Israel & Palestine-Real Story

[Kyle]

You're right Frank! It'll happen in a NY minute!

It all comes back to one thing...

You have anywhere from twelve to fifteen country's, using rhetoric, money, military support, religious fanaticism and their sons and daughters, to acheive the common goal of the extermination of Isreal.

I'm not a big fan of Isreal, due to the repeated infiltrations by Isreali spies, but they are outnumbered, out-financed and surrounded.

Arafat is not interested in Peace or a Palistinian State along the borders of Isreal, nor has he ever given any evidence he is.

He wants, as do all the Arab countries, the destruction of Israel to be replaced with "Palistine".

The more of these religious fanatics Israels kills now the less we'll have to deal with later.

 

[usn4now]

OK, Ken, Arafat condemed the bombings and asked his people that they cease.
What's he doing about it ?!!

 

[jimmy]

Don't you think that if Arafat complied, wrangled in the terrorists, got a Palestinian state and suddenly entered into some pact with Iraq/Iran whatever that WE'D have something to say about it? After giving Arafat and the Palestinian people what they want, they turn around and stab the international community in the back??? You think a move like that would go unchecked? Hell no. Everything from sanctions to military action would come flying up Arafat's butt before he could say boo.

After trying so long for international support for his movement (and, yes, the terrorist actions ARE detrimental to that but I think Ken has proven quite well that he can't be held accountable for EVERY person with a belt bomb) I highly doubt he'd turn his back on the world.

Arafat may be a more ineffective leader than we'd like over there (Israel says they won't even entertain a Palestinian state headed by Arafat) but he's the only leader the Palestinians will recognize. He'll be their leader no matter where he rules from.

So Israel needs to take a moment and check themselves into reality because Arafat ain't going no where, despite having looked to be 85 for the last 30 years, and that's who they're gonna have to deal with.

It sounds cliched but both sides need to "give peace a chance" over there. Put down their big damn sticks and work towards a solution that is beneficial to their PEOPLE, not all this hawkish-posturing, piss-contest nonsense.

 

[jimmy]

Jetmonkey,

Acumen. Nice.

Anyway, during the "neanderthal days" in Palestinain land, I'm seriously doubting there was any sort of unified group or superpower with the ability to interject themselves into world affairs as we do now.

Do I think the Palestinians and Israelis will love eachother and sit down and have slumber parties and comb eachohothers hair and talk about the boys they have crushes on in school? I don't think so.

But do I think that given a Palestinian state that Arafat would turn his back on all the UN accords and the entire international community as a whole because this dispute has been going on so long that "it just can't ever stop"?? NO.

And this "all the sudden break out" crap is not what I've been talking about. I'm saying that peace is a "process". Shoot, it may never be TRULY realized in the most pure sense of the word anywhere on the planet. But what I'm looking for is an alternative to this current state of affairs in that region.

And, monkey, you bring up the historical inability for these sides to resist the urge to attack one another. But may I ask when, in the international system as it exists now (not when Grog Silverstein and Ack Mohammed lived in caves next door to eachother), a Palestinian state was given a fair shake and Israel's right to exist was recognized by it's Arab neighbors?

You look to past failings and assume that they automatically suggest no hope in the current situation. I look at the past failures and realize that something else needs to be tried. Call that naivety if you want, but I'd say it's a lot less dangerous than your "what can we do, history is against us" failure of an attitude.

What would you suggest then, oh noble historian?

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by usn4now
OK, Ken, Arafat condemed the bombings and asked his people that they cease.
What's he doing about it ?!!

usn4now,

You ask "What's he doing about it?" Check it out, if you actually care, he is arresting people, handing others over to the Israelis, some have been exiled, all of this with a corrupt and devastated infrastructure. On the other hand what has Sharon done? Got his party to say that there will never be a Palestine. Which leads to peace, Little Buddy?

Let's drop to the bottom line. If the US of A would invest just a fraction, let's say 1/3, of what we spend on Israel we could probably "build" the Palestine we could deal with. What's the old saying, "money talks and BS walks". We could even take that money from what we are dumping into Israel to make it happen with no extra cost to us taxpayers.

Some of you others worried about an alliance of a formal state called Palestine and the neighboring countries. Hello, wake up, they are already aligned. Is this a bad thing? I say no worse then our alignments with all the countries that we hold partnerships with. It is smart for those with common interests to work together on common issues. Right now that alliance is calling for full recognition and trade with Israel. Hell, we can’t have that now can we.

Jetmonkey,

The Philistine claim again. You need to back up a few more hundred years in your history. The earliest recorded inhabitants were called the Canaanites, the land was Canaan. The Philistines were invaders to that area from the sea. This has been covered quite a bit in these forums.

Let’s get away from ancient times and look at today. What we have is an area clearly defined by the UN upon its establishment. The UN has not endorsed any changes of those boundaries that are being claimed today. We have one country colonizing the others land in violation of encumbered agreements when their nation was formed. We have another fighting for recognition to become legitimized and no one wanting that to happen. Then we have the other neighbors that have radical elements that are seeking to eradicate the Israelis, some in Palestine and some throughout the Arab world. Top this off with American funding to the Israelis and we have the obvious mess that we have.

How do we get out of it before someone uses the big weapons or we get drug into it deeper were the loss of American lives increases?

 

[vraiblonde]

Anybody care to guess what would happen if we stopped funding the Israelis? Anyone? You don't even have to use any real brain power - just take a guess.

And Ken: Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu - who else? The only constant is Arafat. Isn't that funny? All those different PMs and still no peace! Imagine that...

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Anybody care to guess what would happen if we stopped funding the Israelis? Anyone? You don't even have to use any real brain power - just take a guess.

And Ken: Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu - who else? The only constant is Arafat. Isn't that funny? All those different PMs and still no peace! Imagine that...

Vraiblonde,

Don’t you have even a little problem with your contradiction on this matter. On one hand you have said that the Israelis should just go ahead and wipe out the Palestinians. Use what we have given them and get the job done. Now you insinuate that if we stop funding the Israelis it will happen to them. What would be wrong with that based on what you have said concerning the reverse situation? The problem after all would be gone, wouldn’t it?

Honestly, I hadn’t thought about it that way but it is a solution. All I have ever wanted was the Israelis to live within their true borders (as defined upon their establishment), that Palestine be allowed to develop into a country of it’s own making, reducing our spending on Israeli military hardware and that we work for peace in that hostile region. Maybe just cutting the spending and leaving the whole mess alone would do the trick.

I also find it amazing that the sophisticated democratic leaders of this supposed democracy have failed to achieve peace too? Can they only get treaties after beating someone into submission? At least that seems to be the trend of the Israelis. It just usually doesn't take this long.

 

[vraiblonde]

Dear Ken. Possibly you are reading in to my post - all I did was ask what you thought would happen. So I'm not sure what contradiction you're talking about. But since you brought it up...

Here's an exercise in logical thought for you:

Scenario: We stop sending money, technology, whatever to the Israelis. We say, "Sink or swim, Jewboys! To hell with ya!" Then what happens? First, what do you think might happen to the Israelis? Next, what would happen from a US standpoint?

Let's see how many people know their history and are capable of logical thought. Let's see who flames me instead of answering the question.

 

[BudoPo]

OK, I just want to point out a couple of things.

First, the history. In 1947, Arab countries rejected a UN plan to create both a Jewish state as well as an Arab state. In 1948, when the modern state of Israel was formed, Gaza remained part of Egypt, and the West Bank part of Jordan. The people living in those areas were citizens of those countries, and did not complain about not having their own country (that is, a country besides Egypt or Jordan).

In the 1967 war, Israel gained control over Gaza, the West Bank, the Sinai penninsula, and the Golan Heights. The Sinai was returned to Egypt as part of the cease fire agreement. Egypt and Jordan refused to allow Arab refugees from Gaza and the West Bank to enter their countries.

Second, the money. All of the money we send to Israel for military support is used to buy American products, so it does find its way back to this country.

 

[Ken King]

Yeah,

I might have read in a little too much into it as I am sure you believe that the Israelis are just in what they are doing. Why, I will never understand?

To your questions, I don't think Israel will disappear. I don’t see that same threat that they see, or you for that matter, from the Arab world. I think even if we did pull out others in that region would be weary of our return or the rest of the world stepping in to stop an incursion like what happened with Iraq and Kuwait. If attacked as you envision, let me say that I don’t think they will go peacefully into the night. I am sure they would use whatever they have gotten from us (legally and illegally) to stop any incursions even if they have to blow the whole place up. If they are truly democratic, as hailed, they would enter into a peace agreement to prevent what you see as inevitable. But then they would have to practice diplomacy just like the rest of the world. Can they do it?

From our standpoint what would we lose? A continued and growing debt, a diplomatic headache, a sore on the butt of humanity, who knows? I would like to know what benefit have we obtained from our continued support of Israel? That is besides having a proving ground for some of our military hardware.

 

[usn4now]

GROUP HUG EVERYONE !!!!

 

[Ken King]

BudoPo,

First, some factual history. This is what the borders were like in 1922 under British control http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/pal-transjrdn-1922.gif . This is what the 1947 Partition Plan that created Israel called for http://www.mideastweb.org/UNpartition.htm . This is what we currently have, http://www.mideastweb.org/mredeploy1.htm .

As you can see in the first map Gaza and the West Bank were part of the proposed Arab state. It doesn’t matter that the Arab nations in the area rejected the plan, it was passed by the UN and remains in affect. Under UN rule gains of land from conflict are not allowed.

You then said, “Second, the money. All of the money we send to Israel for military support is used to buy American products, so it does find its way back to this country.” Actually, we send them no military money, we send them hardware. But I guess your point is we are further subsidizing defense contractors with unnecessary spending. Thus giving some people employment at the destruction of others. Another noble endeavor of our government.


usn4now,

Thanks for the group hug Little Buddy. Hey can I just call you Gilligan?

 

[vraiblonde]

Ken King, I sure would like to know why you keep putting words in my mouth (keyboard?). In your post you attribute many opinions to me that I didn't express. All I did was ask a question and instead of answering it, you proceeded to tell me what I think.

Put all the "before" stuff aside for now. Pretend that this is the first time we've ever discussed the situation. Now tell me what you think would happen if the US dropped support of Israel. Take me through the peace process. Explain to me why you don't see a threat from the Arab world.

 

[usn4now]

very funny

 

[jimmy]

Vrai,

Part of it is that the Israelis have nukes that they will not hesitate to use, should they see a united threat from the surrounding Arab states. Many militant Arabs are willing to die for this cause but not all are willing to push the issue towards nuclear holocaust.

Another reason is that the surrounding Arab communities have been making efforts to broker peace in the area. The Saudi plan I thought was a great compromise. But there was Israel's problem with it--compromise. They don't want to compromise with a group which they have labled as terrorists.

So I think it speaks VOLUMES that Sharon, Barak, and Netanyahu have not been able to broker peace. Israel's leadership has varied slightly in their hawkish-ness but have really stayed with the same principle of rejecting the Palestinian state. Hell, just the other day Netanyahu who, by my understanding, was less far right than Sharon, won power in Sharon's party by saying there would NOT be a Palestinian state. Arafat, yesterday, called for a reorganization of the PA, a move suggested by Sharon. So who's compromising and who isn't? Who's trying to move towards a peaceful solution and who's preparing to mount an attack in Gaza?

 

[Ken King]

Vraiblonde,

Do you have an overly sensitive or wild hair sticking you in the nether region or something? Maybe if you hadn’t said very similar things I wouldn’t even be bringing them up. When I do respond to your questions you still get miffed. Now I am supposed to ignore everything that you have said and just answer the specific question. Will you do the same? I doubt it.

Now instead of the answers to your previous questions you want me to answer totally new questions and do so without understanding my intended audience (aka You). Not a very good communications technique, but I will give it a shot.

To be certain that I don’t take you out of context I will quote you (can I do this without pissing you off), “Now tell me what you think would happen if the US dropped support of Israel.” I guess that is a question. They wouldn’t have the funds to expend on elaborate or advanced military hardware and continue their colonization efforts; one of these would have to stop. They might even be reined in by the UN, which has had significant problems with what they have been doing for years. They might even be required to return to within their established boundaries. That is what I think might happen to them. I don’t see a mass Arab army coming across the desert pushing them into the Mediterranean Sea.

Next you want me to, “Take me through the peace process.” If I could do that don’t you think I would have a job with the State Department? Usually peace is established once the two parties at conflict come to an agreement and cease hostilities. My view is that the Israelis need to return to the property that was given to them by the UN, nothing more and nothing less. Palestine receives full recognition as a sovereign nation controlling the land that was intended for them by the same resolution that created Israel. The rest of the Arab nations would recognize Israel and Palestine and establish trade and diplomatic relations with each. Being the great nation that we are we could provide assistance to the Palestinians to help get them back on their feet. We could help them develop the things they need to coexist with their neighbors, like diplomatic corps, law enforcement or security forces, infrastructure, and such. That is how I think it should be handled.

Your final question is, “Explain to me why you don't see a threat from the Arab world.” I think it has been demonstrated that when any of the Arab nations have attempted to acquire control of another’s country they have been reined in and given a good thrashing in the process. The most recent being Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The Arab nations are weary of what the US of A or the world (via the UN) can do to make their lives absolutely miserable and the military power we have that can achieve this result. The only threats from these folk come from fundamental extremists that are no different then those in our country like the KKK or other hate groups. At this time all Arab nations are calling for peace in the region with the exception of the one madman (Iraq’s Hussein). I think it should be relatively easy to build on this change of heart. That is if Israel is ready to accept peace.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by jetmonkey
Ken, since we are discussing the Jews and the Palestinians, I was only referring to their history in the region. Personally I think these 'histroical' claims are all bullsh*t anyway. Why is the Bible promising the land to the Jews any more valid than the Koran claiming Muslim sanctity because that is where their holy man ascended into heaven?

Peace will never happen because Muslims don't want it. They want to see the Jews destroyed. Check this out from their governments's official newspapers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52791,00.html

http://www.memri.org/

Jetmonkey,

I agree historical claims are BS, but when they are brought up some people conveniently forget about what was going on before the exodus from Egypt. If we are talking history let’s talk about all of it. I don’t see this as being unresolved because of the Muslims alone, it is a two-way street and if the Israelis don’t want peace they can (and have) throw roadblocks in the way just as many Muslim fanatics have done.

I am however hopeful that peace can be achieved if handled better then it has been for the past 6 decades. We have some bargaining room since we provide Israel with better then 10% of their total budget. Placing some requirements upon them to work with whomever the PNA puts forth should be within our ability regardless of their lobbying effort.

 

[BudoPo]

The way I see it, the problem is that two groups of people want the same land, and neither is willing to share. All the mistrust and animosity just get in the way of them working out some deal.

Ken, you do realize that your history post said the same thing as my history post, right? BTW, for my money/military spending, I purposely didn't comment on the ethics of sending military hardware; I was just stating that the money finds it's way here. Another little thing is that it seems that some people here feel that the technology and intelligence transfer only goes from our country to Israel, when in fact we have benefited from some Israeli technology and intelligence (I'm not talking about the intelligence or technology "stolen" from one country, but the stuff obtained through proper channels).

 

[vraiblonde]

Ken, I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse. And I'm starting to get angry with your love-worship of the Arabs and your attitude that they can do no wrong and all bad things are the fault of the Israelis.

You've said all along that what the Israelis should do is give back all the land, then sit there and do nothing while the Arabs bomb their civilians. Don't try to deny it, you've written it in several places. You seem to think that that's a realistic approach.

You know that Israel takes up roughly 1/6 of 1% of the Middle East and is literally surrounded by the enemy. But that doesn't matter to you. Israelis=BAD! So they are expansionists. They should give back land that was legally given to them or they won fair and square.

You want to provide assistance to help Palestine get "back on it's feet" - these people who cheered in the streets on 9-11. You want to give them our money and help them build an Army. Yet you want to pull support from our allies, Israel. You seem to think that's a good idea.

Your third paragraph is an absolute mish-mash - saying that we should abandon Israel because the Arabs know what we'll do if they try to invade. Certainly they know by now exactly what we'll do - we'll throw food to their soldiers and black marketers. We'll pass laws saying you can't racially profile. We'll sit on our hands while the UN says it's all the US's fault that the Arabs can't get their act together. We'll pass laws saying you can't have an American flag on municipal vehicles.

Finally, you equate Palestinian extremists with the KKK and "other hate groups". You're going to have to refresh my memory of the KKK bombing a group of civilians and getting away with it. You're also going to have to remind me about our President condoning those actions and saying there's nothing he can do about it. And don't bother bringing up the 60's - that may have been just yesterday to you, but a lot has happened since then so it's not relevant.

On to Jimmy:

So I think it speaks VOLUMES that Sharon, Barak, and Netanyahu have not been able to broker peace.

Don't forget Shimon Peres, Golda Meier and the rest. Do you think it's logical to say that all those Israeli PMs are at fault? The only constant has been Arafat, yet that doesn't seem to strike a chord with you.

So at this point, logic and reason has gone out the window with you two. History means nothing. What Arafat has specifically stated means nothing. You've both written that what is being shown on TV isn't real (Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9-11, etc).

I'm not sure how to debate with people who make up their own "facts", throw out insignificant trivia as "important points" and, in general, don't believe what they see, hear or read. Someone in this forum says there must be a "Final Solution" to the Jews and, when I call him on it, I get flamed. So I think I'm going to have to chalk this up to "teaching pigs to sing" and be done with it.

 

[jimmy]

Vrai,

I'm starting to see Ken's frustration with you as you continue to do that which you accuse US of doing! Making up facts, getting them wrong, misplacing blame--these were YOUR tools in this last post. I'll try to break them down one by one...

1. "And I'm starting to get angry with your love-worship of the Arabs and your attitude that they can do no wrong and all bad things are the fault of the Israelis."

Never has Ken (or I) said that the Palestinians (let's not just 'obtusely say' all Arabs) can do no wrong. In fact, I KNOW that I've said that the issue it TWO-SIDED and that concessions need to be made on both sides. The problem is YOU have NEVER recognized the problems on the Israeli front and have been having your own 'love-fest' with only that ONE side. The reason I've been posting (and I imagine Ken as well) was to point out that NOT ONLY THE PALESTINIANS ARE AT FAULT.

2. "They should give back land that was legally given to them or they won fair and square."

Here's you making up facts or misinterpreting (or ignoring) them. This land was NOT given to the Israeli's legally!! That's the whole freakin' point! There WAS an Israel that was established but, and in a FAR from "fair and square" method, they simply expanded their borders in 1967 AGAINST UN regulations. So that's what's being asked of them. Go back to where you were before then. Back to your "legally obtained" plot of land.

3. "Certainly they know by now exactly what we'll do - we'll throw food to their soldiers and black marketers. We'll pass laws saying you can't racially profile. We'll sit on our hands while the UN says it's all the US's fault that the Arabs can't get their act together. We'll pass laws saying you can't have an American flag on municipal vehicles."

What a piss-poor assesment of how we've handled the situation in the middle east.
(1)the food was for the Afgan civilians, Iraqi civilians etc. We're trying to be humane for god's sake. What other country does that during a war???
(2)The UN isn't BLAMING us but they certainly realize the power we have in this situation and are right to implore us to make some moves.
(3)The racial profiling is because you CAN'T discriminate in this country. I'm all for being vigilant and checking up on suspicious situations but racial profiling goes against the very freedoms that we're fighting for over there now. And besides all this, I dont' understand waht this comment about how we handle security here had to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict. Talk about Mish/Mash

4. "The only constant has been Arafat, yet that doesn't seem to strike a chord with you."

No, ANOTHER constant has been the Israeli's constant position AGAINST the establishment of a Palestinian state as well as their refusal to comply with the UN in regressing to their 1967 borders. How do you compromise with such a static political position?

5. "You're also going to have to remind me about our President condoning those actions and saying there's nothing he can do about it."

Ok. Arafat has publicly CONDEMNED the terrorist attacks against Israel. (did you get condoned and condemned confused??). Now both in English AND Arabic. Plus, he's arrested members of Hamas and other such groups that have been responsible. Has he done enough? No.

But how can you sit there and say he's done nothing? Compare it to Bush and the Bloods or Crips. How has Bush, personally, stopped gang violence or the drug trade? Answer: he hasn't. He can't micromanage like that.

And the Crips and Bloods dont' have the religious and spritual draw that these "extremist" groups have. So how much harder, then, must it be for Arafat to wrangle in these popular groups?

There are problems with the Palestinian Authority which Arafat has aknowleged and, at least in principle, agreed to change. So you seeing inactivity and even support on his part for the terrorist attacks is simply YOU not having the right information.

Vrai, I don't understand how you can claim to be using logic and concrete examples and that Ken and I are merely talking out of our asses. It's YOUR position that comes across as emotionally based, fact-devoid, and attacking in nature as you eqate attempting to engage in a logical, intelligent conversation as 'teaching pigs to sing'...You may have the clever analogy down but I think you've got it aimed in the wrong direction...