't agree with everything the OP says, and I believe he is being deliberately provocative... but, being anti-Israeli government is NOT the same as being a member of Hezbollah.

What a nasty, nasty thing to say.

I guess I'm a member of the IRA, because I think Britain needs to get the hell out of Northern Ireland, and recompense the Catholic Irish in some way for hundreds of years of forced subordination.

Geez.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

61. The OP is not "anti-Israeli government"

The OP is anti-right-of-Israel-to-exist. Whatever sort of nice rhetoric is being used to couch that position, it is essentially the same position held by Hezbollah and their few state sponsors, and nobody else. As for my post being a "nasty personal attack" I consider the OP to be a "nasty personal attack" against millions of people.

[opihimoimoi]

79. Sir, I did not post an "anti right to exist". I just said the Land should

be returned.

The Jews have a right to exist but where? thats is another issue at another time.

[Marie26]

102. And how is that going to happen?

Ship out all those Israelis somewhere else? There's no winding back the clock here. Israel exists, and it will continue to exist.

[opihimoimoi]

239. Too bad ... as there will be no Peace in the Land of Milk and Honey

Come, we go find the ways to make it work.

[Marie26]

286. What's too bad?

That Israel exists? That 6 million Israelis aren't being forced out of the country? You keep proposing these absolutely horrible things w/this lovey-dovey, peacenik language. It's a little weird.

[opihimoimoi]

305. Too Bad meant that if things go on without solution...horrible shit will

continue in the region.

Why are you thinking so negative? No one suggested 6 mil Israels move or should not exist....Why do you continue to look for the negative?

[Marie26]

311. Pffft

My post was "Isreal exists & will continue to exist." Your response was "That's too bad." Yeah, it's a really huge leap to assume that you meant it's too bad Isreal exists - though you're weaseling out of that now, as you have done throughout this thread.

[opihimoimoi]

313. Please open your mind to other Realms/Perspectives

Be Generous with Benefit of Doubt, with Understanding of other perspectives...its the only way.

I'm sorry you misconstrued my phrasing...my bad perhaps in basic communication. It's on me...Its not my intent to say Israel should move or not exist...not at all

Your assumptions are not correct. not in the least.....you take my ignorance for ulterior motives...nothing of the sort.

and I did figure out something of a solution for the 2 parties to diminish war like activities.

and it does not require anyone moving, being destroyed....

Let the Benevolent Arab Nations adapt their Brothers, the Palestinian refugees, make them citizens with full rights, or, remain in the land they are on with Palestinian citizenship with the Nation of Palestine in a tiny(not so tiny) part of Israel. Co existence is so much nicer than WAR.
They can do it...make it work....in the interest of Peace...they should at least try....

Everyone wins, from Adaptive Nations to the Palestinians to the Israelis...War is such a poor choice.

Plan B another thread.

[voter x]

117. no, that IS the issue

the one that everyone has managed to avoid.

13 million Jews \ 1.31 billion Muslims = ? more dead





:puke:

[opihimoimoi]

240. Are you saying the Jews move here..to..maybe Wyoming? Texas?

[coalition_unwilling]

135. I vote for Germany (eom)

[Hubert Flottz]

53. The "Long Knives" and "Native Americans" did things to each

other that made the beheadings in the ME seem like mercy killings.

"HISTORY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA"


snip...

Burning at the stake is universally regarded as among the most terrible tortures that human cruelty can inflict But the Delaware chiefs had prepared for the brave Crawford an agony more intense and protracted than that of the licking flames, they roasted him alive! The fires were placed at a distance of some fifteen feet from the stake and within that dreadful circle for three and a half hours he suffered an almost inconceivable physical torment, which death would have terminated in one-tenth part the time if the fagots had been piled close around him.

As the fires burned down the Indians seized burning brands arid threw them at the victim, until all the space which his tether allowed him was thickly strewn with coals and burning embers, on which his naked feet must tread as he constantly moved around the stake and back in the delirium of his pain. To intensify and prolong the torture the savages applied every means that their infernal ingenuity could suggest, and which to describe or even to think of fills the mind with sickening horror.

To Simon Girty, who was in prominent view among the savage throng, Crawford called out in the extremity of his agony, begging the wretch to end his misery by sending a. ball through his heart. To this appeal Girty replied, sneeringly, that he had no gun, at the same time uttering a brutal laugh of derision and pleasure at the hideous spectacle. If, as tradition has it he had once been repelled in his attempted addresses to the colonel's beautiful daughter, Sally Crawford, he was now enjoying the satisfaction of a terrible revenge on her miserable father, for the indignity.

Through it all, the brave man bore up with as much fortitude as is possible to weak human nature, frequently praying to his Heavenly Father for the mercy which was denied him on earth. Towards the last, being evidently exhausted, he ceased to move around the stake and lay down, face downwards, upon the ground. The fires being now well burned down, the savages rushed in on him, beat him with the glowing brands, heaped coals upon his body, and scalped him.
more...

http://www.heritagepursuit.com/CrawExp.htm


Massacre of the Moravian Amerindians at Gnadenhütten, 9 March 1782


While they were at their devotions their captors discussed the manner of putting them to death. Some were in favor of burning them alive, and some of killing first, then burning the bodies after scalping. The commander, Williamson, became powerless, in the excited and frenzied condition of his men, to whom had been exhibited the bloody dress of Mrs. Wallace, which operated on their minds as, history tells us, the bloody robe of Caesar, when shown to the Romans by Anthony, operated on their minds. All Williamson could do was to submit the matter to a vote, as proposed by the most excited of the men. Upon taking a vote, those who were in favor of saving the Indians and taking them to Fort Pitt were invited to step out to the front, which was responded to by but eighteen out of about one hundred in all (some accounts put the number at three hundred), the residue voting to kill, scalp and burn the captives. It has never been settled whether Williamson voted or not, the presumption being, from the fact of his being commander, that he did not vote. Those of the men who voted against death then retired from the scene,at the same time calling upon the Almighty to witness that they washed their hands of the crime about to be perpetrated.

The victims were then asked if they were ready to die, and the answer being in the affirmative, the work of death commenced. Heckwelder says that the number killed exceeded ninety, all of whom, except four, were killed in the mission houses, they having been tied there (according to Heckwelder's version), and there knocked in the head with a cooper's mallet. One man, he says, taking up the mallet, began with an Indian named Abraham, and continued knocking down until he counted fourteen; he then handed his mallet to one of his fellows, saying, "My arm fails me; go on in the same way; I think I have done pretty well."

In another house, where mostly women and children were tied, Judith, an aged and pious widow, was the first victim. After they had finished they retreated a short distance, but, on returning to view the dead bodies, and finding one of them named Abel, although scalped and mangled, attempting to raise himself from the floor, they despatched him, and, having set fire to the house, went off shouting and cursing. Of the number killed sixty-two were grown persons, one-third of whom were women,the remainder being children.

Two youths, who were knocked down and shut up in the first house, escaped death. One named Thomas, was knocked down and scalped, but being only stunned, after a while recovered, and on looking around, he saw Abel alive, but scalped, with blood running down his face. The lad quickly laid down as if dead, and had scarcely laid a minute, when the party came and finished Abel by chopping his head with a hatchet. Soon after they went away, Thomas crept over the dead bodies to the door and on getting out, hid himself until dark, when he made his way to the path leading to Sandusky. more...

http://www.safran-arts.com/42day/history/h4mar/08gnaden.html

War is mass murder and should NEVER be taken lightly.

Making up lies about WMD, to start a war for political capital, is a horrible thing to have done.

America has long forgotten the horror of war, other than seeing it on TV. The locations where the two stories I posted above took place are only a couple of hour's drive from my house.

[opihimoimoi]

80. Yup, war brings out the worst in Humanity, here, there, everywhere

War is sometimes a TOOL to get more...

and sometimes required to Defend against Aggression

[jonnyblitz]

64. and THAT is the elephant in the living room that people don't

want you to bring up.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. Oh, I'm glad to hear people bring it up. It's like "Pro-Lifers" who want

to criminalize birth control.

Lets put all the cards on the table, so everyone can see what the real agenda is.

[htuttle]

72. Israel doesn't exist because of the Holocaust, nor because of the Bible

People don't get countries 'awarded' to them because they are victims of genocide, and ancestral land claims are worthless in the real world.

Israel exists because of Israelis. They armed themselves, planted themselves there, fought and killed both the native people's and the British for the land, and brought in enough immigrants in to make a defacto Israeli state, well before the Balfour Declaration. Not entirely unlike our own experience in the US of planting ourselves here in North America, fighting and killing both the native peoples and the British, and bringing in enough immigrants to make ourselves a defacto state (long before the Revolution).

Nation-states do not form as a result of moral, ethical or historical factors in real life. Nation-states form due to realpolitiks and the force of arms.

There are no moral or ethical arguments that hold water to justify Israel's existence. Then again, there are no consistent moral or ethical arguments to justify the existence of the United States, either. We're here because we killed or threatened to kill anyone who tried to make us leave. No more, no less.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. Yes

The Israelis are just the latest in a long stream of occupiers in that land though their historical claim to the land trumps our claim to the United States.

I just don't see why Israel's rule of that land is any more or less legitimate than other groups such as the Turks, Cannanites, Romans , etcetera that ruled that land.


Since this is ostensibly a new world how far do we go back

[bloom]

78. Exactly

If we were going to go back to 1800 - we might try to insist that the country actually honor it's treaties.

Unfortunatley - people with good intentions are not the one writing the rules and making the decisions. Maybe the leaders get something right now and then - but by and large - these things are the result of people who have been able to justify completely immoral actions to themselves - and got others to go along with it.

Same with Israel. Same everywhere where such barbarities are taking place.


Here's an example - Pipes being a leader in the propaganda wars:

Israel’s Unnecessary War
July 18, 2006, 10:29 am
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun*

The blame for the current fighting falls entirely on Israel’s enemies, who deploy inhuman methods in the service of barbaric goals. While I wish the armed forces of Israel every success against the terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon and hope they inflict a maximum defeat on Hamas and Hezbollah while taking a minimum of casualties, erroneous Israeli decisions in the last 13 years have led to an unnecessary war.

For 45 years, 1948-93, Israel’s strategic vision, tactical brilliance, technological innovation, and logistical cleverness won it a deterrence capability. A deep understanding of the country’s predicament, complemented by money, will power, and dedication, enabled the Israeli state systematically to burnish its reputation for toughness.

The leadership focused on the enemy’s mind and mood, adopting policies designed to degrade his morale, with the goal of inducing a sense of defeat, a realization that the Jewish state is permanent and cannot be undone. As a result, whoever attacked the State of Israel paid for that mistake with captured terrorists, dead soldiers, stalled economies, and toppled regimes...

Deterrence cannot be reinstated in a week, through a raid, a blockade, or a round of war. It demands unwavering resolve, expressed over decades. For the current operations to achieve anything for Israel beyond emotional palliation, they must presage a profound change in orientation. They must prompt a major rethinking of Israeli foreign policy, a junking of the Oslo and disengagement paradigms in favor of a policy of deterrence leading to victory.

http://netwmd.com/blog/2006/07/18/732

[Marie26]

155. Right. nt

[YankmeCrankme]

289. Not completely true

That is disingenous, as Jews would not have wanted to form a nation on that land if not for their belief that they were already hand picked by their God to live/rule there. Also, without the approval and support of the U.N., or more specifically the members of the Security Council it may not have happened. So, while it is correct to say that more powerful or determined peoples can carve out a nation against the native population's wishes to toss the influence of both the "Torah" (which gave Jews the determination) or the U.N. (which gave Jews the support) is only seeing the situation from one angle.

[genie_weenie]

73. Ha ha ha! Someone please explain to me

how ownership of land is determined on Earth.

Please point to a region on the planet that has not been taken by force. And please explain to me how Man's initial (and subsequent) travels out of Africa validate claim to ownership of land.

I'll give you my answer: FORCE.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

83. haha, thanks for the comedy routine

another ludicrous thread to hide

[WinkyDink]

85. Here, here! Oh, and while we're at it, let's go back 5,000 years all over

the WORLD!

[longship]

91. Who said?

Who said that it's their land? Israel claims that a ficticious sky fairy gave them the land. Of course, the other side says that *their* ficticious sky fairy gave them the same land. And so, they kill each other.

Bah! It's all rubbish. Why don't they just live together in peace?

[Warren DeMontague]

92. And people wonder why Israel has nukes.

Hate to break it to you, they're not going away. The way to stop the bloodshed is for their neighbors to accept their existence, deal with it, and move on.

[manic expression]

100. It's clear why

It's for dominance, it's for superiority, it's to have the power to just remove entire populations.

The way to stop the bloodshed is for Israel to stop oppressing Palestine and murdering innocents. No one is going to "deal with" a murdered child, no one is going to "deal with" stark injustice, no one is going to "deal with" the land that was stolen from them or the freedom of movement they are denied. What they will do is react in a natural and expected way: the only ways they can. Israel and its actions are most assuredly the real problem here.

Hamas followed the informal ceasefire they declared extremely well, almost flawlessly (even though I recall that many children were killed by Israeli soldiers during that time). What happens? Israel shells a family on a beach at a picnic, and so they naturally respond. Try NOT murdering people, that might get you somewhere.

"Snipers with children in their sights"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1516268,00.html

[Warren DeMontague]

109. So, you're saying there were NO rocket attacks from Gaza before the beach

incident?

Really?

[manic expression]

184. Do show

how the rocket attacks prior to the incident were done by Hamas.

[Warren DeMontague]

202. Do show

that they weren't.

As if it makes a difference whose name the rockets were being fired in.

Point being, there were rocket attacks from Gaza before the beach incident. Israel didn't just start bombing Gaza because they hate people who go to beaches. Someone was firing rockets at them.

[manic expression]

208. Burden of proof

is on you. If you cannot show that Hamas was directly responsible for any of the attacks, then you cannot (honestly) claim that they are.

It does make a difference who fires the rockets, because if Hamas wasn't firing the rockets, Hamas was not in breach of the ceasefire.

The POINT is that Hamas was following the ceasefire quite well (almost to perfection, even though Israel did murder children during this time). This, however, is met with Israeli shells and the murder of a family at a picnic. What this shows is that while Hamas has shown restraint, Israel has only shown its incapability to act in a remotely decent or reasonable manner.

Also, I would like to add that you have clearly refused to recognize that Israel's murder of this family was wrong. Instead, you pathetically try to find some twisted justification for this undeniably unjustified and base act.

[Warren DeMontague]

209. Hah? You're putting words in my mouth. Enjoy.

You want to play fast and loose with the facts. Well, who was responsible for the beach incident is also disputed. What isn't disputed is, someone was firing rockets at Israel from Gaza. You brought up this supposed "Ceasefire" which Hamas was supposedly following "almost perfectly" (what the hell that means, I have no idea).

I didn't.

You, or Hamas, can call it anything you want- but if rockets are still being fired ("Bob, we've got a ceasefire, here, so this week you're not Hamas") then that is hardly a "ceasefire". Ceasefire means Cease. Fire.

And where have I "clearly refused" anything? It's not my job nor my inclination nor my responsibility to recognize or mention anything just because that's how YOU expect the debate to go. Killing of Civilians is wrong. Period. That's my take on it. Hell, I don't like war, at all. I suppose it's a good thing I'm not Israeli, because they seem to keep getting sucked into wars by people who claim to be interested in peace, yet who define Peace (as this thread does) as "the elimination of the State of Israel".

But using your logic, you've "clearly refused" to recognize that bashing in a four year old girl's head is wrong, calling the guy who did it a "hero" is wrong, and kidnapping two soldiers in an effort to gain his release is wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1669305

[manic expression]

219. Not at all

I am pointing out how you are wrong.

No, that Israel is responsible for the beach incident is beyond dispute. Israel's explanation was that it was a mine, yet they found shell fragments which match Israel's munitions (oh, and the beach wasn't a minefield, and to think it was a solitary mine is just laughable). It's pretty much an established fact that Israel is responsible for the beach incident.

Did I dispute that rockets were fired? The fact is that there is nothing to indicate that Hamas was involved or responsible or even connected to those attacks. Therefore, we can conclude that Hamas did follow the ceasefire quite well (almost to perfection means what it means, do I need to give you a definition?).

All this shows what I pointed out, that Hamas has shown restraint while Israel shown quite the opposite.

Read your own posts. You clearly tried to rationalize it.

Next, it's a good thing you're not Israeli, because at every turn, Israel has been belligerent and hostile and worse toward others. And no, this thread defines justice as right of return for people who have been wronged, something that is fair and reasonable and right. Only the most misled could oppose this.

What I've refused to recognize is that he was the sole reason for the kidnappings, as you tried to assert. It's quite clear that what you said is not the case (unlike what I said).

[Warren DeMontague]

243. To say that Hamas followed a "ceasefire" but rockets still were being shot

is ridiculous. If I lived in Upstate New York and started shooting weapons at Canada, the Canadian autorities and the US Authorities would be on my ass immediately. If Hamas wants to be in charge, then they're in charge. They're in charge of military activities coming out of Gaza.

There's no "ceasefire" if it means that people can attack and we'll pretend like we don't know them. That's bullshit, frankly.

[Marie26]

148. What's odd

Is that the posts here have actually made me more pro-Israel. People will actually seriously debate eradicating the country completely, & it's surrounded by neighbors that want to do just that. No wonder they're armed & ready.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Yeah, that's the gist of my experience, too.

Hard to argue "no one is saying Israel should be eliminated" when people are saying, yeah, Israel really should be eliminated.

[Lurking Dem]

168. I feel the same way.

Time to dig out the ol' IDF surplus shirt.

[Recursion]

95. I don't know

If they gave it back to the First Nations I don't know what I could really say about that.

[theboss]

108. Technically, it was British Land

Who got it from the Turks prior. And before that it passed back and forth between various Arab pan-nationalists and European crusaders. And before that it was the Romans.

So, shouldn't we just give the land back to Italy and let them sort it out?

[Warren DeMontague]

110. Here's an idea: The Romans kicked the Jews out 2,000 years ago...

The Roman Catholic Church is really the last little vestige of the Roman Empire.

Shit, lets kick the Pope out, and put all 6 million Israelis in the Vatican! It probably wouldn't be all that much more crowded than Manhattan.

[theboss]

112. The people that make this argument don't know their history

The entirety of the Middle East is a creation of the British Empire. ALL of the boundaries are arbitrary. The fact is that the Palestinians were given TWO homelands (Jordan and the West Bank) and have managed to lose both of them through horrible political decisions over the years.

Putting 6 million Israelis under Palestinian control is not going to be any more peaceful than putting Palestinians under Israeli control. The only solution is the two-state solution combined with peace treaties between Israel and its neighbors.

Now, none of this should be read as a defense of any Israeli action today or in the recent past. But the notion that if Israel went away, life would be grand is foolish. It's there. Six million Jews live there. And it's exceedingly well-armed. Let's live in reality.

[mitchtv]

116. Whatever happened to the Jewish homeland

created by the Soviets out by Mongolia?

[Marie26]

141. Agree.

I mean, I don't know my history either, but jeez. People keep posting these analogies that have little relevance to the actual events.

[Warren DeMontague]

166. My thing about the Vatican was a joke.

I agree with everything you say. The basic outlines of a long-term two state solution are well known to all parties. Unfortunately, Arafat torpedoed the peace process in 2000.

[ceile]

113. So simple...

but it'll never happen. I really hope in my lifetime that we see some sort of peace.

[theboss]

118. Simple to destroy a country?

On what planet is this a simple solution?

[Codeine]

203. They meant "final", not "simple." nt

[alarimer]

114. Well it wasn't the UN but I am sure Native Americans

would have used bombs against the early settlers if they had had them. The Europeans had the guns and the germs, though so we know how that turned out.

I do understand what you are saying though- the Middle East has been fought over for so long (probably thousands of years) with each group claiming they have the "most" right to be there. I don't think you can just carve up an place anywhere and expect it to happen peacefully and for there not to be long-term hatreds.

Having said that, I think religion is the great evil in engendering hatred between people.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superman Returns]

119. OUTRAGED!

Basically this original poster of the thread called for the destruction of Israel while justifying the actions of a terrorist group. Not only must Israel be redrawn to the pre-67 borders but to the pre- 47 borders. Basically this poster wants Israel off the map and to never have existed!

I have never been more outraged than the posts on DU for the past couple of days. I'm a progressive, I'm a Democrat. But the outpouring of sympathies for a groups that stand for an agenda of everything liberals should be against has astounded me. Lets see you try to be liberal in Hezbollah's dream world. You want gay rights? Try getting woman rights, or even human rights under these religious fanatics. I hate religious fanatics at home and abroad.

Now, innocent civilians are being killed. Its tragic, terrible, and depressing. Yet I can take a picture of an innocent dead civilian from Dresden, from Hiroshima, etc...and post it Sadly we wars cannot be waged without innocent blood. War is the basic failure of civilization. But as a sovereign nation, with rockets capable of striking the heart of the country, what choice does Israel have but to push these Hezbollah back? Does it not have an obligation to its citizens?

Finally, let me say that if Iran, Syria, or Hezbollah had the weapons Israel does, there would be a holocaust. Some might say that as a democratic nation, Israel should have higher standards than them. Yet what does that prove? That there is no morally equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah. These people want Israel gone, off the map, like apparently this poster does. There is no reasoning with Iran's leadership and his nexus of terror allies.

I am sick of this garbage. I supported this website. I supported Democrats. Teddy Roosevelt and FDR are the icons I admire. I want a government that fights for the common good, that stands against corruption and corporate power. I want a government that supports a womans right to choice, takes a stand for the environment, acknowledges global warming, and embraces science. But if this is what lurks in the heart party than everyone can go to hell. You are making Democrats look like collectively like fools who shouldn't run an aquarium let alone a country.

[opihimoimoi]

130. WHO the hell said Isreal should be destroyed?All I said is the Land should

be returned...

Nothing was said about destruction....

[theboss]

163. So...how does Israel "give back" the land and still exist

Do you propose some sort of duel tenancy? Or simply the construction of a very large duplex?

[opihimoimoi]

171. People every where either own land/homes or they rent/pitch a tent

The Jews should rent a Nation after relinquishing Isreal to the Palestinians.

Cheaper than WAR

[Marie26]

173. Rent a nation!

:rofl:

[theboss]

179. Like a Jew would ever rent

That's just throwing money away.

They are better with their money than that.

(It's a joke, people! A joke!!!! Uncle Milty would have gone there too).

[BeTheChange]

233. Rent a nation?

Wow.

That's the most retarded thing I think Ive heard yet in the whole Israel vs Palestine debate.

[opihimoimoi]

195. From another poster: Isreal was formed along side with Palestine

2 Nations.

The Isrealites simply forced out the Palestinians and took away their land.

All the Palestinians want is their Land back. Whoever is living there now should move to Isreal if they are Jews.

Co Existence is far better than WAR.

unless one side is obstinate

[theboss]

254. You have no idea what happened in 1947, do you?

Israel did not force anyone off any land. The Palestinians left and waited for Syria and Egypt to destroy Israel. When that didn't happen, they were screwed.

[opihimoimoi]

265. Yes, many Palestinians left for one reason or another. Mostly to git

outta the way of the war. But, as you say, they lost the war. That still don't make it right. The wars will continue in one form or another until Peace reigns

Come, we go look for solutions

[Joe Fields]

121. Palestinians did NOT own the place from the "git go."

they abandoned the land because it was basically uninhabitable. Egypt and Jordan (trans Jordan) gobbled up 75% of what used to be Palestinian land. Not once, before the 67 war did Palestinian Arabs demand their land back from Egypt and Jordan to become an autonomous state. Not until the Israelis bagan developing the West Bank and Gaza did Palestinians declare they wanted their own country. Nobody wanted the land, until Israel began draining swamps and developing it.

[alarimer]

122. Also the whole Middle East has been carved up

in various forms for years to suit the wants of the colonial occupiers. I think it goes way beyond 1947. A lot of it has to do with oil. I am also not sure the creation of the nation of Israel was a purely benevolent act of the part of the UN and the Allies. The US and Europe need a friendly country there to ensure that we get our oil. Even though that nation was created ostensibly out of sympathy for what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust, I believe that it also played into larger geopolitical realities. We need Israel to be our client state.

[theboss]

124. How does Israel help us get oil?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to create Israel on land WITH oil prior to 1947?

[opihimoimoi]

132. Peace will only come if Humanity gets off its collective asses

and reach higher. This Level One stuff is not working...Give Peace a chance. We tried everything else.

[theboss]

138. Thank you, Wavy Gravy

But that really doesn't answer my question.

[opihimoimoi]

140. Just suppose Isreal was given land with mega tons of oil...that would give

them economic power....Like the Saudi guys.

Would they use the Power for Peace making efforts....?

[Marie26]

142. And are there tons of oil reserves in Israel?

Why have I never heard of them before?

"Israel depends almost totally on imported fuel for its energy requirements; domestic production of crude petroleum and natural gas is negligible... Despite having spent about US$250 million between 1975 and 1985 searching for oil, Israel remained almost devoid of domestic energy sources. Because of the failure to find economically worthwhile deposits of fossil fuels, Israel has devoted large sums to developing other energy sources, particularly solar energy."

http://countrystudies.us/israel/75.htm

[opihimoimoi]

147. No OIL? Of all the darn places to land on....no OIL....Damn.

But give them credit..they are doing what it takes to keep the Society running.

What are the Jews doing to advance Peace?

[Marie26]

149. Well, withdrawing from

the West Bank & the Gaza strip was a good start. Too bad those areas then started shooting missiles at Israel in return.

[theboss]

161. They withdrew from Lebanon too

Of course, they are now re-drewing into Lebanon. Or something like that.

[Marie26]

183. Right.

But that area didn't begin launching missiles at Israel... oh, wait, it did. Israel's re-drewing into Gaza & the West Bank, too now. The peace process has failed, totally.

[sendero]

136. While I agree that the way this was done..

..was a mistake, I also support the idea of Israel having a nation.

Nothing is going to undo this mistake, and now both sides need to operate in good faith to come to some kind of accord. I realize that no matter what agreement is made, there will be some who are unwilling to abide by it, and that conflict it inevitable for the foreseeable future.

The WORLD needs to band together and try to help, in any way possible, to make both sides give up their belligerent attitudes and make some sort of reasonable accommodation.

I wish I were more hopeful that it will happen.

[opihimoimoi]

143. Sometimes before the Healing comes the Lancing of the wound...

the pain soon subsides to the Pure Joy of Peace...we should hold our breath...it is coming soon....

The War President we have now is NOT Helping at all.

[theboss]

145. Lancing Israel?

That sounds unpleasant.

[opihimoimoi]

150. LOL, it is unpleasant...in case ya didn't know, Lancing was an option to

treat infected wounds...a red hot object was placed on the wound to stop infection. No Pain killers were available..victims/patients
were to bite the bullet/etc.

Its a metaphor....now the pain, soon the healing....Sadly, much pain before the Gain.

[Marie26]

152. metaphor for what?

What's the pain, & what's the gain?

[opihimoimoi]

153. The pain of WAR and the GAIN of PEACE

Sooner the PEACE the Better it is for all.

[theboss]

160. So killing 7 million Israelis is your plan for peace

Big plan.

[opihimoimoi]

187. And who said anything about killing 7 million Jews? Stop it.

We should all be FINDING A WAY to make things Work.....work for peace that is.

This Domination/Exploitation Thingy is getting us nowhere...is it. Solutions is where its at....

Where is the SOLUTION? Just because we haven't one yet doesn't mean we should not look for it. This means throwing all options on the table...

Someday, Somewhere, Someone will figure it out.....

[cali]

180. You

have expressed some of the squirreliest and most unpleasant ideas it's ever been my misfortune to encounter on DU. It's quite interesting to watch you lapse into semi-mystical hate speech. No, I'm not accusing you of anti-semitism, but I fear your hatred of this particular nation has unhinged you. It's like watching a car accident. You really shouldn't, but it's hard to turn away.

[opihimoimoi]

188. Hate Speech??? Hardly... its an Option....for PEACE...TRY to make it work

and if not this particular OPTION...then others...

We are not looking for Options by the looks of things....

[Codeine]

205. Lancing a wound!?

Somebody really ought to lance your ass right off this board.

[opihimoimoi]

307. Its old metaphor///take the pain for the gain of healing...

And where is your idea for Peace? Stop griping/sniping and think for solutions

[Marie26]

137. Palestine wasn't destroyed in 1947.

The British colonial "Mandate of Palestine" covered the current countries of Jordon, Israel, etc. Eveything east of the Jordan River was called "Transjordan" & the west was called "Palestine". After Britain decided to withdraw completely, the UN divided the Palestine land in half - half Jewish, half Arab. The Palestinian side was occupied by Israel after the Arab/Israeli war in 1948. Just sayin...

[SoCalDem]

156. more maps..

[Marie26]

159. Cool

Thanks - Maps are really helpful to illustrate the history here. Especially since most Americans have no sense of geography at all.

[SoCalDem]

165. Here's a fantastic map site to bookmark

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/map_sites/hist_sites.html#mideast

[Superman Returns]

172. question

lets be blunt. Should the country of Israel exist in your opinion? You say the land should be given back and renamed Palestine. So, how does this happen and where do the Israeli's go? Lets hear it.

[Warren DeMontague]

176. I think the OP answered that in the OP.

Personally, I'm done with this thread. Feh.

[Marie26]

177. Apparantly they can rent a new nation

I hear the move-in deals are excellent. No security deposit needed, or anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

178. Last Nation I rented had a stain in the carpet that was shaped like Cyprus

You can't win, I tell ya.

[opihimoimoi]

190. Yes, the Nation of Isreal should exist. That said, as to where they would

go...thats not for us to decide/suggest...thats for the UN and Parties involved.

Peace can only come about when the competing forces come to the table to hash things out. Each side has their perspectives and no emphaty for the opposing force. The mega view is missing. We are not thinking at higher levels where the answers await us.

The imputus for such meetings is missing. The Peace Dept is without adequate funds.

We have been somewhat conditioned to group pain...some relish in it..blinded by greed.

[Truthiness Inspector]

191. Umm...

You are saying where the Israelis should go should be determined by the UN, even though in your OP you said the UN was who decided back in 1948.

Talk about twisting oneself into a knot!

[opihimoimoi]

193. As the cause of the mess, the UN should be part of the solution.

I did say that all 3 Parties should meet. Not the UN making a unilateral decision.

[Truthiness Inspector]

196. Can you elaborate?

How can the UN make a "unilateral" decision? It's the United Nations, not a sovereign nation.

[opihimoimoi]

197. I realize its not one Nation...but suppose the UN comes out with

a solution and Forces it on the Nations involved. INMHO, thats unilateral, no agreement/no concensus

[Truthiness Inspector]

200. I still don't understand

There is no such creature as "unilateral" decisions when it comes to a UN resolution.

[opihimoimoi]

227. In my mind if the UN makes a decision affecting a member Nation

who opposes...its a "Unilateral" decision. the essence is there woulkd be an absence of consensus

[Truthiness Inspector]

245. You open a can of worms with that

The argument you just put forth is exactly what the Bush Admin used to go into Iraq.

[opihimoimoi]

281. I wasn't arguing the point, just decribing it...but, you are right.

exactly what Bush is doing...unilateral decisions.

What a Mess we humans have done to ourselves...We can put a man on the moon but we are unable to think of Peace and actually do something pos about it

go figure

[blonndee]

231. Then you should acknowledge the validity of the UN

resolutions against Israel.

[blonndee]

230. Are you deliberately overlooking the UN resolutions

against Israel?

[Truthiness Inspector]

246. Sure

I understand now. Agree with UN resolutions when the UN agrees with you personally. Disregard them when they don't, like in 1948.

[blonndee]

247. What?

Israel NEVER complies with UN resolutions. So what you said does seem to characterize Israel's position.

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

210. As a goofy pseudo-mystical hippie who supports Israel's right to exist

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to lay the blame for this stinky thread at the feet of us hippies.

[Codeine]

213. Your posts don't read

like regurgitated Deepak Chopra after a three-day drinking binge.

That said, your point is well-taken. :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

214. Whoa, now that I'd like to see.

Or maybe not. :hippie:

[RagingInMiami]

201. Maybe we can start by returning the SW USA to Mexico

That should end the illegal immigration debate once and for all. It would turn every American citizen living in the SW into an illegal immigrant overnight.

[AlphaCentauri]

222. Why not?

Check this video may content some offensive language


http://www.zippyvideos.com/3087733075040576/get_a_yob/

[RagingInMiami]

225. That was hilarious

[Freedom_Aflaim]

224. for 50 years?

Sorry. Theft does not justify murder.

Theft certainly does not justify 50 years of war.

Nothing short of a nuclear holocaust is going to get the Palestians their land back.

Its all over except the needless killing.

[opihimoimoi]

297. We are hoping to avoid the N War...if we go there, it will/may spread to

global proportions

More setbacks for mankind...

[Celica Toyota]

228. The Orthodox Jews agree with the Palestinians

[Name removed]

238. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

248. What???

The "Jews" forced the UN to partition the land? Your ignorance is showing. And so is something else.

[opihimoimoi]

260. ITS IN THE history books. I said pressure, NOT Forced

I am not anti Jew

I am a realist, for the Common Good.

I am for Peace

I don't know what you are but you seem to twist things, prolly pro Israel which is ok.

I Happen to be PRO WHATEVER IT TAKES FOR PEACE

I LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS....NOT WHINE

[cali]

268. You

have spewed some of the silliest junk I've ever seen. And no, I'm not pro-Israel, except in the sense that Israel exists and whether it was a good decision to create the state or not, discussing dismantling it, and saying the Israelis should all just go somewhere else, is just as HATEFUL as saying all the Palestinians should go to Jordan or Egypt.

I support the Palestinian right to a contiguous state side by side with Israel. I support a limited right of return and reparations for both Palestinians and the 750,000 Jews who fled middle eastern countries after the foundation of Israel.

That's a position that supports peace. Not your proposition of ethnic cleansing.

[opihimoimoi]

283. Not once did I say the Jews should move out....I also support the 2 state

UN 242 mandate.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Who the hell said anything about ethnic cleansing...? are you troubled?

[theboss]

253. The JEWS did it?

Oh, please.

And where was this alleged country of Palestine prior to 1947?

[opihimoimoi]

261. The old maps I saw their name on it...where Israel is now...and

its in the history books...the Jews were clamering for a homeland...and the UN came up with a plan...but the Palestinians rejected it..

Nevertheless....The Jews went in and has been there ever since

[theboss]

266. You don't know history

There was never a country called Palestine.

The land now in dispute was formerly a territory of the British Empire. Prior to that, it was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. Prior to that, the Caliphate. Prior to that, the Crusaders. Prior to that, another Caliphate. Prior to that, the Romans.

Read those history books and learn some things.

[opihimoimoi]

290. The map I saw had the term Palestine on it. I suppose it was wrong

I come to DU to share and make comments. While I do not profess to be a History Major....I do know some things re the subject.

I come to learn of Peace and Peace making efforts. I try to promote it.

Returning to the issue of who was on the map in 1947...the issue is really who lived on the Land?

Clearly the negotiations during this time frame was inadequate...not all were happy with the proposal/outcome....

Of course the negotiating period cannot be returned to, but worse, the efforts to resolve Peacfully has to date failed.

It appears both sides has hard liners....with ridgid positions compounding the difficulty factor.

How to resolve/find peace? Before this blows up into a real hateful WAR? I don't know but

Peace has some things going for Her:

Takes: Common Sense, Reason, Sanity, Logic, Math, Intellect, Knowledge, and Vision.

Thank you for being a teacher to me....

sending beer and ribs

Opi

[YankmeCrankme]

291. Excuse me

I wish people would quit using the "Palestine was never a nation" meme. It doesn't matter. It was a known territory since the Roman days, its boundaries or culture hadn't change significantly no matter who possessed the territory. It had been an Arab and primarily Muslim land for over a thousand years.

Another thing, Israel was a FAILED nation, non viable for over two thousand years. If we were going to restore this once failed state by carving land out from another territory, why not others?

[opihimoimoi]

309. sending wine and caviar....steaks too

The people of the land don't change...only the names on the maps.

[DemFromMem]

252. Ah, a very productive post

Really helpful. This SOOOOOO advances the discussion. Another DUer who is actually harder line than the Palestinians themselves.

[opihimoimoi]

264. Its all in the history book.and why am I harder line than the Palestinians

Nature gave us Diversity...

Humans have different perspectives...some are good, some are twisted, some are evil..etc etc etc.

Many have perspectives in ERROR but don't know it...I am Ignorant in many ways, and I have learned from this thread.

I learned not all Am Indians suffer with poverty but had not looked up the stats...23% are below the P line...and many suffer from drug probs. But many are above the P Line and are quite wealthy.

In 47...the fledgling UN Plan dealing with Palestine was rejected by the Palestinians and other Arab Nations as well. The first of many wars occured. The UN was supposed to come up with a Plan with consensus from all parties...they failed in this.

[theboss]

271. You honestly started a thread on this without knowing what happend in 47?

And you've made me turn into Tom Cruise in the process. Thanks.

[opihimoimoi]

276. LOL, I thought I knew...but as it turns out, I am Ignorant too..I got it

half right.

All I know is them Palestinians were there in 46 and in 48...they were elsewhere...not all, but a whole bunch 750,000+ is a number I see in the books.

If some bad ass nation came to America and kicked us out...I would be furious too.

[DemFromMem]

275. OK

There aren't many Palestinians still debating Israel's right to exist. They've moved on and are focusing on their future with a two state solution. Apparently, that's pretty tough for a lot of the folks here. Peace would be too much for some of the people here to handle. You need an enemy. Where else will you get your red meat?

[opihimoimoi]

279. Absolutely correct...all too many want WAR...for various reasons

All too many come to discuss these things but with no real solutions at hand..

All I know is them Palestinians want their land back even if it is only a portion of the area...if that brings about Peace, I'm all for it.

[theboss]

284. Who are "Them Palestinans" you are referring to?

The Palestinian Authority had more or less accepted a two state solution. Hamas - not so much.

And who knows what the Palestinian Street really wants. They backed Hamas in the last election.

[DemFromMem]

285. And judging from the ferocious comments about Israel at DU,

I suspect a number of people here were pretty happy to have Hamas elected as well. The PA was waaaaay to accomodating.

[opihimoimoi]

288. The Palestinians I refer to is the amount needed for a Solution/Peace

[Igel]

259. Many relocations were authorized in the immediate post-war

period. That nobody wants to talk about them is unfortunate, because it makes the Palestinians seem unique in their grief. They're unique in their response; the closest thing to it is the response of Kurds in Iraq to Saddam's Arabization campaign.

Check out pre- and post-war maps of Poland. Ponder the presence of Germans in what's now Kaliningrad. Check out ethnic populations in Slovenia and NE Italy. Look at the distribution of Slovaks and Hungarians in Hungary and Slovakia and Hungary.

Look at the Ottoman's practice of population relocation, of the Greek presence in Turkey and how recently Greeks (and Armenians and Kurds) were dominant in some sections. Consider the post-war redistribution of various Hindu populations and of Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, and the much more recent ethnic fighting around Kirkuk in Iraq.

Also consider the treatment that Jews got in the Palestinian territory before 1947. It wasn't pretty. Who threw the first stone and shot the first bullet, I don't know. But the violence was extant in the '20s and '30s, attempting to make sure Jews weren't powerful, and they were frequently dispossessed by legal chicanery and by force; such practices were not uncommon in preceding centuries.

And while the reduction of Arab populations in the parts of Palestine set aside for Jews wasn't a good thing, there was also no indication that they'd be dispossessed had they stayed.

[opihimoimoi]

272. Thank you...good info post...sending beer and chips/w ribs.

[YankmeCrankme]

294. Just a few points

You do realize that some of the examples you give don't support your premise, but support the Palestinian side.

Poland was partitioned/dissolved by Prussia, Russian and Austria, yet the Poles never gave up trying to get their country back and after about 150 years finally succeeded.

Kurdistan has been divvyed up by three other nations and they continue to strive for a unified nation. That trouble isn't going away.

NE Italy, though somewhat culturally different from the rest of Italy, was able to identify themselves as Italians when Italy was unified. Also, the nation state of Italy wanted them. They also had the benefit of centuries of proximity, same religion and a more or less common history. Israel and Palestine has none of that.

Any nations attempts at population relocation always causes stife, whether it's the Ottoman's, India/Pakistan, Germany, the Soviet Union, Israeli/Palestinian, etc.

[sabbat hunter]

263. palestinians

did not live there 7000 years ago. palestinians are arab descent. the came to the area during the period of muslim expansion following muhammeds death.

living there prior were philistines, caananites, phoenecians, all of whom were probably closer related to greeks than arabs.

israelies have just as much claim to the land as palestinians.

why are you anti israel?


they did not own the place from the git go. the term palestine is actually fairly modern. romans called it judea, then a derivative of philistine (Syria Palaestina) to shove it in the faces of the jews still living there. but it still wasnt populated by arabs. people from other areas of the roman empire were placed there.

the byzantines called it the holy land as did the crusaders.

the ottomans called it vilayet (province) of Damascus-Syria

[Name removed]

270. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabbat hunter]

273. no

i think that palestinians should have a country alongside of israel, in gaza and most of the west bank as UN resolution 242 call for (allowing for israel to have safe and defendable borders)

jerusalem should remain in israeli hands with the current set up of muslim control of the temple mount.



and hey it is always good to be open to learning new things.

[opihimoimoi]

278. Yes, I am of Open Mind too. and Yes, the Palestinians should have

their soverign state as in 242 but would they have defendable borders as well? LOL.

[Meshuga]

287. I like the direction...

...your conversation took. Very constructive! :toast:

The name Philistine and Palestine are related in name but not in people. In 135 CE, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Romans wanted to blot out the name of the Roman "Provincia Judaea" to piss off the Jews. The Romans kicked the Jews out of Judea and renamed it after the Philistines who were foes of the Jews. The new name was "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek "Philistine Syria" name. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is derived.

However, the Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation to the area.

The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.

The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina".

Regardless, I'm all for a prosperous Palestinian/Arab state (as sabbat hunter described -- as stated in 242 ) living side by side with Israel. It is good for the region if both states prosper.

[opihimoimoi]

292. Aloha, and thanks for your input

:toast:

A point, lemme get it right.

the term palestine was applied to the area after WW1 and was under the Brits Mandate...which explains the name on old maps re the era.???

Imagine a World w/o war/conflict......

How Richer we would all be

[ManWroteTheBible]

293. as seen on another progressive site...

Regardless of whether anyone here agrees or disagrees with Bart at bartcop.com, he made the point that the whole Israel/Palstine/Middle East conflict is about who holds the rights to the "sacred sand" in the region. The Israelis and the Palestinians both love the land more than they love their own children - think about it. Just further proof that zealous belief in an "invisible cloud being" is in and of itself moronic. And before any liberal Christians - which are "true" Christians (showing real compassion for their fellow man/woman) as opposed to the dipshits on the right - get their knickers in a twist, I'm a Buddhist, not an atheist.

[opihimoimoi]

295. Sacred Sand? I can see that.....

The Solution still begs however....at least here, we can discuss....over there, its bombs and bullets.

[pelsar]

300. its not sacred sand...to the israelis...

most of whom are not religious......it remains what its original purpose was: a sanctuary for jews from world wide anti semitism..a place where they can "be normal" and not have to worry about being "different" and penalized for it (killed, discriminated etc.). The geographic place was chosen since there was and is a historical/religious/cultural link.....

really not very complex, until one throwns in the usual conspiracy theories, jews arent jews theories, etc....in which case the anti semites start crawling out of their holes to join in with the far left and right, throw in some religious fanatics and its near impossible to tell who is who...witness the posts above.

[Name removed]

303. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Algorem]

301. shouldn't Israel be on confiscated German land?

[opihimoimoi]

304. That would be poetic justice...but I don't think so. They wish to be nx to

THE WALL

and in the main city of Jerusalem

[demobrit]

302. British Minister condemns Israeli action

Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has criticised Israel's bombardment of Lebanon, while on a visit to Beirut.
He said Israel had not carried out "surgical strikes" and attacking the Lebanese nation was not the answer.

Downing Street said the prime minister would stand by Mr Howell's comments, adding the British government had "always urged restraint on Israel".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5205658.stm

The Poodle is turning?

[opihimoimoi]

308. To Calm the angry sea..both Bush and Blair should be yelling

for all parties to cease fire and come to the table for Peace talks. Bush has not been a UNITER has he?

[Lithos]

314. Locking

This thread while it came from GD and might be otherwise considered for an exception is so bent in assumptions about religion and full of inflammatory words and stereotypical innuendo as to be unsalvageable.

Lithos
DU Moderator