View Full Version : Isreal the bad guys???
08-07-2001, 06:31 PM
Why do you feel like the Israelis are the problem?
And on what basis do you equate Milosevic (or whatever aggressor of the day in the Balkans) and Saddam Hussein with Israel? There is no “name” like those two hoods that we associate with Israel.
Israel possesses the power to annihilate the Palestinians and pretty much every body else in the area, yet they don’t. Slovo is merely the latest bad guy in an area full of them. Sadam has been trying to take down everybody from his Iraqi brethren to Kuwait, anyone he feels up to being able to beat. But he doesn’t dare mess with the Jews.
The Palestinians are between a rock (and Iraq! Been dying to use that one!) and a hard place, Israel. They’ve been the despised and displaced people of the region for centuries until the Jews made a major stake in the region after WWII and became everybody’s new most hated.
Imagine if the power roles were reversed. What do you think would happen and would you feel the same?
Not many peoples or nations are listed in the charter and culture of other nations as slated for annihilation. Israel is. I think they’ve been bending over backwards to try and get along as best as possible while maintaining their own security.
As far as the coalition for helping Kuwait, well, if memory serves, W the Elder got them to sit that one out in order to get Arab cooperation. IMHO they are a national interest of ours.
08-08-2001, 07:07 AM
The Israelis have been bending over backwards as they continue to press their settlements forward into the Palestinian territory. That is the similarity that I see with those other hoods I mentioned. They respond to assaults with rocks by using bullets. Now they are actually assassinating folk that they believe are involved in attacks against these settlers. These targeted attacks are using weapons that kill others besides those targeted. Killing innocent children is just another form of terrorism and American acceptance will do nothing to stop it.
The reason Israel was left out of the Gulf War was because if they had been involved there would not have been a coalition, as the Arab states believe that they cannot trust the land-grabbing Israelis. Sadam tried to draw them into the fray to dissolve the coalition and the elder Bush kept the Israelis out of the fight.
What is the national interest that you see?
08-08-2001, 11:09 AM
IMHO, I just see them as allies and a stabilizing force in the region.
You state yourself that the Israelis stayed out of the Kuwait business at our urging: A sign of a cooperating partner or strategic interest. Iraq would not, it seems, do similar favors as their interests do not mesh with ours as the Israelis interests sometimes do.
I can't make an intelligent argument about their land expansion other than for strategic reason: More land a hostile neighbor has to cross before it is too late to stop them.
I don’t doubt that there are problems with how they go about it.
I don't want to make the Israelis out to be Alter Boys or the innocent victims. Pop told me long ago it takes two to tango yet it seems to me that most Israeli attacks over the years have been pre-emptive or retaliatory. Their bombing of Saddams nuke facility some years back seems like a smart move on their part given his overt hostility to Israel.
The news always seems to be showing some Palestinian car bomb killing people in the markets of Israel then they systematically hunt down the perps they can get their hands on. Last week some pregnant Israeli woman was murdered then the alleged mastermind gets assassinated. An Israeli soldier gets ambushed and torn to bits; plastic bullets kill Palestinian rioters. It just always seems like the Palestinian murders are against civilians or lone soldiers and the Israeli response seems aimed at the bad guys.
Continuing with our interests, oil is our one and only real concern. Israel has none to speak of. Maybe they just don’t serve a cold or calculated purpose for us? If so, then certainly the Palestinians are nothing to us either, yes? Israel, if anyone over there, just has always seemed to me to be the underdogs.
Palestinians, as the historical low men on the totem pole, especially with their Muslim brothers, never seem to do anything to set themselves apart as the victims they claim to be. I have a tough time placing more blame on one than the other.
I’m trying to read up more on the history of Palestine and the region to offer more intelligent or informed opinion (darn you! LOL). One site I found made me laugh. It makes these grand statements of facts through history of the Palestinians from something like 600,000 BC and stops at WWI, leaving out their messed up and dysfunctional history in this century, OOPS, the last century, problems they had long before Israel came into it’s current existence.
To be continued…
08-08-2001, 01:26 PM
Please don't get me wrong, I think that your Pop was right, it does take two to tango. The problem, for me at least, is that we are giving lessons to the Israelis (F16's, helicopters, small arms, and the such). We have equipped them with the ability to swat the flies real hard. Over the past fifty or so years we have actually endorsed that swatting.
Today, in this world, we should not hold anyone above the others and accept wrong doing such as what is going on with these "targeted attacks". We are at odds with most of the world on this and I think we should check our acceptance for a while and make them play by the same rules as we make others in the region play by.
08-09-2001, 12:42 AM
I'm going to show my ignorance and maybe get a history lesson in the process:
I was under the impression that the whole Arab region (which I understand to include Palestine) is quite volatile- they seem to be constantly at war with some other nation or having a conflict of some form. Israel either isn't as unstable or I just haven't been paying attention. So it stands to reason that we're going to look more favorably on the Israelis because they don't seem to cause as many problems.
Also, I've been under the impression that the Palestinians tend to buddy up with Iraq and those nutcases, so it also seems reasonable that we wouldn't be interested in offering them any protection. Also, I believe Israel is our ally, to some extent, so we stick up for them against the "renegades".
When I don't understand something, I tend to look at who is taking the sides then go with the opposite of whatever the idiots are saying. The UN is a bunch of idiots. Their hippie-have-a-nice-day crap gets under my skin. They are pro-Palestine, therefore I'm against.
I say we let the Israelis and Palestinians duke it out - last one left standing gets the land. After all, <b>that's</b> the American Way.
08-09-2001, 07:19 AM
Yes that region is volatile and will probably remain so for several years to come. This is one of the issues that keeps the volatility high. The land taken to create Israel was taken from the local Arabs. Those idiots in the UN that you talk about did this. So shouldn’t you be against the Israelis based on your comments.
When oil was first found in the region (little if any in the area defined as Israel) we had a strategic interest in obtaining a foothold in the region. Now that our relations with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others in the area have grown the need to coddle the Israelis is less.
Let them duke it out!! I could go for that if they were fighting with similar gear or were even closely balanced in ability. The Israelis have at their access numerous weapons that we have built while the Palestinians are left to whatever they can scrape up. The other Arab nations have seen the disparity and have made some of their arms available to the Palestinians to protect themselves. It is still an imbalance as the Israelis have an American trained Air Force and planes to exact whatever toll the desire.
By all of our actions in support of Israel we have created a monster. One that spies on us to further advance their ability of mass destruction. One that hides criminals from our justice system by affording them full citizenship and makes a mockery of our system by giving a murderer a seven year sentence. The Israelis have become arrogant with our assistance and in my mind are getting out of control. The feel they can do whatever they want as long as they can back it militarily. Whether that be colonizing other’s land or assassinating those that they see as a threat.
08-10-2001, 04:37 PM
"Let them duke it out!! I could go for that if they were fighting with similar gear or were even closely balanced in ability. The Israelis have at their access numerous weapons that we have built while the Palestinians are left to whatever they can scrape up. "
Ken, what the hell is that all about!
That's why I like them guys; they come from the George Smith Patton school of thought! Fair fights in war are for movies and the idea is not to die for your country but let the other dumb sob's die for THEIRS!
Israel fought for what they have and the stories of scraping together whatever they could to fight for survival back in the 50's and 60's are legendary. I think it's easy to pick on the big guy and call him "bully" once he gets big, but they worked for it. They built it. And in the mean time the Palestinians have done...???
The Israelis have done and are doing to us what other allies have done and are doing: Act in their own national interest. We spy as well, on friend and foe.
I am way to humble to mention the latest atrocity our Palestinians friends have wrought. I would never bring up yesterdays car bomb where 15 more civilians were murdered and 130 more sent to the hospital just to make a cheap point. No way. Not me. Did you hear the thing was filled with nails and other shrapnel for maximum effect? Did you know that it was named for an English inventor, Henry Scrapnel? I wouldn’t stoop to mention that Arafat, while expressing regret that it happened, blames it on Sharon. Not me!
Look, the place has been cohabitated for centuries and for centuries they’ve been killing each other. The Israelis are definitely racist towards Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular. They are brawling, currently, over land that Israel took in ’67 and has given up and reclaimed in some form or another since then. It’s a mess, absolutely, but Yassir Arafat is not standing in the middle of the street challenging Ariel Sharon to duke it out, mano y mano. I suspect Sharon would take him up on it in a New York Jewish Deli minute.
Anytime I get in an argument about race in the US, I gladly point to the Middle East and the Balkans and, hell, most of the rest of the world to illustrate how bad racism can be and how far we, the US people, have come.
I still say the Israelis are the underdogs and the Palestinians haven’t shown me much in the way of a will for peace, short of the extinction of Jews.
How 'bout them gefilte fish?
08-10-2001, 05:37 PM
Be assured that I do not condone either side or their tactics. These people need to sit down and work out their differences at all costs. The killing is senseless and needs to stop. Since we apparently have some influence over both countries we should work to stop it. Including cessation of supplying the Israelis with hardcore military hardware.
Like you, I won’t mention the Israeli response using sophisticated American hardware to selectively retaliate against an undefended location. I would never do that nor would I bring about the fact that the Israelis are enjoying an approximate 4 to 1 kill ratio in the recent activity. You know me I wouldn’t stoop to such mean and twisted tactics to further my point. Hell, I won’t even continue to point out that the Israelis have consistently and continuously laid claim to others land and expect general acceptance from all.
I enjoyed that as much as you did I bet. Anyway, got any ideas on what would be a good way to get this under control. I’ve been toying with the idea of making Jerusalem a country unto itself somewhat like Vatican City with a shared government of Christians, Hebrews, and Muslims. What do you think?
08-10-2001, 05:38 PM
How 'bout them gefilte fish?
It's off-topic, but did you catch Rush Hour 2 yet? For once, #Jackie Chan is NOT the one who can't say gefilte fish!
08-11-2001, 08:59 AM
Frank, we're arguing here. LOL.
Ken, maybe I'm just to cynical, but I really feel like the US is the only nation that has laid down, in writing, rules and ideas that go against human nature and human history: Our ideas of limited government of the folks by the folks and for the folks.
Yeah, we got some problems but you CAN make it, whatever IT is, in the good old US. You can sue your g'mint. You can win.
Everybody else lives, basically, by the golden rule: He who has it rules.
Until the Israelis and Palestinians (and Russians and Chinese and everybody else) actually lay out laws that are an individual oriented thought of government then I see NO way to "fix" the problems. They just ebb and flow from violence to control to violence again. They polish turds.
I mean, we do stupid stuff to ourselves all the time, but the point is we are free to screw it up. I know that sounds stupid, but the rest of the world is just stuck in age-old biases and religious intolerances, ethnic divisions and just downright hatred that inevitably boils down to violence.
That's why I'm so opposed to preference legislation and hate crimes stuff here at home. You should be free to be a bigot or hate whites or blacks or straights or gays. You just cannot hurt a person or their property. How is somebody gonna be proved wrong unless they express themselves and then get to eat crow? The Klan used to be a big deal here; now, they are viewed as nut balls. Jesse Jackson is seen for what he is: A race-baiting extortionist. David Duke is rejected nationally. Farakan is amusing. But, these folks served a purpose: Get the issues out in the open so we can tear ‘em apart and REALLY look at them. Look at oursleves.
Let people be ignorant and in time, generations learn. Time, that's the thing. We all expect instant results or it is no good. It took us 80 some years to fess up to our "All men are created equal" bit, the American Civil War. Probably another 100 years to really mean it but we live in an age where it is considered stupid and ugly to base opinion on race. Everywhere else it is a matter of fact. What other cultural majority, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME successfully fought themselves to elevate a minority? We have much to be proud of as human beings.
That's why the whiners about gay/race rights piss me off. Where does this happen anymore? You gonna refuse treatment from a black doctor? Not let a gay plumber fix your pipes? (That's kinda funny!). For crying out loud our women drive and vote!
I mean, we ain't perfect, but by and large we are so ahead of the rest of the world in basic human rights and dignity and these groups run around crying like it's the middle east or the Balkans. They seem to NEED that basic discomfort with that which is unfamiliar. They KNOW you are mean and ignorant. Only THEY are enlightened. It's institutional around the world. Here, we have laws that we back up.
We don’t celebrate people who kill others in this nation and I think there is a reason and that we kinda own the franchise on it.
We tend to view these hot spots in our eyes: Let’s get our lawyers together, certainly we can work it out or at least one of us will win in court. These people hate each other. They think the other less human. They have a long way to go and I really don’t think we can do squat. The loser is gonna kill the winner if the winner doesn't kill him first.
I still feel that the Israelis are of some strategic interest to us. I KNOW that if the Palestinians wrote a US style Constitution and Bill of rights and started behaving by the rule of law, THEY would become in our interests. They won’t. They celebrate terrorists.
We love selling hardware to good old boys who like John Wayne movies.
Maybe I’m wrong, but, all warts aside, the Israelis appear to be more for the individual than their neighbors, so, we support them.
Hell if I know!
08-12-2001, 01:03 PM
LOL I agree with Larry, we're arguing (debating) here.
I don't expect instant results in this ongoing feud and actually I will be surprised if there is a peaceful resolution within the next decade or so. What I don’t like is that we have provided the Israelis with the ability to carry out these surgical strikes against an unprotected people. No wonder they have fanatics willing to strap explosives to their backsides and blow themselves and anyone close to them apart. Reading and listening to the Palestinian concerns the number one issue is the continued expansion by the Israelis and acquisition of their land by the Israelis for new settlements.
I also don’t expect everyone to take our form of government (though it seems to be about the best of those out there). My view of the Israelis and their government seems different than your view. You said you believe that they are more for the individual and I say that I believe that they are more concerned with expansion of their borders and making more room for their growing society. The Palestinians, on the other hand, aren’t even recognized as a nation. They have been left in limbo by the established states and are treated as nomadic nobodies.
What other nation would we allow to steal the land of their neighbors without our strong condemnation, sanctions, or actual military action? To my knowledge only Israel holds this standing. Why? Is it left over guilt for not acting more quickly during the Second World War to prevent the attempted annihilation of the Jews by the Nazis. I don’t know what the reasons are, but I see it as a dangerous maneuver that has done more to keep the fighting going then anything else. I also see this as the fuse to a regional conflict that could get rather ugly if something isn’t done to reduce the tension. It will take more then words and peace summits to make it happen it will take action by our government to help reshape the thinking of those involved.
I agree with you on this issue. I find it very difficult to support Israel who claims that the Palestinians have violated the Olso Peace Accord when each time the Israeli's where supposed to do something based on that agreement they conveniently found a way not to.
Also, how convenient is it that these same people jumped on the chance to form their own country using the UN to do it but when the UN stated that they needed to return the occupied terroritories to the Palestinians they ignore them.
The Israeli's are never going to be happy until this control everything they THINK they have a right to. Yes, the Holacaust was a terrible thing that we should NEVER forget but it is time to move on.
08-21-2001, 01:49 PM
Although modern day Israel evolved right after WWII, the cultural and religious hatred between Jews and their Arab neighbors goes back over a thousand years. Combine that historical backdrop with a very influential Jewish lobby in Washington and you come to the realization that they're never going to run out of hatred, nor the money to proliferate it.
09-12-2001, 03:09 AM
I saw on the news today that Israel has declared a "Day of Mourning" for the terrorism victims. #The Palestinians, on the other hand, were jumping up and down, cheering with delight as they watched the World Trade bldgs. come tumbling down.
Do you still think that the Israelis are the bad guys, and if so could you please explain your position to the rest of us?
(Edited by pilot at 3:23 am on Sep. 12, 2001)
09-12-2001, 08:01 AM
Yeah, I still think that the Israelis are wrong in what they are doing in Palestine and to the Palestinians. #The fact that several hundred Palestinians cheered this cowardly act has pissed me off but hasn’t changed my feelings that the Israelis and our support of them is at the root of their problem. #I see you make no mention about how Arafat has said he is appalled by the act. #Whether or not anyone believes his sincerity, as their leader he has made the gesture and indicated his sorrow for our losses just as most leaders in the world have done.
So why did we get this response from those in the streets over there? #My belief is that for the most part the Palestinians see us as blindly allowing and supporting the Israeli colonization effort. #That we, up until now, had not experienced the pain and suffering that has become a part of their daily lives. #They hate us for our lack of action and lack of compassion for their plight. #They hate us for how we supply the Israelis with weapons that make their task more likely to succeed. #They hate us for not stepping in and reigning in the Israelis for their acts against the people of Palestine.
I also see this act as a planned endeavor by the faction of terrorists under the guidance of Osama Bin Laden. #I believe that we will now spare no effort in bringing that speck of excrement to justice (whether or not it is a single piece of lead passing through his head or in front of a jury, justice will be done).
09-12-2001, 08:03 PM
Actually, I was aware that Arafat had made a statement expressing empathy for the victims, but I would have felt a lot better if he'd made a stronger statement that, however unjustly his people have been treated, violence and terrorism against innocent people is not the answer.
09-12-2001, 08:44 PM
Agreed that a stronger statement by Arafat would have been nice. #The people that had these children celebrating in the streets of Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, and Iraq are those that try to keep fueling the fire of hatred towards us and are nothing but idiots trying to grasp a few minutes in front of the CNN cameras.
I went ahead and wrote a new column about how I feel about this disaster and SOMD already has it posted on the usual page. #Check it out and let me know how you feel about my thoughts.
(Edited by Ken King at 8:44 pm on Sep. 12, 2001)
09-13-2001, 11:28 AM
Thanks for your reply. #
To be fair, I've since heard that some Palestinians were lighting candles for the dead Americans. #Not everybody is filled with hate. #I also hope that Arab-Americans don't get harassed over this. (I have a good friend of mine at work who attends the Mosque in Prince Frederick. #He's in the Army Reserve and will gladly defend this country if called upon to do so). In a time like this, it's more important than ever for people to stick together and not demonize "the other".
Will check out your other posting when I have time...(I'd like to give it the thought and attention that it deserves rather than read it quickly and give a "knee-jerk" response).
(Edited by pilot at 5:01 pm on Sep. 13, 2001)
12-04-2001, 04:21 PM
You know, it takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. Curious what your position is 4 months after you wrote this column?
I can remember when you supported Clinton and chastised the rest of us for jumping to conclusions before the evidence was in. Is enough evidence in on the Palestinians?
12-04-2001, 05:57 PM
Supported Clinton? #I thought I was supporting the law of the land, that being innocent until proven guilty. #Once Clinton had admitted to his lies, that was proof enough for me.
I still stand firm on my position regarding Palestine. #The Israelis have continuously been on the advance, taking more and more land that is not theirs. #This has been the only consistency in that region since Israel’s establishment in 1947. #Now Sharon claims that he is doing no more then what we are doing against the Taliban, bin Laden, and Al Qaeda. #I submit that we responded against a direct attack against our sovereign territory and citizens whereas the Israelis have taken Palestinian territory and want to keep it. #One is a defensive measure and the other is an offensive measure. #The offensive acts of the Israelis have directly attributed to the only military response the Palestinians have, the suicide bomber. I am surprised that you don’t see that.
If Israel pulled back to their legally established boundaries and Palestine continued the violence you would convert me. # Until such time as that occurs I see the Palestinians as a people denied the rights and privileges that others have demanded and received. #Why are they being treated as if they are the world’s bastards? #
12-04-2001, 09:08 PM
Because they are.
I find it amusing that the headlines today hinted at "Israelis Declare War on Terrorism" - or is it only okay for the US to hunt down the masterminds of suicide bombings? Is it only bad if it happens in the US?
12-04-2001, 09:59 PM
The Palestines are treated like the world's bastards because that's how they are behaving. Suicide bombing innocent civilians is not a "defensive measure", nor is it a "military response." It is evil, ruthless, cold-blooded murder. Israel would be foolish to give in to this because it would just encourage more of the same. I'm surprised that you don't see that.
12-05-2001, 07:07 AM
Let me rephrase Mikeybash's and Vrail's posts, and ask you a few explicit questions:
#1) #Does suffering make it OK for the Palestinians to commit terrorist acts against innocent civilians? #
#2) #If the answer to #1 is NO, are the Isrealis supposed to just sit back and take it? If YES, is terrorism only wrong when it happens to Americans?
#3) #Does it make any kind of practical sense for a country the size of Rhode Island to give up half its land to a people that absolutely hates them and would love to wipe them off the face of the earth? #
#4) It's easy enough to criticize the Israelis, but let's talk solutions here: #do you have any practical suggestions as to how to solve this problem for future generations?
(Edited by pilot at 7:13 am on Dec. 5, 2001)
12-05-2001, 07:28 AM
"The Israelis have continuously been on the advance, taking more and more land that is not theirs. #This has been the only consistency in that region since Israel’s establishment in 1947."
"If Israel pulled back to their legally established boundaries and Palestine continued the violence you would convert me."
I'm confused. #My history book tells me that Israel stayed within their "legally established boundaries" at least until 1967. #Every single war in that time frame was started by the Arabs, who refused to acknowledge their right to exist let alone any "legally established boundaries." #Prior to 1967, it wasn't even certain that Israel would or could survive.
I can understand your belief that Israel should pull back to pre-1967 borders, but what's this "since 1947" all about? #Please explain in detail how Israel was the agressor during this timeframe?
It seems to me that your first statement is inconsistent with the second.
(Edited by pilot at 7:38 am on Dec. 5, 2001)
12-05-2001, 09:15 AM
I didn't read the whole history lessons of the previous posts. But did anyone mention anything about World War I, and what the british government did?
On Nov 2, 1917 - british government drawed up and signed the Balfour Declaration. Because a Dr. Chaim Wiezmann invented a formula that made it possible the rapid production of these vital materials - (smokeless gunpowder)that was for TNT. At that time Jews started moving into Palestine. In those early days Jews purchased with zionist funds 350,000 acres of land for agricultural purpose.
But in 1917 Britian reneged on the treaty. In 1939, after much deliberation over the growing conflicts between Arabs and Jews, Britain issued a white paper that favored Arab independence and control of the area. After WW2 the British withdrew from Palestine. Shortly after that National Council and the General Zionist Council proclaimed from Tel Aviv the establishment of the sovereign state of Israel. It was May 14, 1948. Both US and Russia recognized the new nation, after much debate, then accepted as a memeber nation of the United Nations by a vote 37 to 12.
I think someone mentioned this: 1967 For the first time since the babylonia captivity, the jews took charge of Jerusalem.
So with Moshe Dayan placing the israeli flag on Muslim Dome of the Rock 1967. During the famous 6 day war. Thinking he would make friends with the Arabs. He just made his friends angry. Placing this flag he decided to be conciliatory toward his Muslim captives. Instead of keeping this site, coveted by every orthodox Jew in the world, he decided to take down the flag and give the Muslims control over that sacred spot. In a sense I guess Dayan knew if the Jews had this sight - they would tear down the Mosque - and rebuild their temple - this would of created a holy war.. Well watching the news for the past 15 years - I suspect a holy war is continuous even though the flag was taken down.
12-05-2001, 12:03 PM
Israel is and always has been the aggressor. #Even before 1947 they were searching for a homeland and knew were they wanted it. #The land was Arab controlled and they worked with the British and Americans to bring it about and had the UN buy off on it. #To the specifics of your questions; “Please explain in detail how Israel was the agressor during this timeframe?” #
You asked for it, so here goes a time line for 1948 until 1966,
January 16: British report to the UN estimates 1974 killed during the period November 30, 1947 and January 10, 1948
January 20: Britain says it'll hand over administration according to local majority in each area
January - March: Jewish National Fund encourages the expulsion of Arabs from Haifa. The Haganah attacks Palestinians near al-Hula lake (north of Tabariyya) and the Palmach (another Zionist armed group) attacks bedouins in An-Naqab.
February 16: ASA loses near Bisan.
March: East Jordan government head meets UK's Bevin and both agree that East Jordan government forces enter areas allocated to Palestinians (according to partition plan) after the end of Mandate
March 10: British House of Commons votes on ending the mandate on May 15. The Haganah drafts "Plan Dalet" (Dalet is Hebrew for D) for military operations in Palestine.
March 19 - 20: USA representative in the Security Council asks it to suspend the partition plan and calls for a General Assembly session to discuss a trusteeship on Palestine. Arabs accepted a limited one with a truce conditioned by Jewish acceptance. The Jewish Agency rejected.
March 25: Truman calls for an immediate truce, announces willingness to participate in temporary trusteeship
March 30 - May 15: 2nd coastal cleansing operation by the Haganah against Palestinians between Haifa and Yafa.
April 1: First arms shipment to Jewish organizations lands in Haifa, more in air cargo. Security Council calls for a General Assembly session according to US suggestion.
April 4 - 15: Battle of Mishmar Ha 'Emeq. Haganah wins and Palmach occupies villages in the plains of marj bin Aamer
April 6 - 15: Operation Nachshon (first part of Dalet Plan). Villages and towns on the Jerusalem - Tel Aviv road fell to Haganah.
April 9: Deir Yassin massacre. Irgon and Stern terrorists kill 250 civilians in this village in Jerusalem district
April 12: General Zionist Council decides to establish an independent state in Palestine on May 16.
April 20: Operation Hariel of Plan Dalet. Palestinian villages on Jerusalem road targeted and destroyed. Continues till May 15.
April 15 - May 25: Operation Yiftah captures Safad and uses psychological war to expel Palestinians. Operation Sweeper drives bedouins to Jordan River.
April 16 - 17: Golani and Palmach units occupy Tabariyya (Tiberias) after British forces leave. Palestinian residents leave.
April 17: Security Council calls for a military and political truce
April 20: USA brings its trusteeship proposal to the UN
April 21: Operation Misparim. British forces leave Haifa, Haganah launches offensive.
April 22: Local defenders in Haifa lose. Residents leave due to heavy shelling and round offensive.
April 25: Irgon attacks yafa.
April 26 - 30: Haganah launches Operation Yabusi on and around Jerusalem and occupies areas there.
April 27 - May 5: Irgon and Haganah intensifies shelling and ground offensive on Yafa (Operation Hamets) leading to expulsion of 50000
April 30: Haganah captures all areas of West Jerusalem and expels Palestinians
May 3: Reports say Zionist attacks left about 175,000 - 200,000 Palestinian refugees
May 8 - 16: Haganah launches Operation Maccabi capturing villages on the Ramle-LaTrun road
May 9 - June 1: Operation Barak. Haganah attacks around Ramle
May 10 - 15: Golani brigade captures Bisan and launches attacks in area
May 13: ASA and local fighters attack Gush Etsion and captures it in return of Zionists attack on the Hebron road. Yafa surrenders to the Haganah.
May 13 - 21: Operation Ben Ami. Carmeli brigade captures Akka 9Acre) and coastal areas north of the city
May 14: Haganah launches offensive on Jerusalem after British forces leave. Some residential areas captured in old city. An Israeli state was declared in Tel Aviv at 4 pm. USA president Truman recognizes the state
May 15: British mandate ends. Israeli state declaration takes effect.
May 15 - 17: Lebanese soldiers enter north border, restore 2 villages.
May 15 - 28: Arab Army (East Jordan) crosses the river and takes positions in Jerusalem, captures areas from the Haganah
May 15 - June 4: Iraqi units enter Palestine and take position in Jenin-Nablus-Tulkarm triangle. Haganah launches offensive, expel residents of villages on the Jenin road and even occupying Jenin but kicked out on June 3 -4 .
May 15 - June 7: Egyptian units cross the border and reach Isdod (coastal town). Some volunteers connect with Jordanian units near Bethlehem.
May 16 - 30: Operation Ben Nun. Zionists fail to capture Latrun to open Jerusalem - Yafa road, but capture neighboring villages
May 16 - June 10: Syrian units enter from north. Restores a few villages together with Lebanese soldiers
May 22: Security Council issues a resolution calling for a ceasefire
June 9 - 10: Operation Yuram fails to capture Latrun
June 11 - July 8: First truce.
July 7: Security Council calls for an extension of the truce
July 7 - 18: Operation Dani. Lod and Ramle fall, residents leave. Villages on the Yafa-Jerusalem road fall and a major offensive on Latrun ends with second truce taking effect.
July 8 - 14: Operations An-Far and Dekel end in capture of areas near Ramle as well as Naasira and al-Jalil al-Asfal (Lower Galilee)
July 18 - October 15: second truce
July 24 - 26: Operation Shuteir. Israeli forces attack and capture 3 villages south of Haifa.
August 16 - early October: expulsion of bedouins from an-Naqab by Negev and Yiftah brigades
July 24 - 28: Operation Nikayon (cleansing): occupation of areas north of Isdod
October 15 - November 9: Operations Yuav and Hahar. Occupation of Bi'r as-Sabi', Majdal, Isdod, coastal areas and villages near Hebron.
October 29 - 31: Operation Hiram. Capture of Jalil al-A'ala (Upper Galilee) and advance toward Litani river in Lebanon
November 4: security Council resolution calls for withdrawal to the prior October 14 positions and establishment of permanent truce lines
November - Mid 1949: Israeli forces expel villagers from a stretch 5 - 15 Km deep in Lebanon as well as residents of al-Jalil.
December 22 - January 6, 1949: Operation Horef against Egyptian forces. Occupation of many towns and villages, advancement into Sinai followed by withdrawal and ceasefire on December 7 with forces on the outskirts of Rafah
February 24: Israeli-Egyptian truce. Egyptian forces leave Faluje and keeps gaza-Rafah strip.
February (end): Israeli army expels Faluje residents in violation of truce.
March: Israeli forces complete occupation of An-Naqab and reach Aqaba.
Israeli law of return and absentee property law; Jordan unified East Bank and what remains of West Bank (or the River Jordan)
King Abdullah I assassinated in Jerusalem
Israeli army attack and massacre in Gaza
Israeli massacres in Qalqilya, kafr Qaasim and Khan Yunis; tripartite invasion (British, French, Israeli) of Egypt and the Suez crisis
Israeli withdrawal from Sinai (Egyptian) and Gaza
PLO draft constitution issued at Arab summit in Cairo
Israelis divert the Jordan River; Fateh carries first military operation in Palestine
Israeli massacre in As-Sammu' village #
Do you still think the Israelis are as innocent as you proclaim? #I guess one could argue that they are just as innocent as how the settlers of this country dealt with the local inhabitants. #Kill them and take their land. #But does that make it right? #I say no.
To your remaining questions, I doubt if any answer can sway you just as none of your comments detract from the truth as I see it and as it is in history. #I don’t condone the suicide attacks but I sure do understand them. #I also understand that Israel will not be satisfied until they control that entire region. #It is obvious by their actions both now and in the past that that is their goal. #Of these questions the only one worthy of response is the final question. #What possible solution is there? #As I said until the world makes Israel withdraw to their legal boundaries nothing can be accomplished. #That is the only thing that can begin to get the peace process rolling.
Sorry for the length but I was tasked to be specific.
12-05-2001, 01:52 PM
So, Ken, what you're saying (and correct me if I misunderstand) is that if American Indians were to demand that whites vacate the US, we should go? Since we were the aggressors and all? What if they started killing schoolchildren and suicide bombing supermarkets? Or should we set aside a state (Wyoming?) just for them and clear all the whites out of there?
The Israelis are our allies - the Palestinians are allies of terrorists. Nuff said.
12-05-2001, 04:17 PM
You make a valid point Blondie
Even back as far as A.D. 135 the Roman empire ran Jews out of Israel after the rebellion of Barchaba. They also issued a decree that any Jews found in Palestine could be killed on sight. Why has these people been executed throughout history - but are 5 million strong today? The Hittites, Assyrians and Babylonians have vanished, and they were a strong people.
It seems this has been an argument among others - planners of the coming one-world order is what to do with Palestine. Five Million Jews who live there are not about to surrender their sovereignty to the UN or US or anyone else. The smell of Holocaust is still too fresh in their memories.
12-05-2001, 04:21 PM
You make a valid point Blondie
Even back as far as A.D. 135 the Roman empire ran Jews out of Israel after the rebellion of Barchaba. They also issued a decree that any Jews found in Palestine could be killed on sight. Why has these people been executed throughout history - but are 5 million strong today? The Hittites, Assyrians and Babylonians have vanished, and they were a strong people.
It seems this has been an argument among others - planners of the coming one-world order is what to do with Palestine. Five Million Jews who live there are not about to surrender their sovereignty to the UN or US or anyone else. The smell of Holocaust is still too fresh in their memories.
12-05-2001, 05:43 PM
Arguing about history is a waste of time. Both sides have a valid claim to the same land, but Israel is now in possession of it. That may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
What if the shoe was on the other foot? If the Palestinians were in control, do you think they'd show the same amount of restraint Israel has? Hell no. They would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Accept it, the world has good guys and bad guys. In this case, the Israelis are the good guys and the Palestinians are the bad guys. We should be happy that the good guys have the guns.
12-05-2001, 06:56 PM
"Israel is and always has been the agressor. #Even before 1947 they were searching for a homeland and knew where they wanted it. #The land was Arab controlled..."
Really? #How far back in history do you want to go?
"Do you still think the Israelis are as innocent as you proclaim?"
Excuse me, I must have missed something? #Where exactly did I proclaim that?
The fact is, I don't think that the Israelis are completely innocent--but neither are the Palestinians. #There are two sides to this issue.
I do respect Israel's right to defend itself given that the Arabs have refused to acknowledge its right to exist and would gladly wipe it off the face of the earth--despite the fact that Israel was "legally established" by the UN. #
Or, are only the Israelis obligated to comply with "legally established" boundaries?
"I also understand that Israel will not be satisfied until they control that entire region. #It is obvious by their actions...that that is their goal"
I guess it isn't obvious to me.
"Of these questions the only one worthy of response is the final question".
TO ANYONE ELSE WHO MIGHT BE READING THIS:
Do you agree with Mr. King that only my last question is "worthy of response"?
Since you're so fond of timelines, here's one for you:
Nov. 29, 1947 - UN votes to establish two states in Palestine, one Arab and one Jewish. #Jews reluctantly accept, Arab nations reject it outright.
May 14, 1948 - Ben Gurion, leader of Israel proclaims "...the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine to be called Israel...will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice, and peace...will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, CREED, or sex; #will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; #will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of ALL RELIGIONS; #and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations..."
May 15, 1948 (the very next day) - Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and Lebanon invade Israel.
Need anymore be said?
(Edited by pilot at 7:12 pm on Dec. 5, 2001)
12-05-2001, 08:12 PM
You are misunderstanding the comparison I made. What I was referring to is how we went about taking this land. Very similar to what the Israelis are doing now. How were Native Americans viewed during this time, heathens, barbaric, and terrorizing the colonists. Any victories by Native Americans were viewed as massacres. Their losses were viewed as great victories for the United States. There are some moments in our history that I hold no pride for and this happens to be one of those. It is how I view what is going on, you don’t have to agree with me, it’s just how I see it.
Your last comment makes me laugh at how you view things, “The Israelis are our allies - the Palestinians are allies of terrorists. Nuff said.” Who were our allies a little over ten years ago in Afghanistan? Oops the Taliban. I don’t see an ally being someone we agree with at every twist and turn either.
First, I will start with an apology if in fact you aren’t implying that the Israelis are innocent of blame for what is going on. Your support for them indicated that to me and if I was wrong in my perception I humbly apologize and move on.
To the rest of your post. It was you that requested that I provide information regarding the 1947 to 1966 period. The easiest method was via a timeline, not that I am fond of them. I did note that you didn’t refute anything within that timeline and I am aware of those items that you posted and will respond. When the Israeli state was being proposed and it was clear that the Arab world was going to be the contributor of land no one expected them to sit back and accept it. Our world is one in where the land we have is significant and I doubt if there is any country that would accept what was proposed if it impacted them. Yet we expect the Arabs to, why? If the Israelis weren’t continually colonizing the surrounding areas would this still be as significant to the Arab world? Maybe, maybe not. I find it hard to accept anything that continually changes in a manner that impacts me more and more. How are the non-Jewish treated in Israel? Similar to how we treated blacks and women here in America decades ago. So much for Ben Gurion’s claims, though that is what should be going on and fault can’t be laid to his noble ideals toward governing. Of course they attacked as they viewed what was taking place as being invaded and divided with the injection of a new country within their boundaries. I am amazed that you can’t grasp this and how we would act if facing the same challenge.
"Of these questions the only one worthy of response is the final question". My comment meant that the first three were obvious questions with obvious answers needing no response. Your question #1, my response is NO. Question #2, my response is also NO. But Israel hasn’t been sitting back, they have been colonizing the regions outside their boundaries. Question #3, my response is simply what a ridiculous question. Maybe this is where I obtained the perception I apologized for above. All your remarks are skewed in a manner that indicates you are pro-Israel. You haven’t even acknowledged that just taking another’s property without a payment or treaty is wrong.
Not all is lost though as I do agree with you that all parties to this conflict need to find a peaceful resolution. Continued escalation on both sides does nothing but draw others into the fray and kills many innocent people on both sides. I offered as a first step Israel drawing back to the agreed upon boundaries. In previous writings I have also felt that something must be done with Jerusalem, such as making it a country unto itself (like the Vatican City) as it holds significant value for the Jewish, the Muslim, and the Christian. What do you offer as an idea or do you have any ideas on how to approach a resolution?
I don't mind taking heat for my beliefs and ideas. When shown I am wrong I do change position. I just see this as America blindly endorsing the ripping off of land by Israelis and when the Palestinians fight back they are terrorists. Which I don't agree with. I see these two countries as being at war with each of them doing what they are capable of to deter and defeat the other. The Israelis have our support and the Palestinians have the human-bomb. They both kill the innocent.
12-05-2001, 08:41 PM
Thanks for your reply. #I did notice, however, that you ignored my first question: #how far back in history do you want to go? #
You see a colonizing power, I see a piece of land that has been continuously fought over and controlled by many different people including the Jews, the Babylonians, the Romans, and for hundreds of years the Turks (who are not Arabs, by the way), then the British, who made the mistake of promising the same piece of land to two groups of people.
As for the Israelis and Palestinians, I see two peoples, both of which have historical ties to the same piece of land.
BTW, it's not the timeline I dispute, just the interpretation...
(Edited by pilot at 11:03 pm on Dec. 5, 2001)
12-05-2001, 09:34 PM
I'm writing this as a separate issue. #You ask what solution I propose (I'd rather focus on solutions, anyway).
Here's a few ideas to start: #I'd like to see an Israeli state and a Palestinian state with capitals co-located in Jerusalem (I believe that's what the original UN proposal called for, although I'd have to go back and check my notes to be absolutely sure). #
I'm not sure how to get these two groups of people to negotiate with each other, since both obviously feel threatened by the other. #Clearly, somebody needs to mediate. #Maybe the US? #I'm not sure. #Sometimes, I think the Turks should do it. #They might be a good candidate: #a Moslem country that is also highly civilized and completely familiar with that region as they controlled it for hundreds of years.
Actually, I wish we could all live together happily without any group of people making nationalistic claims, but I'm not sure that's possible. #And, sadly, history has demonstrated that the Jews need a country of their own with an Army to stand up and fight for them. #
(Edited by pilot at 9:41 pm on Dec. 5, 2001)
12-06-2001, 01:38 PM
How far back do we need to go since everything prior to the UN resolution to create Israel is now moot? #Once the "world" bought off on the creation of the state of Israel that created a point of reference and established the boundaries. #In Israel’s eyes all property gains obtained in 1967 belong to them, though the UN doesn’t see it that way. #
Co-located capitals, interesting concept, I always thought that the UN had given Jerusalem to the unnamed Arab state. #I might be wrong, but it is obvious to both of us that this city will be a key part to any agreement. #How do they negotiate when they carry so much negative baggage to the table? #A mediator is essential but should it be only one country or should it be a convention of countries? #I think a small convention might result in the fairest resolution but I doubt if it would be a timely event. Needless to say this will be a tough issue to resolve. #It must be done or that region and possibly the rest of the world will continue to suffer from the continuous violent acts that each of these people are doing to one another.
12-06-2001, 09:14 PM
Well, it seems that we're in agreement about two things:
#1) Jerusalem must be available to everybody, and
#2) history prior to 1948 is pretty much moot as the goal is hopefully to find a solution not establish blame. If we can at least agree on that much, then we're well on the way towards resolution. Wish it could be that easy for the folks living in the Middle East. :)
12-07-2001, 05:32 PM
Guess I oughta get back in on all this, being the instigator and all.
Ken, as always, I simply respect your stand on this (and many other issues) because you retain a principled stand, IE, you know and can explain why you take the position you do. Kudos, my friend.
That said, here’s some more food for thought.
Yassir has been in power, the main face of the Palestinian cause since what, 1967? A rather large, notable and politically diverse bunch of people have been his opposite number in Israel over the years. US and World pressure, the leaders and the ideas for long-term peace have run the unsuccessful gambit.
Given the debatable particulars of who killed whom, when and why and was this instance retaliation for that or vice a versa or, was that instance of killing the initiation of this killing, throw in our interference, Arab interference, the UN and the general history of it all, and the above mentioned reality cannot be ignored. It is the only constant.
If two leaders cannot reconcile their differences in some reasonable fashion and one of those leaders is a completely new and sometimes very different type of person on a fairly regular basis, covering almost 30 years, then, at some point, it becomes reasonable to conclude that the constant, the common denominator, is the real problem and may have always been.
Everything else confuses the issues and drags the debate, the entire issue of Israeli existence and Palestinian identity into confusingly circular explanations and excuses and a horrible game of international rubber necking, knowing full well some more innocent blood will soon be spilled, merely a matter of time and just how ugly this time.
Reality seems to state that one side in particular either has no interest in a negotiated peace or simply is not the power to be negotiated with. History and current events imply that any new authority will have the same thinly veiled agenda: The cessation of existence of the other party.
Peace, it appears, seems to serve the interests of only one side in this sordid affair.
It has always been my opinion that your principles and thoughts have merit, may be very correct and even lawful. Sadly, it is my opinion that were your conditions satisfied it would change nothing.
12-08-2001, 12:19 PM
You're probably right that Israel’s withdrawal back to the 1947 agreement wouldn't "solve" the issue as this has been going on for awhile, but I still think it would help diffuse the situation. #
I want to know why we, Americans, support the Israelis in the occupation of lands of the Arab world (beyond the 1947 frontiers)? #When Iraq attempted this in Kuwait we were right there sending them home with their tails tucked between their legs. #In Palestine, what do we do, we send more weapons and money to help the Israelis get the job done. #How is that to be seen by the Arab world? #More importantly, what does that say to our ideal of self-determination?
12-08-2001, 04:01 PM
Isn't it obvious? #The Kuwaitis never had the stated objective of wiping Iraq clean off the map. #Also, Isrealis don't dance and celebrate when Americans are attacked by terrorists. Israel actually announced an official day of mourning. Sort of makes a difference...
BTW, Israel did agree to give up land that it took from Egypt (in return for full diplomatic recognition) and signed a peace treaty with Anwar Sadat. #For his crime of agreeing that Israel has a right to exist, Sadat was vilified in the Arab world and was ultimately assassinated.
Sorry, Ken, but I guess most of the civilized world just doesn't see it the way you do.
(Edited by pilot at 4:23 pm on Dec. 8, 2001)
12-08-2001, 05:17 PM
What do you see as the civilized world? Israel is one nation that has received numerous admonitions from the UN regarding colonization and other acts, but I guess for you the majority of those member countries aren't civilized.
I think you feel like the majority of Americans on this issue, but I seriously doubt if you can speak for the civilized world, at least based on the voting record of the UN, or maybe your definition of civilized.
12-08-2001, 06:04 PM
In response to your feeling a withdrawal would defuse (or diffuse?) the tensions I have to disagree; it, the absolute irreconcilability, is the basis for my thoughts about the Middle East.
That segues to your other thought, the question of why we, the US, seem to support Israel almost exclusively, especially in terms of hardware. Certainly you can see Pilots, myself and many other peoples view that, on the whole, the Arab side of the equation comes off as the bad guys more than the other side: you don’t agree but, you can see it, correct?
To be fair, I submit that the pro Israel side can, in the same spirit, at least see your points and have some sympathy for the Palestinians plight. Again, not agreeing, but acknowledging.
Speaking for our government policies, if I may be un-humble for just a moment, I will state that our National Interest is served in the democratic presence Israel provides in a region full of non-democracies. That’s the rational.
The other is emotional, the Holocaust and our innate American love of success. Israel has done pretty well from pretty long odds over the years. Conversely, enter the innate American distaste for losers. The Palestinians keep saying they want a state and yet they just can’t seem to get it done. They always seem to shoot themselves, excuse the phrase, in the foot.
Now, on to your position of legality. I cannot hold an intelligent conversation about the legal, accepted facts of what is supposed to be what over there. I thought the internationally accepted line was the ’67 line (the last "official" war). You say ’47. I don’t know!
I believe that the Palestinians could get a nation of their own if they stop the terror and let all the negative light fall on Israel. Simple PR. Hell, Bush is calling for it. I just don’t believe they are disposed to anything that means they must accept Israel continuing to exist as their neighbor.
You never hear “Death to the Palestinians!” when some gomer gets a heat seeker down his stovepipe. We always hear “Death to Israel and Zionism!” every time some martyr blows up himself and a busload of civs. Zionism, as we all know, is a bad word that means…a belief in a homeland for Jews.
PS, the ONLY reason we stood firm over Kuwaits border is......The free flow of oil at market prices.
12-08-2001, 08:18 PM
I would consider as "civilized" any country that doesn't promote and support the kinds of people who would fly planes into the World Trade Center or firebomb discos. #Not all countries that belong to the U.N. fit my definition, although I do support the general idea of the U.N. #
Yes, there are some border disputes to be resolved, and sometimes the U.N. has voted against Israel. But I would be very curious to see how they would vote now after Sept. 11.
In any case, in 1947, the U.N. voted to establish a Jewish state, and I have yet to hear anything about going back on that decision. # #
BTW, I do have some sympathy for the Palestinians, and I also believe that eventually Israel must give back some land--but not until it's clear that the Palestinians won't try to wipe them off the map.
If you were to simply say that you think Israel should pull back to pre-1967 borders, I could accept that. #What I have a hard time accepting is that you seem to agree with the more militant Arabs that Israel is solely repsonsible for all the problems in the Middle East, that they're the only "bad guys". #Like I said before, there's two sides to this issue.
I once had a long conversation with an Arab friend who felt that the solution was for the Jews and the Palestinians to share the land and have a common state. #While we disagreed about some points, even he did not see the Israelis as the "bad guys" the way you do.
I also knew a retired airline pilot who was Jewish. #He told me about his favorite co-pilot, who happened to be Palestinian. #"He was my favorite co-pilot," he told me. #"We got along great, and I always enjoyed flying with him."
He and his Palestinian friend were committed to working together and being friends, and most importantly, not demonizing the "other".
It's a pity you can't see things the same way.
(Edited by pilot at 9:40 am on Dec. 9, 2001)
12-09-2001, 11:19 AM
Well Pilot I see the web you’re spinning and I won’t be caught by it. UN member states are civilized. Tell me the states you know for a fact promoted and supported the WTC attack? Firebombs, what firebombs are you talking about? What I hear about is human bombers, those that strap explosives to their backs go into the target area and detonate. Firebombs have been used by other groups, including the KKK that have support from many here in America, so by your standard we aren’t civilized.
The border dispute is the major problem in the area. The Arabs have made this clear and as you previously pointed out when the Israelis gave the captured lands back to Egypt they were then able to obtain a truce and treaty. We know what befell the Egyptian leader as his countrymen did not agree with that solution, but it has held even after his assassination.
The UN did agree to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1947, no questions about that. However, early in the Zionist Movement they wanted and decided that the state to be created would be in Argentina. Two years after that decision they changed their minds and decided on Palestine. The UN agreement called for the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab sectors with Jerusalem as an international zone under UN control. As we all know Israel wants it all, including Jerusalem, or why would they continue to colonize the land?
Your comment, “BTW, I do have some sympathy for the Palestinians, and I also believe that eventually Israel must give back some land--but not until it's clear that the Palestinians won't try to wipe them off the map. “ This makes me wonder if you have any idea why the Palestinians and other Arabs took up arms against the Israelis in the first place. It was after the Israelis had attacked villages and towns killing hundreds in their homes that the Arabs started fighting back, the year was 1948.
I have consistently said the Israelis should pull back to the 1947 established borders. The only point of them being the “bad guys” is that they have always been on the advance colonizing more and more of the land that is not theirs. This isn’t a two-sided argument as you try to make it, it never has been. There has always been one advancing and another trying to stop that advance. This is something our nation usually takes the side of the one losing the land, but the pressures of the time were such that we chose to support the non-communist aligned group and get an ally in the region. I understand and support that fully but now times have changed and we no longer have such a need. So why do we continue our blind support?
I too have had conversations with Arabs, I have spent over a year living and working in that region. I feel what your friend said to you was watered down by his knowing where he was and who he was talking to. Those I talked with share my view and thanked me for seeing the light. Your other example is one of hope and how it could be (or should I say how it should be). I have known many people that have put aside their differences and have lived and worked together in a harmonic relationship. It can be done.
The pity is that you haven’t seen the light as to what the Israelis are doing.
I see you question the use of diffuse, I use that term as I know it won’t fix all the problems but it will water them down. Defuse, on the other hand, is simply the removal of the igniter form an explosive device, which won’t occur by simply pulling back to authorized boundaries. Other work will be needed to achieve a lasting peace in the region.
Why does the Arab side come off as the bad guys? We certainly come to agreement with them when there is a benefit to our side, like oil. As I stated above I also understand why we supported Israel at the on set, but again, times have changed. Why is it that you, pilot and others haven’t seen that? We certainly have had changing viewpoints when other changes come about, why is this so different? Why should America support a country that the UN has denounced for their colonization efforts?
The establishment of Israel isn’t about the holocaust as it was in motion many years prior to that horrible event (Zionists Movement established in 1896), it might have garnered up additional US support in the emotional arena but we all know what can happen when you let your emotions rule. You sometimes make unwise decisions. At that time the support for Israel seems to have been the right move, but now is it still right?
You see the Palestinians attempts to get a government going as a joke (shooting themselves in the foot). I see it as a struggle for independence not unlike our own early struggles in this nation. They have many issues to deal with and are fighting a battle at the same time to hold on to what is by all means legally theirs.
Your comment, “I believe that the Palestinians could get a nation of their own if they stop the terror and let all the negative light fall on Israel. Simple PR. Hell, Bush is calling for it. I just don’t believe they are disposed to anything that means they must accept Israel continuing to exist as their neighbor.” Shows to me that you still don’t understand that if the Palestinians halt aggression all that will happen is the expeditious colonization of the remainder of the region by the Israelis. While they will receive negative PR for doing so they will have achieved their goal and could care less about what anyone else says or feels.
Your very next comment is simply ridiculous because it is based on the hype that the media spins and their support for the Israelis. Having trained with Israeli troops in the 1970s I have heard with my own ears comments such as you say never happen. Just because our press and government don’t choose to bring that fact to light doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Israelis hate the Arabs as much, if not more, as the Arabs hate the Israelis. There are always exceptions to this (like what pilot pointed out) but for the most part that is the truth.
This will remain one of those topics that we will disagree upon, but it is one that can shape and change the world we live in. As such, shouldn’t we, as the bearer of the flag of “doing right, fair play, and self determination” do what is right instead of sending billions of dollars in military aide to those that use it to suppress the rights of others?
12-09-2001, 07:13 PM
For a while I was hoping that we could have a rational discussion about this issue, but it's clear that you have very strong feelings, and that nothing I say or do can change your mind. I simply don't see the point of wasting any more time.
You seem more interested in establishing blame than in finding a solution. I would far rather talk to those interested in finding a solution.
BTW, I, too have spent some time in the Middle East--both in the Arab world and in Israel. I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know that my opinion is every bit as valid as yours.
12-09-2001, 07:44 PM
Say what you will but the point I bring isn't one of blame (I’ll leave that to the UN), it is one of believing that changing what we are doing in regard to this issue might actually help bring about a better resolution. You have missed that point throughout the discussion. You don't want to have a rational discussion either as it appears that you feel the status quo is just fine. If you feel a need to run from the discussion, do so. I feel a need to let people know that I think our blind support for Israel must end and we should hold them accountable for some of the wrongs that they have done and just not focus on the Palestinians.
12-09-2001, 10:22 PM
I'm not happy with the "status quo", I just happen to believe that there are two sides to every conflict. You stated quite explicitly that you do not (Ref: "This isn’t a two-sided argument as you try to make it, it never has been."), and that's when I came to the conclusion that any further dialog with you is a waste of time.#
I'll be happy to discuss this issue with anyone else who is willing to work from the basic assumption that there are two sides to this issue.
Hey, Larry, got any ideas for a solution?
(Edited by pilot at 11:59 pm on Dec. 9, 2001)
12-10-2001, 09:38 AM
Whether you care to see it or not this is a one sided issue. The Israelis are colonizing Palestine. Pull your head out and take a look at the problem. I realize you are trying to justify the Israelis but that bird just doesn't fly here.
12-14-2001, 09:07 AM
Adding anything more to this thread has been a work in progress, so, sorry for the delay in responding.
I wasn’t questioning your use of diffuse or defuse, I was questioning mine, as I wasn’t sure if there was much of a practical difference.
As far as me not seeing that things have changed, I think I mentioned in here somewhere that the only real interest Israel serves us now is that they are a democracy. I think I even said that, on balance, pure practicality, Arab relations are much more important to us (oil, again).
Concerning hateful speech and demonstrations, I have mentioned in here somewhere that the Israelis are considered very racist to the Palestinians. I think I used it as an example of how much better race relations are here at home than pretty much all the rest of the world. My point was: whom do we see on TV dancing in the streets?
Hell, you’ve been there (or do you mean trained with them here?) therefore you’ve had a chance for some private talk. What do they say? Is their bigotry complete and that is the basis for you being supportive of the Palestinians?
Allow me to try a different tact instead of endlessly ping pong-ing what we already know we disagree about.
Let us suppose Israel does what, goes back to the ’47 borders? We make them do it, militarily if necessary. Then, we buy/take back all the hardware we sold/gave them. Now we give the Palestinians what they can’t take for themselves nor have ever had: A Nation. We spend billions helping them set up a country, build infrastructure and arm them. Then leave. Add or subtract as you see fit based on your concerns that we’ve armed the Jews unfairly and don’t make them stick to the borders. Don't suggest we simply make them stick to the borders unless you truly think that will stop the bombers. Which it won't.
And then? Give me your opinion of what day to day life in the region will then be like.
As far as a solution, once we disarm the Israelis and help the Palestinians like we used to help Israel, the surrounding nations will unite and treat the Jews like they treat the Palestinians until one day Israel fights back hard enough to excuse destroying her and killing as many as possible. Then they, Jordan, Saudi and Syria, will go back to treating the Palestinians like the red headed stepchild they historically have. That’s solution number one. End of problem.
Number two (my preference) would be we get out of Israel’s way (sell them more arms) and allow them to make peace and borders in the region as they see fit. Out of necessity they will compromise with the real nations in the area while ignoring the fake wannabee one. If Palestine becomes a nation it will be like Kuwait without the oil. Imagine that.
Part 2 of solution 2 would be we declare the oil fields of Saudi and Iraq sacred to the United States and occupy them while vacating or cutting out all the Holy areas Bin Laden is upset about so he (or whomever takes his place when we finally retire him) will be happy.
Solution three, which is what I think will happen, is gonna take me some time. I’ll get back to you.
12-14-2001, 06:41 PM
I'm looking forward to hearing about Solution #3. I realize you're probably pressed for time--as am I. #One could write a book about this subject--and many have. #Wish we could talk about it in person some time (it would be a lot easier than having to type).
I'm beginning to think that my Arab friend was right: #the only real long-term solution would be for Israelis and Palestinians to share the land. #I'll call the future state "Pisrael" (no pun intended!) for want of a better name. #Pisrael should be modeled after the United States, since as you pointed out, we seem to be doing something right. #
I'd like to see a law of return written into their constitution that guarantees right of return for both Jews and Palestinians. #That way the Jews have a place to go when they're being persecuted and the Palestinians get a homeland. #Just like the US, it would be a secular state with no official religion--after all, if there's no official state religion, Jews, Moslems, and Christians should be able to live together in peace, right? #:) #Some sort of special program should be set up to get the Palestinians up to speed on education and standard of living, as we all know that economic disparity creates resentment. #Heck, why not throw in Jordan and Lebanon as well? #That way everybody can benefit from shared resources.
Everyone (US included) would benefit from a more stable and democratic Middle East.
Of course, you couldn't do it overnight. #It's going to take at least a generation for all these people to learn to live together. #But some kind of long-term plan should be drawn up, and preferably one that does NOT reward terrorism. #
Give these people a positive incentive to work together and maybe Pisrael will become a reality! #All it takes is vision and a plan...
(Edited by pilot at 6:57 pm on Dec. 14, 2001)
12-14-2001, 07:47 PM
You are absolutely right about our ongoing disagreement, I probably won’t change you and you probably won’t change me back to the way I use to think. # For the training I was over there, probably trespassing into Palestinian territory. #Who knows? #Anyway my position back then was a lot different then it is today. # Hell, I use to think that they were a trusted ally. #My opinion started changing several years ago when we caught them spying, then the kid that ran over there to get out of the murder rap and they wouldn’t send him back, and it was solidified once I started doing some checking into what exactly was going on over there. #That is what changed my outlook and viewpoint. #
The hatred is equal on both sides of that fence based on what I remember from the conversations and what we hear in the media. #I saw some of those street protests by the Israelis, they sure looked exactly like what you see the Palestinians doing any given night on our news. #Ever wonder why we don’t see them on the tube over here? #Mostly because they aren’t directed towards us, so does it do our media any good or is it a directed bias in how they are reporting the matter?
Your last comments directed to me has got me thinking again, which is usually trouble, kind of like when Dee Jay gets bored. # I doubt if we would take or buy anything back from them. #Probably not much need if we don’t GIVE them anything new. #I wouldn’t even mind selling them the goods as long as they are buying them, it’s the GIVING that I just don’t see as being right anymore. #
My thoughts on returning to the original borders are, first it would be the right thing to do. #It is what we expect from all other countries, so why should Israel be any different? #In this day and age the colonizing of another’s territory has been deemed as inappropriate and I agree with that. #I further believe that this would validate that Palestine should be a country unto itself allowing them to establish a government of their choice (self-determination), which we and the UN should recognize. #I don’t think we should spend any funds doing nation building, if other Arab nations want to assist so be it, but that shouldn’t be our business. #Humanitarian aide should continue if needed but that is all we should be doing, in my mind. #Next, I think they should set up a UN based peacekeeping force to provide a buffer between the Israelis and the Palestinians. #If necessary a DMZ like what is used elsewhere might prove beneficial. #I think this would get the ball rolling towards a peaceful resolution. #I fully realize that it is not the fix all to this issue, but it should make it a lot different. #Given time it might bring stability to this powder keg.
Will this stop the bombers? #I am unsure of that and I won’t put any guarantees on anything in that region. #There is a lot of old baggage that needs to be dealt with and anyone capable of strapping high explosives to their backsides and setting it off has to be a little twisted in the mind. #I do however feel that a withdrawal would remove one of the major reasons that these people fall back on for doing it. #I am also sure that there are some that will never be satisfied no matter what is done, they will just move on to another cause.
Day to day life probably wouldn’t change much immediately, but with time all things are possible and that is where my thoughts are. #What I do know is that if we just leave things as they are nothing will change except for the worse. #More bombings, more counter strikes, and eventually escalation that could draw many more into the fray. #This won’t be easy, that is for sure, but the way we have been going at it hasn’t done much either and I feel we need to change our approach in how we are dealing with it. #Maintaining the status quo won’t solve this and might even cause more harm both over there and here at home.
12-16-2001, 12:07 AM
Regarding the remainder of your post it seems you are content to have an all out world war to include thermo-nuclear devices. Pretty fanatical by anyone’s standards. It will be interesting to see if your solution #3 has anything to do with peace.
Your part 2 to solution 2 is equally as scary, do you think anyone would stand by and let us do that? I don’t think so. I also feel that there is a different means to negate the importance of that oil rich region without war or occupation, namely ethyl alcohol as a fuel. Imagine if we convert as much as we can to that fuel source, it would literally strip those countries of the ability to obtain the arms that the oil allows them to get now.
You are right it, this topic, generates volumes of discussion and thought. For every point either of us brings up there is a book countering them. It will probably continue like that for years to come. Unless of course something dramatic happens that changes the current situation.
I couldn’t agree more with you when you said, “Everyone (US included) would benefit from a more stable and democratic Middle East.
Of course, you couldn't do it overnight. It's going to take at least a generation for all these people to learn to live together. But some kind of long-term plan should be drawn up, and preferably one that does NOT reward terrorism.”
Your concept of “Pisrael” has been bantered about before. The Peel Commission , headed by Lord Robert Peel, concluded that “There was no hope of any cooperative national entity there that included both Arabs and Jews.” This was in 1937 and, based on what is being seen daily, it still holds true today.
That is why I advocate getting back to the UN partition plan of 1947 and reigning in the colonization efforts of the Israelis. This could be the baseline used to start moving towards peace.
12-16-2001, 10:14 AM
I never said it would be easy. #What I am saying is that one way or another, Jews and Moslems (and Christians, for that matter) are going to have to learn how to live together in peace. #It's the only hope for the future of this planet.
Nor does this just apply to the Middle East. #Look at India and Pakistan. #Two countries didn't solve anything. #You still have Hindus and Moslems fighting each other, and both countries are a little too close to having thermonuclear capability for my comfort.#
Larry said it right. #We have a tremendously diverse group of people in this country, but at least we all seem to be in agreement that it's not OK to kill each other.
BTW, I spent five years of my life living in the greater Detroit area, an area that has both a huge Jewish as well as a huge Arab population. #People used to get into arguments all the time, but at least they were TALKING to each other. #Nobody was firing any guns. Heck, I even knew a Jewish guy with a Palestinian girlfriend...#
(Edited by pilot at 10:29 am on Dec. 16, 2001)
12-16-2001, 11:55 AM
We both have said this won’t be easy but it is something that needs to be done, finding a peaceful resolution. #How can they get there is the question. #And since you brought it up, let us look at India and Pakistan. #What is at issue there? #Kashmir, and who controls it. #It is another issue about land, borders and boundaries and not religion or ethnicity. #Both these countries do have the capability of thermonuclear devices (they have had successful detonations), though the delivery system isn’t quite what is needed, though a truck carrying a device is certainly possible. # It is a scary issue and could easily get worse if they can’t find a way around the problem with Kashmir.
Your comment about what Larry said, “Larry said it right. We have a tremendously diverse group of people in this country, but at least we all seem to be in agreement that it's not OK to kill each other.” #While it might be an accurately paraphrased statement of his position, it is, in itself, not accurate as we routinely kill each other to the tune of about 18,000 a year in this country (homicide and police intervention). #Our laws say it is not okay, but we will always have those that violate the law. #What we don’t have are these major battles over the land like these developing countries do.
Your last paragraph while depicting that in this country we can work through ethnic issues is to me of little relevance to this issue. # To compare greater Detroit to anything outside of this country is a stretch that I can’t make. #Have you been to Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt? #I have and they are nothing like Detroit or any other American city or state. #I can easily envision them living together and think that it should be so, but I don’t see them with that same vision. #They don’t have enough stability to even start thinking in that direction, at least not yet.
12-16-2001, 05:41 PM
You ask if I've ever been to the Middle East. Check out my reply for Dec. 9 at 7:13 as I've already answered that question, and repeating oneself gets awefully tedious.
I, too, was initially skeptical about the "Pisrael" concept except that since an Arab friend (not an immigrant) suggested it to me, I thought I ought to consider it. Also, part of keeping an open mind means listening carefully to other people's ideas without immediately shooting them down.
12-16-2001, 06:18 PM
Okay, so you've been over there too. I probably should have reviewed more of the posts before writing that. So with that acknowledged, do you really believe that there is any comparison between the Middle East and Detroit?
I also wonder what the significance of the clarifier concerning your Arab friend “(not an immigrant)” is. The idea of a shared state isn’t new. That was how it was up until the UN partition. Granted it was under British rule and that might have made matters worse. I don’t know. What I do know is it has been tried and failed miserably.
As to keeping an open mind, I believe that you will find me as open as most, if not more so. When provided with new information or a new thought I seriously explore them and decide after the fact my position. I don’t shoot from the hip much, unless it is something obviously in conflict with some of my hardened beliefs, of which there are few.
12-16-2001, 07:37 PM
I don't think that the Middle East is exactly like Detroit. #My only point is that, under the right conditions, people from different religious groups can learn to live together even if they can't always agree with each other. # #
The partition plan has also been tried and doesn't seem to have worked either. #
But you bring up a good point that it was all one state until the British destablized it. #Jews and Moslems lived peacefully together for hundreds of years--the conflict between them is relatively recent. #Perhaps they can learn to live together peacefully in the future.
I've actually been thinking that maybe the answer is to have a multi-phased solution. #Start out by having two separate countries, and then maybe, over a long period of time, they can merge together into something like the European Union.
BTW, this isn't just about Palestine, either. #Don't forget that a lot of Arabs would prefer to be united into one giant "Pan-Arabic" nation. A lot of the reason they're so ticked off at us is not only because of Israel but also because we support oppresive regimes like the Saudi royal family. We actually keep them from becoming more democratic. (Ironically, the one other semi-democracy in that region besides Israel is Iran, another country that hated us for supporting an oppressive regime).
BTW, my remark about "not an immigrant" was simply to let you know that the Arab friend was a "real" Arab not an Arab American from some suburb of Detroit. # #
(Edited by pilot at 8:13 pm on Dec. 16, 2001)
12-16-2001, 10:06 PM
Ken and Larry,
This is just to let you know that I'll be gone for the holidays after Wednesday so I might be out of touch for a while. This is an interesting topic, and I really do wish I had more time to discuss it. Unfortunately, time for me is at a premium right now. It's hard to discuss things over the itnernet, anyway. I'd far rather relax over a good bottle of wine. :)
Just in case I forget--Happy Holidays!
12-17-2001, 08:51 AM
Have a good holiday and be safe out there. The drunks will be out in force. We can continue when you get back as I am sure nothing will be settled by then. Unless there is some sort of Christmas miracle over there.
Happy Holidays to all.
02-20-2002, 12:44 PM
Hello Ken. I totally agree with you that Isreal are the aggressors in this fight between the two nations. Its unfortunate that people can be so easily swayed by the information that they hear from their newscasters on the topic of the war, but if you really look at the facts it is the israelis that do seem to do more damage, take more land, and kill more people.
So why does everyone think that its the palastinians that are the bad people when all they really urn for is their own freedom and the end of israeli occupation?
02-20-2002, 01:40 PM
Yikes! Not another one! :lol:
All I know is what I read in the papers an see on TV. When you get the WashPost and the WashTimes giving you the same story, you should take it to the bank. From all accounts, the Pals are the aggressors and hostile to all Jews (and Christians, BTW). They have gone public with their desire to purge not only their turf but the world of non-Muslims. They are anti-American. They are against freedom of religion. They are allied with those "axis of evil" folks and the ones who took out our Pentagon and World Trade Center. In my mind, there's nothing to discuss.
02-20-2002, 06:32 PM
Yeah, the Post and Times (like all newspapers) are never wrong, excuse me if I don’t take it to the bank. #Palestinians are the aggressors? #Well this is the basic disagreement, understanding the issue from the side of the Palestinians. #They have had their land taken away by an international organization and given to the Jewish for the creation of a state of their own. #During the process the Palestinians have been denied recognition by that same organization and the world as a whole. #The Arab world came to the assistance of these nomadic folk and got thrashed in 1967 and the Israelis obtained significantly more land. #Now the Israelis are after total domination of that region, not the Palestinians. #They continuously have expanded their effort to colonize the surrounding land and further denigrate the Palestinians. #All with fiscal support of our government. #We pump billions of dollars in direct military aide to the Israelis and they use it to crush those that oppose them. #The Palestinians have been left to any means available to stop this advancement, hence the suicide bomber. #It is the one thing that seems to work for them and when they try to import weapons they are intercepted, redirected to the Israelis, and then they are condemned for their terrorist acts.
The sad part of the whole process is that we, Americans, have been blinded by the need to have an ally in that region. #This has allowed us to tolerate acts that we would condemn in any other part of the world. #
02-21-2002, 07:35 AM
Here's your chance to give me a history lesson. I'll tell you what I understand to be true and you can tell me when I get it wrong.
It is my understanding that "Palestinian land" was given to the Jews as a result of WWII. If the Arabs wanted to keep that land, they should have fought harder.
It is my understanding that even other Arabs do not recognize the Palestinians as a "country" with "rights".
It is my understanding that suicide bombers and taking out school children is the way the Pals do things. The Israelis, on the other hand, seem to be going after military targets. Unless every newspaper is wrong and not reporting the whole story - liberal and conservative alike.
It is my understanding that Israel is our ally and the Palestinians have a line in their charter that calls for death to all Jews and Christians.
And finally, to just be shallow about it, put a picture of Ariel Sharon next to one of Yasser Arafat. 'Nuf said.
Tell me where I've got this wrong.
02-21-2002, 01:53 PM
I’ll be happy to shed some light on this for you. #I remember when I had a very different opinion then what I hold today. #Once I became aware of the facts my opinion changed, maybe yours will too.
“It is my understanding that "Palestinian land" was given to the Jews as a result of WWII. If the Arabs wanted to keep that land, they should have fought harder.” The Palestinian land was being taken and sold to Jewish immigrants as early as 1917 by the British. #This was after the British with Arab help had taken control of the region from the Ottomans. #The British had made promises to both sides to gain support during WWI. #It was a promise them anything and we’ll work it out later kind of doctrine. #This was a no-win situation for all involved. #It was after WWII that the British dumped their whole problem on the UN because it was unworkable. #Israel came about for a variety of reasons but a reward for WWII was not one of the reasons.
“It is my understanding that even other Arabs do not recognize the Palestinians as a "country" with "rights".” #This I feel is untrue based on the actions by five Arab countries after the establishment of Israel in 1948 when they launched an attack in support of the Palestinians. #The Israelis were better prepared and supported by other world powers and the war ended with an Israeli victory that gave them control of more land, Jordan ended up with the West Bank and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip. #As a result of this war over half of the Palestinian population became refugees and were absorbed by the surrounding nations. #Though their desire to return to their land is evident they had no governing authority to assist them in making it happen. #Again in 1967 Arabs backed the Palestinian efforts, though again they lost that battle also. #In 1974 at the Arab Summit in Morocco the PLO was recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. #Since 1974 the Arab world has recognized Palestine as a country unto itself.
“It is my understanding that suicide bombers and taking out school children is the way the Pals do things. The Israelis, on the other hand, seem to be going after military targets. Unless every newspaper is wrong and not reporting the whole story - liberal and conservative alike.” #This is how all the fighting over there has been since early on. #What we today call terrorism has been the way of life over there for better then 50 years. #Now because Israel has sophisticated weapons they aren’t relying upon the terrorist tactics that have become entrenched in that region. #They can just fly high and shoot their rockets and missiles at any target they choose. #If you believe that children aren’t being killed on the Palestinian side you are severely wrong. #Israel will do everything in its power to take control of the entire region, if it kills children along the way they don’t care. #What is being missed by most is that this is the only form of combat available to the Palestinians. #While I don’t necessarily like those tactics I certainly understand them.
“It is my understanding that Israel is our ally and the Palestinians have a line in their charter that calls for death to all Jews and Christians.” # What article in their charter did you find that in, or is this just what you have been led to believe by others. #After re-reading the charter I do not see that set as one of their goals. #What they have stated is that their road to freedom can only be won by armed struggle. #They also have stated that they will attempt to eliminate the Zionist movement and imperialism within their boundaries. #Have you read the charter? #No where in their charter does the word Christian even appear. #You did get one thing right, that being that Israel is our ally, but should they be since everything they have done and are doing now can be shown to be in violation of the UN charter. #By all rights the Israelis should be sanctioned and removed form the UN because of their continued colonization of territory not theirs.
“And finally, to just be shallow about it, put a picture of Ariel Sharon next to one of Yasser Arafat. 'Nuf said.” #Oh, a suit makes a difference. #When I look at the pictures I see one man struggling to free his people from oppression and another using his power and support to oppress those that they consider less than human.
02-22-2002, 06:37 PM
I'm working on my rebuttal to you. I'll post pieces as I research along - would curl up and die if you caught me in a factual error! :lmao:
The thought at the top of my mind is this: little tiny Israel is absolutely surrounded by Arabs countries. What's the deal with the Palestinians that they can't let the Israelis alone and take land from some Arab country?
Another thought is: The Israelis currently occupy that land. If the Palestinians can conquer them and take it, more power to them. But it seems they can't. So...what? Is it wrong for us to help the Israelis keep their land? Against the Arabs, who would just as soon kill all of us?
More later - Larry wants to go home...
02-22-2002, 10:02 PM
Take your time neither this issue nor I will be going anywhere anytime soon (at least I hope that is the case for me, I wouldn’t mind a reasonable solution and peace in the Middle East, the sooner the better before it spreads farther). # Why would it bother you to be caught with a factual error? #Like me, I am sure you don’t know everything about this. #I am still learning about this and the more I learn the more I feel our meddling has hurt chances for peace, at least anytime soon. #
To your thoughts. # “little tiny Israel is absolutely surrounded by Arabs countries. What's the deal with the Palestinians that they can't let the Israelis alone and take land from some Arab country? “ #Okay my thoughts on that are, you take mine, I take his, he takes theirs, and so on and so forth. #And I didn’t want theirs to begin with, all I want is what was mine. #Why can’t they just take yours and leave me alone? #Think how any of us would feel if someone was allowed to come in and take our property because they didn't have any place to call their own. #If we were forced to move and start all over again with what we could grab and run with. #That when we tried to go back we find that someone has made our place theirs and we have no ability or backing to try and get it back. #We were told “tough luck”. #It’s almost enough to make you want to kill someone.
Your next thought, “The Israelis currently occupy that land. If the Palestinians can conquer them and take it, more power to them. But it seems they can't. So...what? Is it wrong for us to help the Israelis keep their land? Against the Arabs, who would just as soon kill all of us?” #The reason they can’t be conquered is because of our continuous help and direct military aide. #Had we provided the Palestinians with that same aide the Israelis would be off to Argentina like they originally planned, that is if any of them were left to go. #Why do you think the Arabs want to kill us? #It probably doesn’t have anything to do with how we treat them and most others. #We have put the screws to more people around the world then most care to admit. #Hell, I even admire most of the deals we’ve pulled off over the years, we’re some real crafty bastards. #We’ve had to be to get were we are. #The main reason I have an issue with this is because if anyone else was propping up a colonizing, imperialistic, and tyrannical government like what we are doing we would be all up side their head and leveling the playing field as much as possible. #Our sense of fair play is sorely missing from our Mid East policy, it has been missing for years and its time for it to return. #As the sole Super Power espousing our beliefs of self determination, righteousness, and civil rights we sure aren’t displaying it by our continued action of direct support to the Israelis and the absence of assistance to those that are truly being unjustly treated. #All because they don’t want to be like us. #
Enough for now, so go ahead and take the youngster home, feed him, rub his feet, and put him to bed, he’ll catch his second wind shortly after he ebbs forty. #
02-25-2002, 08:34 AM
Ken sez<br>Think how any of us would feel if someone was allowed to come in and take our property because they didn't have any place to call their own. If we were forced to move and start all over again with what we could grab and run with. That when we tried to go back we find that someone has made our place theirs and we have no ability or backing to try and get it back.
Feelings...whoa whoa whoa feelings! Sing it with me, children...
First of all, no one would be allowed to come in and take <i>our</i> property because we'd kill them. Might makes right, nome sane? So again I say, if the Palestinians can muster up enough strength from their Muslim brethren to take that land, go for it. But it so happens that we are allied with Israel so they'll have to go through us first (or apparently not since Bush and Powell don't want to get involved). There's the haves and have-nots - tough old world, ain't it? I don't notice any Jews crashing into our buildings and killing our reporters.
And your quote above could just as easily apply to the Jews if the Palestinians are allowed to take back Israel. If that happens, what should we do with the current residents? Oops, I forgot - wouldn't have to do anything with them because they're literally surrounded by the enemy so wouldn't be around long anyway. So there you go - ethnically cleanse the Jews out of the Middle East and give those sweet Arab boys their land back. Who cares, right? The Jews have been taking it in the rear since Biblical times - one more shouldn't matter.
All land at one time belonged to someone other than the current residents. So while we're at it, let's all move out of here and give the Native Americans <i>their</i> land back. And since we intervened in Kosovo, I think we should go roll out the red carpet for Saddam, since we screwed him out of property. And then we can all join hands and sing "Abraham, Martin and John".
02-25-2002, 09:20 AM
Yeah, it’s a tough world and when we get pulled deeper into this conflict remember that as your son, now on active duty, is sent over there to fight and possibly die for those allies. Those allies that steal our secrets without any regard to the assistance we give them, even though it is billions in direct military aide. Those allies that harbor fugitives that have murdered American citizens and are allowed to run and hide under dual citizenship protections Israel offers. Those allies that are the only religious group afforded a nation unto themselves. Nice group to have as allies.
02-25-2002, 11:38 AM
If anyone cares to remember, I was the isolationist of the bunch. I am also the one who continually complains about foreign aid and "nation building" missions. AND I was the one who said if these freaks can't maintain their own country, they deserve to lose it. To us, if need be.
So you got me there because if it were up to me, I'd be the biggest bully in the world. Build up the military so no one dares mess with us. And if they do, we get to try out our new toys on them. The Mafia approach - insult my dog and I'll kill all your family members and burn down your house. :lol: Don't get me started with this Danny Pearl business - I would gladly drop a nuke on Pakistan to help them understand how I feel about their shenanigans. End this little Holy War tout de suite.
Again I say, if the Philistines - oops, I mean Palestinians - wanted to keep that land, they should have fought harder. Or been nicer to the US.
I have the flu and I'm in a mean mood today.
02-25-2002, 12:54 PM
So in your best Mafia mentality it's okay that the Israelis spy upon us, hide murders of our citizens, and drag us deeper down the road towards war. I say cut them off from the free military meal ticket they have been living with and let the chips fall where they may.
I figured something was wrong with you when you said, "And since we intervened in Kosovo, I think we should go roll out the red carpet for Saddam, since we screwed him out of property. " I sure thought it was Milosevic in Kosovo and Saddam in Iraq. I won't rag on you for that one take some medicine and get to bed.
BTW wouldn't Canaanites be the correct term for the original descendents of that region?
02-25-2002, 01:54 PM
You're right - I was thinking Kuwait, not Kosovo.
The Philistines are the direct ancestors of the Palestinians.
Who cares if the Israelis spy on us? At least they're not flying planes into our buildings and cutting off the heads of our reporters.
02-25-2002, 05:24 PM
You say, “The Philistines are the direct ancestors of the Palestinians.” Most scholars are of the opinion that the Philistines were sea people from Crete and that the Canaanites were the original inhabitants of the area defined as Palestine. While it may be possible that the Philistines were assimilated within the various tribes in that region (to include Israelites and Palestinians) I do not ever recall any version of history stating that the Palestinians were direct ascendants of the Philistines. I might be wrong but I don’t think so.
You go on to say, “Who cares if the Israelis spy on us? At least they're not flying planes into our buildings and cutting off the heads of our reporters.” You might not think spying is a problem but I think it strikes at our security on equal ground as the attacks of 9/11. Maybe it’s not as overt as the attack but how many of our operatives and abilities have been compromised by Israeli efforts?
To my knowledge flying planes into buildings and chopping off heads of reporters isn’t being done by the Palestinians, isn’t it the Saudi Arabians, for the most part (14 of 19 identified, can’t remember where the other five were from but I don’t recall any Palestinians on the list) doing the flying and crashing and the Pakistanis doing the head removal? Or is it the Pakistani, isn't that one guy a Brit that is involved in the Pearl ordeal?
02-25-2002, 09:24 PM
Paragraph #1: I believe I'm right about this - will look it up and get back with you.
Paragraph #2: If one of the requirements of alliance with other nations is that they don't spy on us, we're going to be a lonely bunch. They have their own interests to look after, too.
Paragraph #3: Palestinians certainly raved on their Islamic brethren when they attacked us - saw them on TV. Didn't see any of that going on in Israel. Maybe I'm not watching the right stations. And you can say that some Islamic fundamentalists are perfectly sweet and deserve our support but I'll never believe it. The Palestinians have been very specific about how the feel about Jews (and us) and what they'd like to do to them (and us). So I believe they are part of that "Axis of Evil" that Dubya was talking about and would prefer not to enable them in any way. And since they share a core belief with the 9/11 bad guys, they are the same, regardless of country of origin. Too bad for them - they shouldn't be freaks if they want us to be friends with them. And that's the funny thing - they DON'T want us to be friends with them. They'd just as soon kill you and drag you through the streets. So why shouldn't we actively work against them?
02-25-2002, 10:25 PM
Okay get back to me on paragraph one. #I'll let you research this and I’d be happy to view the source you find.
An alliance that is costing you, me and everyone else over 3 billion a year of our tax money plus hundreds of millions in non-military aide. #This should have a few conditions such as not spying upon us for it. #I don't think that is unreasonable since we are helping them meet their interests. #I also think we are a lonely bunch if you were ever to sever our purse strings.
Yeah they raved in the streets, I saw it too. #I didn't like it any better then what you did. #But I think I at least see why they are doing it. #It’s those same damn purse strings and what that money is doing to them.
You’ve said that if the Palestinians could beat the Israelis so be it, but they haven't. #Of course not, they don't have the ability obtained through our aide like the Israelis have. #We’ve had sticks and rocks versus guns. #Suicide bombers and guerilla militia combat versus attack helicopters and highly trained military troops. #From the recent spurt of killings (last 19 months) we have a body count showing over 900 Palestinians killed and around 300 Israelis killed. #Who’s doing what to whom? #Israel says that Arafat must reign in the terror and then they blockade him in and destroy what little infrastructure he has to meet their demands. #When he can’t he’s condemned. #It is as if neither the Israelis nor the United States truly wants peace. #
I am beginning to believe that some out there won't be happy until it escalates into a true World War and the horrors that will bring. I for one don’t want to see that. #I think we are advanced enough to get these people to the table and work this out in an equitable manner before we let this get to that point. #All I would like to see is a little peacemaking and peacekeeping. #I believe that this is one of the most important issues facing the world at this time and I see us with a choice on how we proceed. #The question is do we want peace in that region or don’t we? #Continue as we are and I see more terrorism directed at us. #Maybe trying something bold and new and we won’t be as lonely and the target of so many others.
02-26-2002, 12:00 PM
The Palestine/Philistine descendency is more of a common knowledge thing. #The second link goes to the Muslim Directory, good info BTW.
I don't know a lot about world affairs but I <i>do</i> know how to get people to take my side - and it's not by cheering their misfortune and attacking them. #Palestine isn't even a real place - I challenge you to find it for me on a map. #Much like Persia isn't on a map, nor is the Soviet Union. #Guess why? #They don't exist anymore.
It's much too easy to blame Arab hostility on US intervention. #The kicker is that if they'd behave themselves, we wouldn't have to intervene. #Kind of like my kids saying that they wouldn't get in trouble if we wouldn't be so ticky about things. #And I'm sick and tired of appeasing the Arabs (and encouraging Israel to do the same) to try and convince them we're not so bad after all. #As Reagan said, "We don't negotiate with terrorists."
"Bold and new" would be to hand their a$$es to them and quit trying to make friends with these fanatics.
Good article for you
World War doesn't frighten me. #It's preferable, in my mind, to go big and get it over with, rather than this constant skirmishing. #And, yep, my son would go - but that's the price you pay. #I'd be devastated if my son died in war, but no more so than if he were killed in a car accident. #And frankly, I don't think it will come down to that. #Everybody wrings their hands about World War whenever there's a problem - the Gulf War, Iraq during Clinton, this 9/11 development. #So far it hasn't happened - the piddlers rant and threaten, but tuck tail when the stuff hits the fan. #Besides that, the Palestinians can't even drum up support from other Arabs so I doubt they'll have the wherewithal to start a World War. #And even if the Arabs all decide to band together (what are the odds?), it'll be them against the rest of the world. #They have no friends, no true allies, because they have nothing to bring to the table. #All they have is oil and, frankly, if we wanted it bad enough, we could just take it. #But that's not how the US does things, regardless of what the crybabies say.
And one last thing:
Since the US is a fairly new country and the Arab countries have been around since Biblical times, you have to ask yourself WHY we have and they have-not. #Why aren't they more developed? #Why does their government still mistreat the citizenry? #We joke in America that the citizens are oppressed, but it's NOTHING like what's going on over there. #They could certainly be "advanced" if they wanted it. #The conclusion is that they <i>don't</i> want it. #But they don't want <i>us</i> to have it, either, and that's unacceptable. #So too bad for them - eat lead, towel heads.
(Edited by vraiblonde at 12:09 pm on Feb. 26, 2002)
02-26-2002, 01:37 PM
Finding it on a map isn't that tough. Try http://www.mideastweb.org/maps.htm and it is there.
I'll read those links when I get a little more time this afternoon, always interested in new information.
Bold and new to me would be to tell Sharone to abide by the resolutions of the UN and quit attacking and colonizing outside of their endorsed area. Cutting off their foriegn aide if they don't. When you said, "It's much too easy to blame Arab hostility on US intervention. The kicker is that if they'd behave themselves, we wouldn't have to intervene." Behave themselves how, roll over and let the Israelis do whatever they want? That is unrealistic if you ask me. We wouldn't roll over, why would you think they would or even should? You are right we shouldn't negotaite with terrorists, but what about a people that are trying to be self determining who are being squeezed by an advancing colonizing nation, are they terrorists for trying to stop what Israel is doing? If that is the case then we shouldn't have helped Kuwait either when Iraq invaded them.
I'll get to your last point later as I now have to get back on position.
02-26-2002, 08:25 PM
Okay, so click on the tag "Palestine" and show me what they're talking about. I see West Bank and Gaza Strip - I don't see Palestine.
More later - I'm looking at colleges for the daughter. Any suggestions, BTW?
02-26-2002, 08:36 PM
Okay, it took a little longer to catch up on the reading you provided. Philistines or Canaanites depends on how far back you go I guess or who you read. Several of the sources I viewed were
http://www.bga.nl/en/articles/filist1.html and it’s not worth losing any sleep over. Anyway it’s obvious that someone has been living there a long time and over those many years under different control of a variety of countries and people. But not exclusively under the control of those that claim the area to be Israeli thereby giving them exclusive right to it.
I even read the article by Andrew Bernstein and the article read for what it was a fanatical view from the Jewish side of the battle just as evil as anything you could hear from the most ardent Islamic fundamentalist. This isn’t new and bold, it’s old and boring. What, while not new, is bold is the report tonight on ABC news that Saudi Arabia has proposed recognition of Israel if the Israelis pull back to the pre-1967 boundaries. Like I said the pull back proposal is nothing new but it hasn’t been offered in awhile and I think it is the first time the Saudis have actively backed it. Supposedly Bush and Powell are encouraged, I am too. Saudi has significant following in the area and this might be a push to get this worked out.
Maybe it will take a cleansing of one people or the other by war to settle this, maybe it can finally be settled with some sense of civility via negotiation, or maybe not. I just hope for the most peaceful resolution.
Your final comment really got me to think about things and my perception is that your condemnation of Arabs is simply because that is what they are, Arabs. This astonishes me. Not all of them are bad people and like all people they have their bad ones just like we or any other nation or culture does. I agree that they don’t want what we have, but I don’t see this as anything they don’t want us to have but of being that they don’t want what we have shoved down their throats. I think for the most part they would like to be left to their meager existence of herding or scratching the earth to grow a crop. If they want to be simple why can’t we just let them be simple.
02-26-2002, 08:40 PM
Colleges, what major?
Okay so they haven't spelled Palestine on the map. But would you concede it was fairly obvious that the outlined in red area is the area that is contended to be Palestine or do you believe they aren't there?
02-27-2002, 01:31 PM
We, the US, have taken, in one way or another, every square inch of our territory from somebody else not calling themselves the United States of America, including the Louisiana Purchase from the French. They took it before we bought it. Call it trafficking in stolen property.
Do we agree? Not right or wrong, but true?
Name an inhabited part of the world (exclude the Rain Forrest, New Guinea and any other of the very few parts of the world still under original management) that hasn’t been taken by force besides Ridge. (Just a joke! but still...name one)
It is the story of the world. I think it’s great that you suggest we just let the Palestinians be whatever they want to be but at some point, reality catches up. Hell, there’s this guy back in the woods of Virginia somewhere (Washington Post story last week) who has to get rid of his used tire and automobile collection because the Yuppies are moving in next door and they pull more weight local ordinance wise. He swears he’s gonna use all that junk, er, excuse me, STUFF someday. “You gonna eat those fries?” Know what I mean?
Maybe I’m over simplifying but, if anything, isn’t it worse if Palestine has been a place and a people for all these years (centuries) and this is all they have to show for it? Yassir Arrafat?
At what point is an idea or a venture a failure? These people have been left adrift either by choice or neglect for all this time by rather well established nations. Jordan (which ruled what we call Palestine up to 1967), Egypt (they used to run the Gaza strip) and Lebanon (nuff said).
Look at a map. It’s like somebody claiming Central Park is a separate entity from NYC. Palestine is this funky looking thing that looks like the blotch on Gorby’s forehead. It looks like some screwed up congressional district.
Try this. http://www.netaxs.com/~iris/plochart.htm
It’s the Palestinian Charter. Check out #20 and 22. Replace the word Arab with “white guys” through the whole thing. Where's the love?
We get along with Mexico and Canada well enough because the peoples, especially those along the borders, are close enough, in religion, values and lifestyle, to get along.
It just ain’t so in the Middle East and as long as the two conflicting religions are not in acceptance of each other then the people won’t be either.
Never mind all that. Read Clancy, Sum of all Fears. Let Jack Ryan fix it. He’s got a great plan!
02-27-2002, 02:08 PM
Ken, I'll concede that the areas outlined are under Palestinian control. So there you go - Palestine. Two different Palestines, no less. What more do they want? And PS, they better make some friends if they want to keep it.
About your last paragraph:
My animosity toward Arabs has nothing to do with their ethnicity - it has to do with their behavior. And I have to disagree with your characterization. We're not over there (as a nation, anyway) condemning them for living in caves and being rock farmers. But they DO condemn us for our beliefs and lifestyle. Some of us, they condemned to death.
And rather than being simple, I find the Arab mentality puzzlingly complex. If you can make sense of the pretzel logic that is their charter, you're a better man than I. The business in Article 20 about <i>"Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."</i> is confusing. The country is called "Israel" not "Judaism" - and since most in the US are Christian and founded on Christan values, does that mean we're not a nation, either? :confused: And Article 24 is an obvious crock, coming right after Article 23.
02-28-2002, 11:10 AM
Where to start, Vraiblonde says, “What more do they want?” #I think that they would want freedom to move about their country, freedom from someone taking more and more of that country, and maybe even peace. #It all depends on whom you mean by “they”. #If we are talking about the people I might be more correct but if you are talking about Arafat I’ll admit I am not sure what he wants. #He says he wants peace, his land back, freedom to move about, and right of return for those that have had land taken. #He has held consistent throughout the years as far as I remember. # His method of going about achieving it is another issue and I don’t recall supporting the way that it has been done. #I have said I understand it, but never can I recall supporting it. #I would hope that you would understand it also. #Especially from a self-proclaimed isolationist like yourself, you know the right of self-determination, protecting what is yours, not getting involved, and some of the other concepts we each hold dear. #As the isolationist I thought that you would understand what our continued support of a government, that while not tyrannical amongst themselves shows that tendency when dealing with most others, could do. #From what I have seen our support has led to a lot of the advances the Israelis are making in colonizing that region for themselves. #Talk about nation building.
Maybe I am naïve to think that Arafat isn’t another Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Milosovic, or Pol Pot. #He might be the same crazed bastard that these maniacs are/were. #I don’t know, but the plight that the Palestinian people live with started before he came to power, is still ongoing, and will continue to go on until this is worked out whether he is there or not. #Now should the Palestinians just pack up and move out of the way because the Israelis just say they are coming and have our backing? # Is that what we feel is the way the world should work? #Not by any evidence anywhere else, only in the Middle East. #Why is it different there? #Does this have to deal with that animosity of not liking their behavior that you expressed (which, in itself is somewhat vague)? #
I will agree with you when you said, “We're not over there (as a nation, anyway) condemning them for living in caves and being rock farmers.” #You’re right; we are just giving the arms and assistance for someone else to do the dirty work. #I see a connection between what we are doing to help the Israelis and how we are viewed and treated by most in that region of the world. #I also believe that if we were a little more even handed in our approach we might not have as radical a response towards us. #
Your references to their Charter isn’t all that confusing to me and if you left the preceding lines in there it reads a little better as the main emphasis, in my mind, is where they say that, “ The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood.” # Now that I have said it isn’t confusing I would like to make it clear that I do not agree with them on their point here. #This is a very antagonistic statement but again it is nothing that can’t be worked around. #When you said, “and since most in the US are Christian and founded on Christian values, does that mean we're not a nation, either?” #No it does not, our nation has a Constitution, not a charter, and our Constitution determines what we, as Americans, will abide by. #Why is Article 24 a crock? #We feel the same here. #Or is it a crock because of Article 23s reference to Zionism and the call for the halting of that movement? #Anyway I see your point. #The only reason we are even talking about the Charter was due to a previous posting that you had made where you stated that the Palestinian Charter called for the killing of Jews and Christians. #This charter has nothing to do with the point I have held in contention from the onset, that being that our direct military aid to Israel is why we are not looked upon favorably in that region.
On to Larry, nice to see you back posting, I think. #What you say in your first paragraph is true, or should I say it use to be true. #Seems since those earlier times we have entered into agreements (treaties) with other nations and the UN and we have agreed that we can’t do that. #We have even been called to service to stop that from happening. #Do you agree with my statements?
You said, “Maybe I’m over simplifying but, if anything, isn’t it worse if Palestine has been a place and a people for all these years (centuries) and this is all they have to show for it? Yassir Arrafat?” #I would say the fact that they are still in existence after all the years of Israel using our weapons against them indicates that there is a little more here then meets the eye. #I would also say that there is more to them then just Arafat; they seem to be a hardy people. #But that is neither here nor there, just like your next comment about when an idea or venture is a failure. #Do you think we should decide when someone should just give up and accept what we say is inevitable. #Well those little fellows over in Vietnam and Korea could talk to this point fairly well, don’t you think.
You say, “We get along with Mexico and Canada well enough because the peoples, especially those along the borders, are close enough, in religion, values and lifestyle, to get along.” #Wasn’t always so, now was it. #I seem to remember reading about the French and Indian war not to mention the issue we had with Mexico over Texas. #
In an earlier posting Vraiblonde said, “Might makes right”, I am in disagreement with that for the simple reason that the Al Qaeda terrorists had the might to overtake four aircraft operating in our skies and crash three of them into buildings killing thousands of our citizens. #I challenge any of you out there to say with justification that their actions were right.
(Edited by Ken King at 7:19 am on Mar. 4, 2002)
03-01-2002, 03:23 PM
Ken, here's what George W. Bush should say to Ariel Sharon behind closed doors:
"What the HELL is wrong with you!? Are you on the Hezbollah payroll or
something? Since you became Prime Minister you've been the perfect
recruiting poster for the Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Every
time one of your soldiers kills an unarmed Palestinian, you create a
new batch of terrorists. Haven't you figured out that you're only
sowing more dragons' teeth? Now, I know your people suffered mightily
at the hands of Hitler. Why the hell are you trying to bring him back?
You saw those planes plow into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
like the rest of the world, so you know why I'm so angry. Dammit, it's
not just nutcases like bin Laden who believe the U.S. does your
country's bidding. Well, you're not going to drag us down with you. If
you don't move all your settlements out of the West Bank in 30 days,
we'll cut off all military and domestic aid to Israel. And we'll be
sure to let Arafat and the whole Arab world know it, too. Got it?"
03-01-2002, 05:13 PM
You are right, somthing like that would go a long way towards getting these people to settle this problem.
It's not as much as Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, fundementalists, etc -- it's religion. In this case, religion is the bad guy.
I'm not trying to say all religion is bad, but any religion that has text that can be misconstrued by psychotics as "Kill people who don't share the same religious views as you".
Sure, talks of Middle East peace are great, and provide a good headline. But does anyone honestly think that the pen can prevail in this situation? It's going against years of violence, and against a genuine hatred.
Are we wasting our time? That ought to be the question, not labeling someone as Good/Bad in a conflict that can never be settled.w
03-20-2002, 11:46 AM
Welcome to the forums. #It is always nice to get new folk participating. #So much for the niceties. #
How can you say it is the fault of religion? #While somewhat different, most religions are very similar, and in regard to the “Golden Rule”, Muslims, Jewish, and Christians have very similar statements in the Koran, Torah, or Bible. #The “eye for an eye”, or “live by the sword, perish by the sword” similarities can be construed to mean that the use of violence is all right, as well as many other passages contained within those documents. #Psychotics from any of those faiths can mistakenly claim that they have religious authority to do so, but that isn’t the religion making the claim it is the psychotic individuals and groups that are doing it. #These are people looking for an excuse to kill others and in all honesty are just fanatical zealots. #And while I can agree that there are those psychotic fools on both side of this fence I don’t see it as the instrument of this problem. #
You said, “Sure, talks of Middle East peace are great, and provide a good headline. But does anyone honestly think that the pen can prevail in this situation? It's going against years of violence, and against a genuine hatred.” #I fully believe that this can be solved via existing UN Resolutions, diplomatic channels, and more negotiations. #The main emphasis of the Palestinians, as I view it, has been a concern about the ongoing colonization efforts of the Israelis and their desire to halt this movement upon their land. #Furthermore our failure to assist in reaching a peace agreement can draw us further into this fray or allow for the escalation to continue to such a point where we will be forced to act. # #You also ask, “ Are we wasting our time? That ought to be the question, not labeling someone as Good/Bad in a conflict that can never be settled.” # Hell no we aren’t wasting time by trying to achieve peace in that region. #It might save lives, to include those of our military, and I am all for peace. #As to the labeling, it came about in response to my article and not form the article. #The main point of my column (located at http://somd.com/news/kingscorner/018.htm ) was that our continued direct military aide to the Israelis was in my mind contributing to their aggressive behavior and the ongoing violence in the region. #
03-20-2002, 05:50 PM
After skimming through this thread, I thought I'd list the history of the area (as best as I can recollect it).
1200 B.C.E. Moses' gang enters the area, with king Solomon and king David showing up (if I recall correctly) around 500 B.C.E.
100 (or was it 50?) B.C.E. to about 100 C.E., Rome ruled the area via Roman governors and a Jewish puppet government
As for modern times,
England ruled Palestine after WWI. All citizens during this time (Jew, Muslim, etc) were Palestinian (at least that was was written on their birth certificate.
1947, The U.N. passes a resolution to form the modern state of Israel
1948, Israel is officially born, with 5 Arab countries invading the following day. Israel (using outdated weapons) successfully defeats them.
1953 (or 1956, I don't recall) Israel survives another war (well, the same war, really, since peace was never declared in 1948).
1967 Israel gains victory in 6 days, halting their advances at the request of the U.S. The Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, and East Jerusalem are captured by Israel (the latter giving Jews access to the old city, which was denied them since 1948, when it was under Arab rule).
Israel returns the Sinai to Egypt. Arab countries refuse to admit Palestinian refugees into their borders.
1973 Arab countries (3, I think) attack Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year. Initially caught off guard, Isreal in the end survives.
Somewhere in there is the peace agreement with Egypt. Carter was President, so it was between 1972 and 1976.
1980 or 1982 Israel invades southern Lebanon, which was being used by various groups to attack northern Israel.
I'll leave it here. Like I said, this is off the top of my head. In any event, note that Israel in 1967 obtained the Gaza and West Bank in response to a war, not from just going in and setting up housing.
To another topic, if I read Syd correctly, I have to agree. Religion is responsible for more bloodshed through history than anything else. The religion may not be "bad", but views of people of the religion have created much misery. The Crusades, Progroms, Yougslavia, etc. Fanatical views of "my religion is right, so yours is wrong" is the problem.
03-20-2002, 06:53 PM
Welcome also, I’ve checked your posting on the other pages. I love new people that participate. #
Your timeline is close enough for me (except “Carter was President, so it was between 1972 and 1976.” , nope Carter was 1976 to 1980) and this has been going on for a while. #That’s for sure. #Enough has been said about who should be the rightful owners and who was there first. #My point is that the last recognized division of the land was made by UN Resolution with the creation of Israel. #I think this should be the point of dropping back to in an effort to work this out. #From this point we have a basis for trying to come to agreement on the issue of recognition by the Arab states and the creation of Palestine. #This, in my opinion, will go a long way towards easing the tensions in that region. #Pulling back to the pre-1967 lines removes another thorns from the Palestinians and neighboring Arabs. #As long as Israel has their settlements in occupied territory I just see an unending problem.
As to religion I am confused by your meaning. #You agree with Syd when he says religion is the bad guy and then you say, ““Fanatical views of "my religion is right, so yours is wrong" is the problem.” #Which is real close to what I had said about it being the fanatical zealots that are the problem with religion.
03-20-2002, 07:32 PM
You're right; Carter was President from 1976-1980. I knew that. I don't know why I wrote '72-'76. Maybe because it was at the end of a long day at work.
As for the religion thing, I think it's kind of a minor difference in point of view. In my opinion, the "us vs. them" mentality has been around since caveman days. Differences in religious beliefs is a manifestation of that. Fanaticism about it isn't as necessary as intolerance for others for problems to arise. I guess it's just a matter of degrees; fanatics are at the extreme of intolerance. I was just pointing out that more violence has occurred in the name of religion than any other motive. I can see your point about saying it's fanatics. I think we're just dealing with semantics (not Semetics, the topic of this thread :) ). OK, I couldn't resist that.
Yeah, I definitely agree that our aid to Israel isn't helping the situation.
Either way, I'd definitely have a hard time agreeing with the possibility of a diplomatic resolution in the Middle East. Maybe I have a skewed view, but I can't possibly foresee any document solving the problem. Arafat continues to say he's in charge. Yet every time he supposedly tells the Palestinians to stop committing acts of terror, what happens? It continues.
I remember watching 20/20, or some similar program a few months back. They were chronicling a Palestinian suicide bomber. Nothing was of particular interest up until they interviewed his father. Now, in that interview (paraphrasing a bit, don't remember what was said) the father said, 'I am so proud of my son, he's a martyr'. The father also spoke of receiving money for his sons "efforts". Given that, I'd be hard-pressed to think that even in my wildest of dreams that any sort of diplomacy would work.
Now, going from that -- I'd say what the Middle East *truly* needs is an education reform. Children (in their respective classrooms) are taught to hate the 'Other Side' through lies, misconceptions, and what have you. So, even if 5% of the population learns that 'Hey, there's no reason to be enemies'; that will eventually snowball into a larger amount, and then after another generation an even larger amount.
Thanks for the welcome, I'm glad to be here in company of such great discussions.
(Edited by Syd at 1:52 pm on Mar. 21, 2002)
03-21-2002, 06:02 PM
It has got to start somewhere and the UN resolution creating Israel is what started it for the Israelis, it should work for the Palestinians also as intended. Once the Israelis and Palestinians are recognized by all nations and specific boundaries are drawn then we can start work on other problems like education. I really don’t think that area and the world can survive another generation or two until reforms starts to work.
The suicide bombers are heroes to their people. I don’t agree with it but I understand the impact they have and that they are one of the biggest weapons available to the Palestinians. They don’t have attack aircraft, helicopters, and tanks. What else are they to do, just let the Israelis take what part of their country they want and live with it?
03-25-2002, 09:22 AM
While not reading everything that has been written, I believe you are looking through some pretty strange glasses to blame Isreal for any of the problems over there. To add one thing to the time line that I think is very important is 1970 - Jordan allows the Palanestines to come and setup a territory and live peacefully. Unfortunately, the Palaentines saw this as weakness and tried to kill the king and take over Jordan. Jordan defeated their attack, and then kicked them out. The Palaentines have a history of not coexisting with anyone but to destory all others they think are weak. Every day Isreal is attacked, and forced to respond. Our press (for some reason) some how makes Isreal response look like it is starting a fight while calling the PLO, Hamas, and Hisboloh "Policeman". I am stunned that there in not an outcry with the press over calling these terrorist "Policeman". It is only humanism, foolish wishing, or Hollywood (i'm not sure) that says that Bullys are tamed by peace offerings, unfortunately in the real world and history is full of examples (Hitler, Neapoleon, ...) there is only one way to deal with Bullys and that way is to defeat them.
03-25-2002, 10:04 AM
As you have admitted to not reading all in this thread I wonder how you can categorize what I have posted as a skewed perception or that I am looking through “some pretty strange glasses”. Additionally the term “blame” came about by posters and not in the article I wrote on this subject. My contention throughout this entire string is that it is our direct military aide to the Israelis, to the tune of over $3 Billion a year, is what I see as one of the major problems. The other problem I have pointed out deals with Israel’s continued colonization of territory that is not theirs. I see the people doing the taking as the bullies and you see the ones being taken from as bullies. Who has the screwed up view?
03-25-2002, 03:45 PM
As Budo pointed out, what is your defination of Isreal taking land. Isreal and before them the Hebrews have been around a very long time. The world has always taken the view that the land won in war belonged to the victor. Or is your position that the land of US, Mexico, Canada, ... still belongs to the indians. If this is true, then how about Prussia, should we go back and form this country? How about South Africa or England. England was conquered by the Romans, then conquered by the saxons, then by the anglo's. Is it your position that England should be given back to some Celts? History is littered with countries and peoples that are no longer here. The bottom line is quite simple, Isreal is there now, they won and protected their land through warfare. Palastine has had the opportunity to live in peace and to coexist. Palastine choose not to do this. Palastine had the opportunity to coexist in Jordan and probably in Lebaneon, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, but Palastine choose not to do this. Palastine choose war.
By the way, I do not agree with your notion that Isreal is around because of US$ and/or the conflict is so bad because of US $. The US supports lots of countries. The US supported Cuba when the country was free, yet the commies where able to win by force. There seems to be a disconnect, the US supports democracy. There are lots of people in the world that buy into elitism such as commies, socialist, nazi's, liberals, and so on. When these people run into people that want to think for themselves instead on being told what to think, how to think, when to think, and how much to think then they blame the USA for the problems. I say thank God there is a country in this world that allows people to use their talant to better themselves, I say thank God that a country is in the world that allows people to read books and hold opinions that the "elite" does not agree with, and I say thank God there is a country that lets people think, have opinions, and communicate these opinions in a open manner without wondering if the "police" are going to come after them. And I say thank God that the USA supports other countries that are letting their people think instead of turning 3 year old's into bombs.
Just a little extra - "Nothing speaks revenge like living the good life", if Palanstine really wanted peace and to move forward they would do it, and if successful they would put Isreal to shame.
I am glad Isreal is not using the same weapons to fight the war as Palastine. I think when the only weapon one has is to strap a bomb to one chest and to go out not to kill your attacker (the military) but to go out and kill civilians then there is a line being crossed.
To finish, I believe that Isreal has the right to be there, that any US funding that Isreal receives is justified to further democracy, and it is a shame that Palastine is the bully that wants what others have and tries to take it by force.
03-25-2002, 04:42 PM
Ken, I'm with you all the way on this one.
James, I too find it hard for you to see Palestine as the "bully". A bully is usually in the position of power in a relationship. Palestine is certainly less powerful than Israel, hence terrorism being their main means of attack. "Terrorism" is meant to use your smaller means to instill fear in a larger, more powerful advesary.
And as to your comments about Israel's right to be there vs that of Palestine, BOTH groups feel that they are owed access to that land by GOD himself. The issue with Jordan was that it STILL didn't give them access to the lands that they were "given" by God. You can't just say "well they had their chance"; the argument goes so much deeper than that. Coexistance will only be possible if both Israelies and Palestinians feel (a)safe, soverign and (b)like they are able to have access to their holy lands.
There is a good plan (the Tenet plan I believe) which outlines a possible solution which I belive was talked about earlier in this thread. But in order for it to work, Palestine needs to keep a leash on their militant muslim groups and Israel needs to fight the urge to unleash military onslaughts every time a suicide bomber slips through the cracks.
I can't say that Arafat has been keeping up his end of the bargain as I feel that he is pretty much unfit to rule in this situation. But Sharon is certainly too much of a war monger for him to be effective in brokering peace. My two cents? Both countries need leadership overhauls before any REAL progress can be made.
03-25-2002, 04:48 PM
Oh and as an aside, I had to laugh when James D pointed to the groups of people that can't "think for themselves" and he threw liberals and nazis into the same group...funny stuff...
When you show me a free-thinking, open, right-wing conservative who is both socially minded and free from external prejudices, then we can talk. Until then, watch where you're grouping.
03-25-2002, 05:32 PM
You ask, "what is your defination of Isreal taking land. " #Colonization, I think I have been clear on that.
You say, "Isreal and before them the Hebrews have been around a very long time." #So have the Palestinians, what's your point?
You say, " The world has always taken the view that the land won in war belonged to the victor. #Or is your position that the land of US, Mexico, Canada, ... still belongs to the indians. #If this is true, then how about Prussia, should we go back and form this country? #How about South Africa or England. #England was conquered by the Romans, then conquered by the saxons, then by the anglo's. #Is it your position that England should be given back to some Celts? #History is littered with countries and peoples that are no longer here. #The bottom line is quite simple, Isreal is there now, they won and protected their land through warfare. " #Wrong Bucko, read the UN charter and get back to me when you know what you are talking about. #You're spouting history, #I'm talking what the member states have agreed to abide by at present time.
You say, "By the way, I do not agree with your notion that Isreal is around #because of US$ and/or the conflict is so bad because of US $. " # Let me get this right, you say that the billions upon billions of dollars that we have pumped into Israel has had nothing to do with their survival. #Explain to me then why it is we are giving it to them and they aren't just buying the equipment outright? #Guess what they can't afford to colonize and run a war.
Your comment about those that think for themselves is like the pot calling the kettle black. #I am not toeing to the hypocritical nonsense of supporting a democracy. #Israel might look like one by design but it sure doesn't smell like one by action. #I am seeing what is going on and thinking for myself. #I see how wrong it is and am amazed at how many non-thinkers claim to be thinking when all they are doing is regurgitating the current propaganda for bad policies that have been allowed to continue to a point of bringing the world to a war.
03-25-2002, 05:40 PM
The Tenet Plan is a six step plan to get the parties talking again and getting to a cessation of violence. #A good and recent reference is on the CNN site at http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/19/tenet.plan/ .
I like the new emphasis for the plan that the Saudis are bringing into play. #It should make a good starting point for regaining some control over what is getting farther out of control every day. #It can knock the wind out of the sails of the fanatics on both sides of the fence.
03-25-2002, 10:59 PM
Does anyone in here believe that, if the roles were reversed, Israel would not have ceased to exist some time ago?
03-26-2002, 05:38 PM
Always working on my communication skills, to obtain the correct meaning, I would like to paraphrase your question. #Do you mean, if the roles were reversed, would Israel still exist? #
If that is what you mean then that is one interesting question. #My gut instincts say no. #But that is considering all the aid that the Israelis have received and the support from the UN in determining that they do have a right to exist. #If the Israelis had not received this support (like the Palestinians have dealt with) I just don't think they could have made it. #Unless your question, in regard to role reversal, would have a region supportive of Jewish folk and the Islamic culture would be in the minority with no allies in that region, then we might be seeing the same standoff.
03-27-2002, 08:32 AM
I am glad someone recognized my joke about liberals. I am surprised there were not more comments.
We just disagree on this one.
03-27-2002, 12:31 PM
To clarify (I had to read my own post twice to figure out what the hell I was talking about):
What if the Palestinians had the military might that Israel has and Israel was a loser, er, uh, “disadvantaged”, like the Palestinians?
The point being that they, the Palestinians, would have run them, the Jews, into the sea and that is not arguable, IMHO.
Egypt tried it. Clang.
Syria tired it. Air ball. Who else?
The Palestinians are this hard luck bunch of people who have no real friends, not even the nations to which they actually belong. They teach and insist on and everything points to the epistemological determinacy of their hatred of and desire for the destruction of Jews.
Everybody in the neighborhood has tried to knock Israel off and they all have been trying to do so well before Israel has been getting big help from us. 1947 they had NOTHING. They survived. 1967? The world was wondering how to prevent the annihilation of Israel because there was no way they could stand against the enemies arrayed against them. Turns out again, they had it under control.
Israel can wipe out any and everybody in their neck of the woods. They don’t.
Everybody in the neighborhood makes it pretty clear that it would be OK with them if Israel fell into the sea. They can’t get it done.
They all tried when it was believed Israel was to weak. They were wrong. They don’t try anymore because of our help. So, our help has kept actual war from breaking out.
Saudi, Egypt, Syria, all of them, they are all tickled that Israel has this stick in their craw, the Palestinians. No of them sincerely hope or work for peace. That want Israel to have this headache.
They all, along with Yassir, could put a stop to the terror right now and have Israel stuck and forced to accept peace under UN conditions.
They don’t want to because they are bad.
03-27-2002, 03:24 PM
I’m glad you were having as much difficulty with the question as I was. I figure we will continue to argue about this for years, unless of course there is a peace settlement first. When you said, “Egypt tried it. Clang.” Were you talking about the Suez-Sinai war of 1956? If so, then during that war the British and French aided the Israelis. The starting event was a pre-emptive strike by the Israelis with French reinforcements. Or if you are talking about the six-day war of 1967, which again was an Israeli pre-emptive strike against its neighbors, we were actually attacked by the Israelis, but you don’t here anything about the 34 that died and the 172 that were wounded on the USS Liberty, which was in international waters when the attack occurred.
The more and more I look into this mess the more I see that those doing the dirtiest deeds are the Israelis. They care nothing about anyone else, as they are only interested in their imperialistic ideals. How in the world can we support them when they are so willing to kill anyone? And you say the Palestinians are bad.
03-27-2002, 05:14 PM
Let us not make any mistake about my opinion of the Israelis as alter boys. They ain't. They spy on us, steal secrets from us; all the things good allies do to one another.
I don't know enough about the USS Liberty to opine whether or not it was excusable, a la the Iranian airliner we blew away. What do you think?
I thought Egypt gave up Gaza (the strip) in '67?
As far as preemptive strikes go, they cannot afford a Pearl Harbor or any kind of decent size surprise. They do not have the land area to absorb it.
By using "preemptive", is that to say you’d agree they had to because attack was imminent from Syria??
I also see blowing up Saddams glow in the dark bomb factory as something a self-preservationist might do.
Do we agree, however, in essence, that the Israelis can blow everybody over there away and have not AND that if any of their neighbors could, they would?
And if so, isn't this worth something in the argument?
I re-state: The Palestinians are BADDER, or, the more worse, guys! How's that for a compromise?
And PS, can we not agree that the Palestinians either like this Intifada stuff or really have a funny way of going about getting what they want via the only avenue they have, universal world opinion?
And do we not agree that they would get it sans the nails and glass shards at the Pizza Parlour?
That's the fundamental flaw of the 9/11 gomers, the civilian slaughter. Americans reactions (sadly, see USS Liberty, USS Cole, Beirut) to attacks on our military are a good bit more subdued than when you hit civilians.
03-27-2002, 06:10 PM
You say that they are not your altar boys but you sure talk as if they are. #I probably sound the same from your point of view. #I will also re-state that while I understand why there are suicide bombers I do not agree with that tactic. #Now to the rest of your latest post.
“I don't know enough about the USS Liberty to opine whether or not it was excusable, a la the Iranian airliner we blew away. What do you think? “ #I know exactly what happened with the airliner, can’t talk about it, but it was a big time screw up and we rightly paid damages. #The Liberty attack was paranoia at its highest. #The same paranoia that exists today.
“I thought Egypt gave up Gaza (the strip) in '67?” #Not sure what you’re getting at here, can you help me out?
“By using "preemptive", is that to say you’d agree they had to because attack was imminent from Syria??” #No, I don’t agree with that. #Pre-emptive for me means doing it before it was absolutely necessary. #In other words done to get a leg up on the opponent.
“I also see blowing up Saddams glow in the dark bomb factory as something a self-preservationist might do. “ #Okay, blowing up a factory making weapons of mass destruction is something I would see a self-preservationist doing also. #Is that the same as taking their land for your use, does that fall into the same category?
“Do we agree, however, in essence, that the Israelis can blow everybody over there away and have not AND that if any of their neighbors could, they would?” #What you say for the most part is accurate. #With our assistance the Israelis could really inflict some damage if they unleashed everything at once. #If they did do you think the rest of the world would allow it? #Hell no, we would have a real mess then as the UN would condemn them and then we would have to see where our leaders would align us. # It would cause every Arab nation and some others to come down upon them and there you go, break out the SPF-1000 as we now have WWIII. #
Not sure about your closing as the 9/11 Gomer’s while Arab, they aren’t Palestinians. #Those that carried it out might spout this issue as one of their reasons for doing it, but I don’t buy that. #It was the shear evil in them that brought them to kill so many here. #The only connection between the two is suicide by the perpetrator as one is doing it to cause fear and terror and the other is doing it as he fights for his homeland. #
I also don’t think anything good would come to the Palestinians if they just sat back and let the Israelis remove them in the systematical fashion that they have been employing. # Doing nothing will get them exterminated. # So the only solution, as I see it, is to get them to start looking about a peaceful resolution or maybe the rest of the world (to include us) should get a little pre-emptive.
03-28-2002, 07:21 PM
Now we're getting somewhere!
I also don’t think anything good would come to the Palestinians if they just sat back and let the Israelis remove them in the systematical fashion that they have been employing. Doing nothing will get them exterminated.
I think the Pals would wipe out Israel if they could and you think the Jews would do the Pals if they could get away with it and we each think the reverse is not true! We are 180 degrees out.
Let me say (re-state, really) that I accept your point of racism (10 some odd pages ago!) on the part of the Jews towards the Arabs. I know it's true and that is where I start in saying I do not see Israel as "Alter Boys". I think the hate it mutual.
I said "Egypt...clang"...you asked "Suez '57?" I responded "West Bank '67" meaning that was when they threw in the towel and gave up the West Bank. Isn't that correct?
Next, are you saying, as far as you can, that the airliner was, in essence, a pure mistake and that USS Liberty, they knew what they were shooting at and paranoia was the motive? If so, then I will never make that comparison again!
I think we need to give up the "preemptive' discussion because we are so, so very close to saying the same thing, IMHO. Pearl Harbor was a leg up for Japan and also preemptive in that they, and we, knew war was inevitable between us. You say tomato. It’s still sauce.
The rest of any disagreement you and I have simply comes from our 180-degree aforementioned out phase. I see a nation doing what it has to do to survive against people bent on their destruction. You see victims of aggression for aggressions sake. Yes?
Now, the meat and 'taters.
I cannot get past anyone’s consumption of their young males (the Palestinians). I despise suicide in war making, especially when your victim is unarmed. It is one thing to have the odds against you, Pickett’s Charge. It is quite another in regards to Okinawa. One, you MIGHT win if you pull it off. The other, you are long since done for and are merely punishing your people for your failure.
Wearing your shoes for a moment, I would respect the Palestinians if they, long ago, were sending their boys off to any nation that would have them (especially their bone head neighbors/brothers) for training and the development of skills and expertise.
That’s what I HATE about these people, the waste. If you channeled the determination to die for a cause/faith into productive (the goal being to win, not to die) war making, nation building, industry, agriculture, the sciences, etc. etc. etc. then, IMHO you will win and deserve to.
To me, they invalidate everything they claim to strand for, just like Osama and his crew, buy saying, “The best we can do for our people, our faith and ideas and our country is expend our irreplaceable youth”. Even worse would be to say, “Our young men are expendable”…Oh, how I loathe that ideology.
When you do that there are NO heroes’ to come home, to tell the tale, pace the march and sing the song and try to see to it that it never happens again. SOMETHING real MUST be gained and ennobled or it just goes on, pure hate, timeless.
That, more than anything, is my problem with the Palestinians. If they don’t value their own, then why the hell should anyone?
You may thing this funny, but this same type of attitude is why I so loathe Clinton, the waste. Whether I liked it or not, he could have done great things. He CHOSE to sit on his fat a$$
and jerk around. I bet he and Arafat fought over the remote control.
03-28-2002, 08:22 PM
I love it, you do talk to the issue and I too see us as simply being out of phase (I also love electronics phrases). #And that is cool because even though we are out of said phase we agree that this crap should stop. #I think that your description of the waste they are doing to their future is very accurate. #However I think their motivations are different then what Osama and his horde have. #I also accept your point of the anti-Semitic racism on the part of the Palestinians towards the Israelis. #These two really hate each other, so I feel it is up to the rest of the world to step in and get this worked out before everyone starts taking sides for the big showdown. #
You say they invalidate everything they stand for and I see and understand the problem you have with them. #However I have a similar issue from the supposed democracy of Israel by the imperialistic attitude and the colonization of that region. #
When you said, “I said "Egypt...clang"...you asked "Suez '57?" I responded "West Bank '67" meaning that was when they threw in the towel and gave up the West Bank. Isn't that correct?” #I thought in ’67 the Israelis gave Egypt back the Sinai and Jordan made the West Bank concessions. #At that time the Palestinians, while obviously there, were not recognized and fell under the Jordanian ruler. #
When you said, “Next, are you saying, as far as you can, that the airliner was, in essence, a pure mistake and that USS Liberty, they knew what they were shooting at and paranoia was the motive? If so, then I will never make that comparison again!” #The Iranian airliner was a major blunder, SNAFU to be more accurate. #The USS Liberty was a case of shoot first sort them out later as the Israelis had extreme feelings of being under the gun (possibly rightly so based on the happenings of the time). #But it was an act inspired by fear, hence my calling it paranoia.
I am in full agreement with your closing as I saw Clinton going through the motions but not stepping in and making it work. #The influence we hold over the Israelis with our checkbook and all the things we can offer to both of these people make us ideal to broker a deal. #That is if we in fact want one. #The whole point is that it must be balanced in such a way as to give both parties what they need. #I see that as they both need defined borders to call their own, that they can protect and develop. #They both need access to historically religious sites in that region, and they should be afforded access to them. #That they receive full recognition from all neighboring countries and develop diplomatic and economic relations with those nations in a peaceful manner.
Again I think we are after the same result, we are just looking at this whole problem from differing angles.
03-30-2002, 01:40 PM
...looks like I forgot to add their women to the waste list.
04-25-2002, 07:57 AM
The whole problem here is religon and the belief the muslims have in the prophet Mohammed. The muslim religion-Islam is based on the belief of a man named Mohammed. At 25 years of age Mohammed was homeless and unfit to marry. His soon to be wife took pity on him when she saw him drunk and talking out of his head and begging for food on the street, (what we call bums nowadays.) His wife(Khadijah) was a succesful and powerful buisnesswoman of her day, she hired Mohammed and soon after married him. They had 6 children 4 girls 2 boys, the boys didn't live past the age of 2. Around the age of 40 Mohammed started saying that his derelict illusions were that of God-(Allah), Khadijah encouraged him, why not?, to be the wife of a "Prophet" would increase her social status. Khadijah along with other family members helped in convincing the masses that Mohammed was the true prophet of God. That Jesus was not Gods' son, that he was only a prophet like Mohammed. And so from the mouth of Mohammed the Karan or spelled Qu'ran-(the muslims version of the bible) was born. At first Mohammed had good intentions and the Karan was good. But then he would use his "power" to suit his life. Ex: Because both of his sons died young, he adopted a son Zaid. The original Karan says adopted sons are to be just like biological sons, Mohammed changed this when Zaid got married. Zaid's wife was so beautiful, Zaid lived with his father and family after he married. Shortly after the marriage Mohammed "accidently" saw Zaid's wife getting dressed. On his very next trip to the "mountain"-(where he received his visions) he returned and claimed that adopted sons were not considered real sons,-(in an earlier vision Mohammed proclaimed that no father could ever marry his "real" sons wife), And that women must veil themselves to keep temptation away-(this is how the whole veiling of women started). Zaid wanted to please his "father" so he divorced his wife) Because Mohammed claimed Zaid not to be his "real" son it made room for him to marry his "adopted sons" wife. Mohammed also changed his mind in the karan to state that he could take many wives instead of the one that was originally allowed, Khadijah was afterall 15 years older than Mohammed. There are many more examples of how power can corrupt even the simplest of minds. Islam was started on the belief of one man, whom convinced his wife, whom convice her family, whom convinced the masses-(there were many people of the day whom thought Mohammed to be a fraud) but the "convincing" had a snowball effect and you should never underestimate the power of a mob. Another fact: Scholars of Islam, (to prove that Mohammed was legit), say that how could Mohammed have known what a fetus looks like,(supposedly Mohammed said that we start out as a drop of blood, then we look like a salamander) this is PROOF? you have got to be kidding me, all of the women Mohammed ended up with and you dont' think that any of them ever miscarried? Try reading Price of Honor by Jan Goodwin, and read what I believe is the true story behind the so-called Prophet Mohammed.
04-25-2002, 02:48 PM
What the hell are you talking about? :confused:
04-25-2002, 02:58 PM
Yeah, Sunny, you don't seem to be offering anything to this PARTICULAR discussion; you seem merely to be sounding off on your belief that the Muslim religion is made up by man...wow...imagine that insight...religion is a creation of man...Just don't understand what bearing that has here.
04-26-2002, 08:04 AM
Sorry guys I was sounding off. (you know us "newbies") Forgive me next time I will be more alert to the subject matter.
04-26-2002, 10:39 AM
Can we come to a consensus that there needs to be an independent Palestine on the West Bank and in Gaza? I don't think there's any point in squabbling over who deserves more of the blame--there's plenty of that to go around. The leaders on both sides sound like whiny, spoiled children: "He started it!" "Did not!" "Did too!" While they bicker, families on both sides are losing loved ones every day. That has to stop now.
04-26-2002, 01:15 PM
I will agree that there needs to be an independent Palestine and that the Arab nations need to recognize Israel and their right to exist, but as to what area it should encompass I think it should be how it was envisioned and approved by the UN when Israel was created.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.