Could you please name me some major Republican figures who’ve pushed for the “annihilation” of the Palestinians?
Can we assume that they do not include either John Sununu or Darryl Issa?
Research the Republicans who hold regular meetings with ultra right-wing Christian conservatives since 2000.
I’m not responsible for anyone’s education. Reality is a bitch and it’s a painful matter to know what’s going on some times.
That’s not really an answer.
If your assertion that a number of major Republicans support the extermination of the Palestinians it should be easy for you to provide evidence of this.
Please name names and provide such evidence.
All Republicans support the right wing Christians who want Israel to annihilate all the Palestinians.
When I say all , I mean all. Come to the US and check it out.
So, then, to be completely clear, since you say that “all Republicans” support Israel “annihilat[ing] all of the Palestinians” you think that John Sununu, who until recently was the Republican Senator from New Hampshire, wants to see the Palestinians annihilated.
Why hasn’t he cut his own throat then since he is Palestinian himself as was his father, the Chief of Staff for the first President Bush.
Similarly, you must think that Rep. Darryl Issa, wants to see the Palestinians annihilated.
Doesn’t that seem like an odd view for someone who’s Lebanese to hold?
Please explain, why Sununu, a Palestinian, wants to see the Palestinians annihilated and also, once more, since you’ve refused to do so twice, give me the names of some major Republican figures who support genocide against the Palestinians.
At this point, you’re making yourself look as foolish as those who feel that Obama or other want to exterminate all Jews by vaguely associating them with various Muslim groups.
So I’ve been lurking around this forum for a while and I wanted to join in on this interesting debate. Being Syrian myself I can clearly see an argument that the Israeli government that is very similar to the Assad regime.
One recurrent argument some are using is that you don’t want a separate Palestinian state for national security and in fear of terrorist reaction. This is exactly what the Syrian regime has been saying to defend itself (Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera).
In my opinion, I think this argument specifically is very anti-democratic and hypocritical.
Perhaps, but a democratically elected government has credibility that an authoritarian one does not- even when it makes undemocratic arguments.
Democratically elected or not, the argument is still void. It’s predicting the worst of a potentially good situation.
Well it’s a legitimate point. If the Alawite minority in Syria allowed free elections tomorrow, they would likely all get slaughtered within a few months.
The reality is that democracy is unworkable in a lot of these countries. The best you can hope for is some degree of rule of law. (Note that even the United States doesn’t give full democratic participation to all people under its jurisdiction.)
My objection to Syria is not so much that it’s undemocratic as that it’s extremely repressive, sponsors terrorism, and tries to pick fights with Israel. For example, the Syrian government apparently executed a popular musician who had written a song against Assad.
The argument is not that the Israelis do not want a seperate Palestinian state. The majority Israeli view was and remains the “two state solution” - that is, statehood for Palestinians at some point. [Though no doubt there are plenty of Israeli right-wing types who merely mouth the notion but who really want the Palestinians to never get their act together sufficiently to become a real state].
The argument is that no seperate Palestinian state can result from the UN “recognition” process. What is necessary first is a credible Palestinian government able to control its own territory and people.
As for being “democratic” - the entity pushing for UN recognition is the PLO, who lost the last democratic election the Palestinains had - the winners were Hamas, who oppose the PLO’s bid for UN recognition. How on earth could it be “democratic” to support this bid?
Its happening right now live. Probably on TV too, or CSPAN, which doesn’t count as real TV
An aside: Why Palestinians have a right to return home
Of course, we’re only talking legal stuff. Rather silly thing to do.
Still, rather in depth article. Interesting, if I may say so myself.
As to what concerns us here: Mahmoud Abbas saluted after Palestine statehood speech at UN
The idea raises a few questions with me. First, do the Arabs who fled Gaza in 1967 (and their descendants) have a right to return there? If so, why isn’t the world making an issue out of this?
Second, does the “right of return” apply to all descendants of anyone who ever left a place voluntarily or involuntarily? If so, then why do Arabs have such a big problem with Jewish immigration to Israel?
Third, does a returning person have a right to compensation for any property which was taken by a country which kicked him out? If so, then why aren’t Arab governments like Iraq offering citizenship and compensation to Jews who were expelled and expropriated in the late 40s?
Fourth, is UN Resolution 194 binding on the Arab countries and if so, why have they not offered compensation to Jews who were expelled in the late 40s as contemplated by Resolution 194?
In short, it seems to me that the “right of return” concept is being applied rather selectively.
Since the Palestinians now appears to be gaining a state, several Danish political parties are saying the Palestinians who have been allowed into Denmark on account of being stateless are no longer stateless and thus can be deported back to Palestine. There’s right to return home for you.
It’s already been announced that the “refugees” will not be offered citizenship in the State of Palestine. As I mentioned before, it’s pretty clear that the only purpose behind this statehood bid is to undermine Israel.
And by the way, I agree with other posters that the “accountability” argument is ridiculous.
Can you explain how?
I get that they’re not ready for statehood, or for allowing refugees back. But what’s so provocative about it?
Yes, I can. When you look at their (meaning the Arabs’) actions and decisions in context over the years, the only reasonable conclusion is that this is their primary focus. I have given examples earlier in this thread.
This magnificently opaque reply gives a whole new meaning to Brazil’s phrase “pretty clear”, don’t you agree?
To a normal person it does seem somewhat irrational to state that one ethnic’s group desire and goal to be recognized as a nation equal to all others, not only in region but in the world is “provocative” as in “asking for trouble” by trying to change things.
One explanation that I can offer comes from my own experience in the early 1990’s in the case of former Yugoslavia and it has to do with the Serb’s perception of themselves in the region for being the only ones worthy of being recognized as a nation. In a post WWII world they summarily subscribed to Russian version of Communism, they took all the leading positions in the Communist Party, Army, Police and Secret Police. Over time they developed and maintained sense of national superiority even using some silly notions such as number of Yugoslav medals at some international competition earned by Serb nationals.
So, when democratic changes swept the region, one of the ways people expressed themselves was the sense of national belonging and with it one of the most significant artifacts - a country of their own. For Slovenians, Croats and Bosnians that was the desire and goal: to enter into relationship with the regional nations and the world on the same footing.
However, Serbs, very early on found that this idea of others having their own country was simply “provocative” and “asking for trouble”. That perception was based on some troubling paradigms-- they were the nation that has developed superiority complex, that does not even begin to recognize other nations (e.g. Bosnians were Islamized Serbs and Croats were Westernized or Pope’s Serbs), they even went so far as to deny that there are other Nations but them, they would alter or revise history to suit their needs, they constantly worked on dehumanizing others, they were always saying that they have powerful friends (Russians, French - which they did!) who will stand with them (which they did!).
But, all that started crumbling. Their ruling elite at the time had no other ideas on how to, for example, establish mutually respectful and equal relationship for the only reason that they simply did not recognize other nations as equal. What was provocative about others is something similar to some White guy in South 60‘s finding the idea of sitting next to an African American “provocative” - it comes only from the feeling of own superiority and evaluation of other as worthless.
So, yeah, you can go ahead and read all the BS thrown around about “security” and “refusal to negotiate” and “terrorism” - it’s all a web of lies attempting to hide the basic and throughout the history of national movements confirmed concept of hegemony and superiority every nation had to fight against.
What I find most entertaining and ridiculous is that somehow, there’s an idea that this particular conflict is so unique it cannot be categorized as anything that ever happened before in history.
I’m skeptical of the claim that Palestinian Arabs are an “ethnic group,” but any way if all they wanted was to have a state just like the Jews have a state, there would be nothing troublesome about it.
Indeed, they were offered a state many times over the years but refused it.
Why did they turn down the UN Partition Plan in 1947? That would have given them a state.
Why didn’t they push for a Palestinian State between 1948 and 1967? At that time the Jews had no control over the West Bank or Gaza.
Why did they turn down statehood offers in the 2000s? That would have given them a state.
Why don’t they offer citizenship to the descendants of Arabs who fled in 1948 just like Israel offered citizenship to Jews at the time? Israelis would be much more supportive of a Palestinian State if they knew it would lead to and end to demands that they accept the refugees.
Why do they insist that Jerusalem must be their capital? They know perfectly well that Jerusalem is very important to Jewish people.
In short, they are not acting like a group of people which seriously wants a state. They are acting like a group of people which wants to stir up trouble.
Probably it’s just the same-old same-old. But offhand, I can’t think of a conflict where the losing side got to make demands and have those demands taken seriously.