Could you have possibly misconstrued my post any more than you did?
I maintain that we support Israel for 1) the reason that it’s a democracy, 2) that it’s a friend in the region, 3) that there are those countries and organizations which want Israel to no longer exist, and 4) that there are those individuals which not only wish Israel to go away but also for there to no longer be any Jews.
Abandoning a small nation to such a fate would be wrong.
This is my last post to you until you prove you have actually passed a reading comprehension course.
Like Islam handing Mecca? Did you forgive that Jerusalem is also an holy city for the muslims? More important : wasn’t the eastern part of Jerusalem part of the occupied terrritory? In other words, you’re stating that Israel was generously offering to give back part of what they have taken? And why 97%, and not 100%? Would you be satisifed if I offered you to give you back part of what I have stolen to you, including some of your necklaces, adding that I’m especially generous since I really like these necklaces?
By the way, what part of Jerusalem were they offering to give back? Jerusalem proper? I mean the former east-Jerusalem? Not at all. Part of the subburbs (these subburbs had been administratively included in Jerusalem previously).
Did you look at a map of the offer? Don’t know if it covers 97% of the territory, but these 97% (?) includes a large band along the boundary which would have remained under Israelian military control (but still considered as part of the “97%”). On the other hand, it excluded the settlements, some main roads, some security zones, some towns, etc…In other words, what was offered was a patchwork separated or studded with zones under Israelian control. A map is here : http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm . I suppose at first glance that the blue triangles are the Isrealis settlements (do you believe they would be restitued to the Palestinians? Are you joking? Each of them would remain under Israelian control…).Oh! Did I point out that Israel wanted to annex an area around Jerusalem (which for some strange reason was not included in the 100% from which “97%” would have been restituted)?
I see no reason why the Palestinians should have been satisfied with the restitution of part of their territory without east-Jerusalem.
AFAIK, most of the Palestians weren’t supposed to come back in Israel proper (only a very limited number of them), but in the Palestinian state. So, your argument about Israel being invaded by millions of ennemies wanting to destroy it makes no sense.
Because of what, exactly? What the relationship between claiming east-Jerusalem and wanting to destroy Israel? And AFAIK, the PLO accepted to recognize Israel. We aren’t in 1964 anymore. You could say that a lot of Palestininas want to destroy Israel. There are Israelians who want to expell all the Palestinians too. And it seems to me that Israel is currently more a threat to the Palestinians than a demilitarized Palestinian state, whose borders would be controlled by Israel could be.
For some unknow reason, all the other democratic states (along with the non-democratic states, actually) disagree with the US. Perhaps they have some reasons to do so. Or is it just in order to contradict the US? And what about the Palestinians killed, who are equally dead?
And why an arrangment including the restitution of only part of the territories, denying the right of return for refugees and annexing East-Jerusalem is the only “realistic” one?
And is building new settlements in the occupied territories “realistic”? What are the jutifications for that? I suppose you know it’s contradictory with the international law? With Israel previous commitments?
Personnaly, I don’t live in a christian nation. And assuming you’re an american, you don’t, either. The content of the bible is irrelevant, and I doubt it has been an important reason for the support of Israel.
I don’t think Saudi Arabia is more useful. There’s a lot of oil, there, for sure. But Israel is militarily much more powerful than Saudi Arabia. And way more reliable.
By the way, from the cost of the support to Israel, you should deduce the part of this aid which is conditionned by the buying of american military equipment (kind of an indirect governmental subvention to the US armament industry. This “trick” is used by most weapons producers)
Also, Israel has been occasionnaly used by the US for some operations which couldn’t be done openly (like providing weapons to the apartheid South Africa, or during the “Iran-contras” operation)
But on the overall, I indeed suspect that at least from the economical point of view, this massive support to israel doesn’t benefit to the US. And politically it certainly hurts them a lot.
I agree
It’s very arguable…Do you have some figure?
What happened 2000 years ago is totally irrelevant. Why the Jews would have more rights on a land they occupied 2000 years ago than the people who occupied it 50 years ago?
In this case, assuming you’re not an amerindian, you should leave the US and give it back to them. Actually, most of the people everywhere in the world should relocate.
And concerning the slaughter, should the Jews ask to be indemnized by Italy? And in what way the palestinians should be held accountant for what the romans did 2000 years ago?
That you take into consideration a 2000 years old event is beyond me. The only valid reason I can consider for the presence of the Jews (except those whose ancestors already lived in Palestine) is that they have been here for 50 years or more, and that most of them were born there. At the beginning of the last century, they had absolutely no rights on the Palestine.
Personally if you are American you live in a mainly Christian nation the same as Afghanistan is mainly a Muslim nation.
Saudi Arabia gives us some legitmimacy in the Arab world. Politically speaking of course. And I am sorry to say but we do not sepend on Isreal for any military might in the mideast. Why do you think we told them to stay out of the Gulf War to their own detriment?
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html#a
This will help you understand where I was coming from on the native part. My grabdfather was full blood Chocktaw indian. I meant to say that the indiginous population was only relevant to your argument. I stated that before ou could state that the palistinnians had more right because they were there first. In the article above it says how the Jews never really left. ARe you saying they had no rights to be there because the British did not mandate them a nation.
I guess with that argument I could say that before the indians were put on reservations they had no right to be there. Many of the Americans were born there as well as the indians. But your argumant for the Amerindian states their history of being there longer I would presume.
YOu see you cannot ignore History no matter how old it is. Especcially when the “2000 year old event” is still happening today.
Irrelevant. Point is that it is asking the Jews to give to the Arabs the holiest site in their religion.
**
Of course it is generous. For some silly reason, the Arabs launched a war to eradicate all Jews and destroy the fledgling state when it was founded. They tried again in 1967 and lost part of Jerusalem. Now the Arabs want it back. It is very generous for a nation to give another its most sacred site in spite of the fact that they took it in a defensive war. You also conveniently forget that the Mosque is sacred to Islam, Jerusalem is not. About 1 week after the 6 day war (in 67’) control over the entire Temple Mount compound was handed to the Moslem Waqf. They control it to this day. Find me a parallel in arab control of Jewish sites (The destruction of Josephs tomb recently and of Jewish graves under Jordanian rule comes to mind)
**
Because 100% is impractical in terms of the realities of what are already there.
**
I would be satisfied if your analogy were in any way legitimate.
If you attack my family intending to eradicate it, and I defeat you and take your land. Then you promise to eradicate my family at every opportunity and openly state that as soon as you get some of your land back you will entirely eradicate my family. Now you continue to attack and murder us, and now we are generous enough (read: stupid enough) to trust you and give you almost all of the land - which incidentally we also have a ancestral claim to. That’s generous to the point of suicide.
**
Far as I understood, East Jerusalem, not suburbs.
**
Your own map proves me right. If you read the legend, all of the blue and grey would become part of the Palestinian state. It is a contiguous piece of land which is no worse off than the Israeli side which is left to be 8-10 miles wide at some points. Its called compromise… Your description of it as “patchwork separated or studded” is refuted by your own source - Thanks.
**
No, that is the 3% that stays with Israel…clear?
**
Its called compromise. When the arabs started this war and kept it going for 50 years now they screwed up what they could have had. Had they accepted the partition 50 years ago as Israel did they would be celebrating their 50th year of independence. Instead they chose this 50 year long war of attrition and terrorism. Now Israel is nice enough to be willing to compromise and find a solution. All you can show is that Israel is not willing to utterly capitulate to 50 years of terror and mayhem. They actually want to compromise and find a realistic solution…
**
Incorrect. That was the Israeli proposal which was rejected. The Palestinian proposal was that any and all Palestinians and their descendants could, at will, return to Israel proper.
**
See above.
TQMshirt-Because of this, many people believe that the position of most of the Palestinian leadership is not so much to get their own land but to destroy Israel (as they have stated over and over in their own Arabic news outlets, and which explains why the PLo was formed in 1964 before there were any “occupied territoties”)…
**
Their unwillingness to compromise and their upping the ante to a situation which would necessarily destroy Israel.
**
This might help:
“I want to say that this is our Palestine, from Metulla [Israel’s northernmost city] to Rafiah [Southern border] and to Aqaba [Israel’s southernmost point], from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea; whether they want it or not.”
— Dr. Jareer Al-Kidwah, advisor to “President” Arafat
P.A. TV broadcast, November 29, 2000
“If we agree to declare our state over what is now 22 percent of Palestine, meaning the West Bank and Gaza, our ultimate goal is the liberation of all historic Palestine from the River to the Sea…We distinguish the strategic, long-term goals from the political phased goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure.”
— Faisal al-Husseini
Al-Arabi, June 24, 2001
“The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent arrangement, based on the premise that the war and struggle on the ground [i.e., locally against Israeli territory] is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land… for the Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the '65 revolution…”
— P.A. Minister of Supply Abd El Aziz Shahian,
Al Ayaam, May 30, 2000.
[The “'65 Revolution” is the founding of the P.L.O.
and the publication of the Palestinian covenant that
calls for the destruction of Israel via an armed struggle.]
**
Great. Now all we need is to be convinced that they have changed their tune and no longer truly wish for the full destruction of Israel. Doesn’t look like it.
**
True
**
You would be right. And their political party (Kach) was officially banned (by that terribly naughty and vicious state) Israel many years ago.
An even bigger dif: The folks who wish to destroy Israel are the primary leaders of the PA. The folks who wish to expel all Palestinians are a fringe group with almost no political power.
**
Who is talking about a demilitarized state? Who would guarantee that it stayed that way? Who do you think you are kidding?
**
They disagree with the extent of support, but by and large are not over Israel’s right to exist and its legitimate right to negotiate rather than capitulate.
**
What about them? They are a tragedy too. If only they had some real leadership they would have had a state long ago and would not be incited and encouraged to kill themselves as suicide bombers in pizza shops and to attack military bases en masse.
**
see above
**
The existence of the state of Israel ends when the right of return of all refugees is enacted.
Arab nations expelled over 800,000 Jews in the wake of the creation of the state, all of whom Israel absorbed. Almost none of the Arab refugees were absorbed into the arab states.
**
Is absolute capitulation the only “realistic” solution from the Palestinian side? Completely ignoring Israel’s right to exist, its legitimate strategic needs, its simple request for true recognition and peace?
**
Quite a misconception. While I do not necessarily agree with the settlement building on political and realistic grounds you fail to realize that it is a bit simplistic and even factually untrue to say that it is contradictory to international law. There is plenty to say on this but here is a start:
Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal.” International law scholar Stephen Schwebel notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.
According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution “allows Israel to administer the territories” it won in 1967 “until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved,” Rostow wrote.
Still in all, I personally question their value politically.
**
Neither the Declaration of Principles of September 13, 1993, nor the Interim Agreement contains any provisions prohibiting or restricting the establishment or expansion of Jewish communities in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. While a clause in the accords prohibits changing the status of the territories, it was intended to ensure only that neither side would take unilateral measures to alter the legal status of the areas (such as annexation or declaration of statehood).
Besides, lets be honest – you don’t want to go there. (Training suicide bombers in Kindergartens and Summer camps, official media incitement, officially sanctioned terrorism, etc…etc…)
TQMshirt,
Your points are all valid if you consider the Jewish state as valid. That suggest that the UN had a right to take the lands from the Palestinians in 1947 and give to the refugees. I don’t believe history started in 1947 so I can’t accept the validity of the Jewish occupation. Any attempts to expel the invaders could be seen as justified by the palestinians. And the terrorist activity in the area was began by the Jewish side under Begin. Remember when he tried to call Arafat a terrorist and everybody laughed and read him his quotes on the validity of terrorist activities. The only reason Israel doesn’t do it now is that they have the might to roll a tank in and blow up a building.
Your point is moot. There are now 4 million Jews in the area. Unless you support genocide of those Jews, or somehow relocating them to another area of the globe (which would create the same problems) then you must support a right to self-determination, especially if it is done in a democratic and free fashion. History before 1947 does not apply, even though most of the Jewish land was bought legally and settled legally and there have been Jews there since Biblical times.
What do you believe the US should support? What do you think the US should do about the 4 million Jews there? Should the US force relocation, or should it just stand idly by while invading forces ethnically cleanse Israel off the planet?
To add to TQMshirt’s defense of Israel:
A few points about the Camp David settlements–
From 1948 to 1967, the Old City of Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. The Jordanians destroyed every synagogue there and erected a donkey stand on the holiest site in Judaism, the Western Wall. Access was denied to Israelis and Jews. As TQM mentioned, control of the Temple Mount was returned to a Muslim Waqf within a week, and access has been guaranteed to Muslims ever since, even during times of war.
Beyond even right of access, many Palestinians feel that Jews have no right to Jerusalem. They practice a nefarious revisionism that denies a Jewish temple in Jerusalem and denies any Jewish link to the land. Many Jewish holy sites in the territories and the Arab world are destroyed or turned into mosques. Witness Joseph’s Tomb, or the oldest synagogue in Jericho. This does not stop with their views on Judaism – they believe Jesus was a prophet, so they have erected a towering mosque in Bethlehem right next door the Church of the Nativity. Christian worshipers have been known to be harrassed.
While Palestinian refugees left Israel during most of the modern wars, the ones who stayed were always afforded full rights of the Israeli state. In many cases, the refugees left because they were told to by their religious leaders, as the invading armies were going to “push the Jews into the sea.” Palestinian refugees have not been absorbed into any of their host countries, and have pushed rebellion in Lebanon and Jordan. They are kept often as a political token by much of the Arab world. Palestinian refugees are not even integrated into Palestinian society – refugee camps still remain without development and amenities. The PA has no intention of absorbing them either – they want to use them as the bargaining chip that they know Israel can’t accept. That has been the case in the last few years, through Camp David and Taba. FTR, the Israeli government offered substantial recompensation for refugees, as well as a right to return for a token number.
Arafat knew the Israeli bottom line at Camp David – Israel could never abide with Palestinian control of access to Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and could never control the reabsorption of 1 million violently anti-Israeli refugees into a country of 5 million. So when Israel offered everything but that, he knew exactly what to ask for. Events of the past year have made it clear that his legitimacy arises only through violent struggle and he does not have the power/leadership/patience to preside over a negotiated settlement. I would be happy to discard this opinion if I saw the Palestinian side move one iota towards peace. I have yet to see that. Arrest some militants, suppress some violence, prevent some terrorism. All Sharon is asking for is 48 hours of absolute quiet. Arafat can’t even guarantee that. Does this say that he doesn’t want 48 hours of absolute quiet or does this say that he can’t force 48 hours of absolute quiet? Either way is very, very bad for Israel.
Right, in other words if we accept that Israel has a right to exist. That Jews have the right to live safely and peacefully in their ancestral homeland as opposed to being condemned to wander the planet eternally oppressed and chased with nowhere to call home. Precisely.
The land was not taken from the Palestinians. They did not govern it, it was Governed by the British who got it from the Ottomans, who got it from…
Moreover, the Jews who you refer to as refugees were actually legitimate residents. They bought land (legally) and owned it (legally) and farmed it (legally). The real clash began when the arabs got tired of Jews moving back to their ancestral homeland. Thats why arabs rioted and massacred Jews starting in the 20s, long before the state of Israel was even a possibility. The grand Mufti of Jerusalem even met with Hitler during the war to plan what to do with all those pesky Jews (once again long before the state existed). Eventually the British tried to step in, but what they did was drastically curb the amount of Jews who could come and looked aside at arab pogroms. In response to this (I dont support this) many Jews turned to political violence. Eventually after the holocaust and all of the craziness, the British decided that they had enough and would get out and give each side a state. Of course we know the rest.**
[/QUOTE]
I dont think history started in 1947 either. Thats why it is obvious why the Jews have the right to a state in their acestral homeland free from oppression and terrorism, or don’t you agree?
Invaders? You seem to have very conveniently forgotten that the West Bank and Gaza was taken in a series of defensive wars which were started by the arabs with the intention of “throwing the Jews into the sea”. Its sort of like saying that the American occupation of Berlin after WWII was illegal and that the Germans had every right to commit terror to “expel the invaders”. Moreover, Israel has offered countless times to find a solution which involved pulling out of almost all captured areas. They were rebuffed because the solution offered didn’t automatically destroy the state of Israel. Israel has long been willing to leave the territories in return for full and real recognition and a commitment that the struggle to destroy it will end. That is the real problem. The Palestinian leadership can’t accept that proposition.
Hogwash, there were arab riots against Jews starting in the 20’s. The Hebron Yeshiva massacre is but one example (1929). Begin’s terrorism (I dont support it) was against the British primarily who tacitly supported and protected the Arab pogroms.
Precisely. Blow up a building. That example itself proves which side is simply trying to defend itself and minimize the damage and which one is fomenting the violence.
TQMshirt,
the building was blown up with people inside, (eating if I remember correctly).
To me its just a muscle form of terrorism.
Your points, on forgetting why they are here and just dealing with it, are valid. It is a difficult issue but I think the discussion should begin with recognizing both side’s rights. It seems that we get to much of “good jew/bad arab” whenever this comes up.
In most cases the buildings were empty long before they were destroyed. Often because the (nasty and vicious) Israelis informed the Palestinians of the impending strike.
In rare cases there were people in the building, but they were specifically targeted because they were terrorist leaders.
As far as seeing the rights of the other side, you are absolutely correct. I agree that something ought to be done to create a fair and equitable solution given the situation and it’s history.
In my view, the Palestinians are victims here too. Not of Israel, but of a corrupt and idiotic Arab leadership who don’t know how to find compromise and who often use the Palestinian refugees as bargaining chips.
You will recall that the Arabs regimes themselves didn’t really love the Palestinians for a good long while. The Jordanians massacred thousands of them in the 70s (in what was known as Black September) because they were seen as a threat to the regime (betcha never heard of that massacre…). Now that they are a convenient fulcrum to destroy Israel and to get them a land and sovereignty where they can’t disturb the other despotic and dictatorial regimes in the region, the arabs are all in support.
If Arafat and/or the arab regimes wanted, they could have had a Palestinian state long ago. Unfortunately for the Palestinian populace, these leaders don’t know how to, or don’t care to find a real solution.
The Palestinian victims should also be pitied (but also stopped if they engage in terrorism).
you come to the same conclusion (along with most of US society) that the arabs are scum. warlike, nomadic, treacherous, and uncompromising. If that is the case then why are we negotiating with them along with Israel? Has any progress been made or the last 50 years. I have no love for Israel or Palestinians. If they want to kill each other off then fine, let them. I just don’t think we should be pouring money into Israel to keep the fight going. If Israel didn’t have the endless supply of money from the US then maybe they would be tempted towards peace.
not thinking straight lately. my first reaction is to just make any problem go away (like the robot of “day the earth stood still”). but I am too weak because of the great number of people on both sides.
A bit. Israel signed peace accords with Egypt which still hold (tenuously) until today. Israel was generally friendly with Jordan throughout the 90s. Etc…
The issue is not that our money “keeps the fight going” it helps to defend a natural ally from myriad of folks who insist on destroying it. Kind of like Taiwan.
If I may be blunt Justin, you seem like a bright fellow but in this area you are significantly ignorant. Until very recently Israeli society strongly supported peace accords, even ones which many politicians saw as suicidal. Before camp David the peace movement controlled about 70% of the Israeli Parliament. The Prime Minister (Barak) was a ‘peacenik’ and there were massive rallies with tens of thousands of Israelis supporting peace accords. That is what spurred Oslo and Camp David. For you to make believe that somehow if we abandon Israel to fend for itself against those who wish to destroy it will advance peace shows you to be quite unrealistic and starkly unfamiliar with the facts in that region.
I wonder why after you have received the education that you have in this thread that you refuse to absorb any of it and continue with your ignorant Israel bashing in the recently created thread on the same topic…
Has the United States ever offered the least encouragement to Yemen’s fledgling experiment in democracy? No, because they go along with Saudi Arabia, who hates Yemen for introducing democracy into the Arabian Peninsula. Which is why American you probably never heard about the democratization of Yemen. Easier to dismiss all Arab countries as inherently incapable of democracy.
Old Chinese saying: “Those who say a thing cannot be done should not get in the way of those who are doing it.”
Or maybe option 3 - that the situation would turn out to be much worse for the Palestinians.
Consider - some 600 Palestinians have been killed over the past year. The Israeli Army easily has the capability to take that many lives in a minute. So why haven’t they? Why haven’t they been emulating, say, the Russians in Chechnya?
Well, for one, we’re still generally decent human beings; some of us also believe that a genuine peace is still possible. But we’re also aware of the fact that the U.S. - our closest friend - is watching over our shoulder,and is acting as a moderating factor. We know that American public opinion would fown upon any… extreme measures we might take, and we’re mindful of the fact that U.S. foreign policy tends to follow U.S. public opinion. So we restrain ourselves, strive towards peace, because it keeps our friend happy, and yes - keeps the dollars flowing in, I won’t deny it. But it’s mostly because we’re accepted as a civilized nation, and we feel obliged to act like one.
But what if we found ourselves alone? Attacked, unsupported, with our backs to the wall? Desperate men do desperate things, things which could have a catastrophic affect upon the people who least expect it. You should not tempt them.
Tell me, have you ever heard of the Samson Option?
Tqmshirt,
I question negotiating with the arabs because they are " scum. warlike, nomadic, treacherous, and uncompromising".
Its like the Klingons, they are not a societal level to negotiate, they only know conquest (victory or defeat).
The endless money question was not cutting off the funds completely but just by about 90% would give Israel enough to survive but not bully. Might make negotiating a lot more effective.
Funny you should mention Tiawan. I was going to open a thread comparing the 2. That one makes less since that Israel to me.
Alessan,
I know Israel has the bomb, I would take the bombs out before you cut the charity to keep their “desperate measures” local