| Author | Message | ||
     Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1622 Registered: 10-2004  |
For Wendy and Straw - I think that both of you are extremely sensitive over any criticism of Israel, whether policies or actions. There is no necessity to speak about how foul it is for Palestinians to blow themselves up in shopping centers before making a statement about the incredible destuction that Israel reaks in its effort at revenge in retalliation. Its very similar to a candle and the sun. The two dont even out, and that is by Israeli design. I have not read in any of the above posts any defense of Palistinian aggression, Hamas the PA or really anything that these wretches have done to Israel. In fact I think that condemnation of their acts of violence is the general concensus. What we have not seen is that there is any sympathy for the innocent people that the Israelis are killing and harming in retribution. Israel may or may not stand as a nation, that remains to be seen, but the violence that is occuring can not be helping her in the effort to be a permanent nation. Personally, I think any nation founded on the basis of a religion is bound to fall in the long run. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2689 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hoops, I don't know where to begin to dissect your outrageous post. I'll just say that calling the murders of innocent Israeli citizens (regardless of their religion) an act of "Palestinians blow[ing] themselves up in shopping centers [emphasis added]" is quite telling about your philosophy and politics. You've ably proved my point. Thanks. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2690 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oh and Israel will "stand" long after you and your ancestors are dust. Amen. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1624 Registered: 10-2004 |
Really? I think you need to dissect the post line by line - here I will help you. I think that both of you are extremely sensitive over any criticism of Israel, whether policies or actions. There is no necessity to speak about how foul it is for Palestinians to blow themselves up in shopping centers before making a statement about the incredible destuction that Israel reaks in its effort at revenge in retalliation. As your last post shows, you are very sensitive. So why is it so necessary to say that a Palestinian act of terror is bad before speaking about how Israeli acts of revenge are bad? Its very similar to a candle and the sun. The two dont even out, and that is by Israeli design. Each act of Palestinian terror and murder is met with bombings and bulldozings of the homes of the relatives of that person plus the Palestinian goverment and police buildings. Israel may or may not stand as a nation, that remains to be seen, but the violence that is occuring can not be helping her in the effort to be a permanent nation. Do you have a crystal ball? Do you know whether the violence that is perpetuated by both sides and the malice that is felt with such vitriol as you are professing can be mitigated? Personally, I think any nation founded on the basis of a religion is bound to fall in the long run. You probably didnt like this statement but I cant see how belief in any organized religion helps humankind at all. Please reread my comments. I do not defend nor condone those murders. However you show your true colors yourself since in your prior post you were willing to listen to criticism of Israel only if Palestinians were first pointed to as wrong and now you say your point is proven but really its not. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2691 Registered: 5-2001 |
Not first pointed to just pointed to. That's where you're showing your true colors. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2825 Registered: 6-2002 |
A couple of nights ago my wife asked me what folks were atking about on MOL. I said Art Christensen's B&B and Cindy Sheehan. She said "Who's Cindy Sheehan?" Good question. Five years from now no one will remember her, but 21 years from now the US Government will issue a postage stamp with a picture of Charles Lindberg who made speeches saying the Jews were responsible for getting us into WW11. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2826 Registered: 6-2002 |
I don't think Israel was founded on the basis of a religion. Many of the early founders were completely unreligious, probably even atheists. Of course the religious authorities were given a good deal of power, but even today a majority of the Jews in Israel are not religious. Israel was created by a resolution of the United Nations partitioning Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The antecedent for that act was the Balfour Declaration by Great Britain which was given a Mandate over the area by the League of Nations after WW1. Prior to WW1 the area was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Arab Nations refused to accept the UN action and invaded Israel. That War created the refugees. So why isn't the key to peace the Arab recognition of Israel as a legitimate permanent State in the region? Once that happens they can all work on the refugee problem. After all since the end of WW11 there have been other massive refugee problems which have been settled. Now back to "the Left", Israel and Cindy Sheehan. If Cindy Sheehan and Pat Buchanan have the same position on Iraq, and may have the same position on Israel, why is she "Left" and he "Right"? What is Ms. Sheehan's position on immigration? Abortion? Raising the minimum wage? There seems to be a perception or implication that "The Left" opposes Israel. Almost all Jews in America strongly support Israel. The great majority of Jews in America support the Democratic Party and "liberal" domestic policies. Is there an inconsistency? I don't think so. Someone above said that Israel was founded on the basis of a religion. Considering the predominence of Kibbutzim (collective farms) in Israel at the time of its founding and the politics of many of its founders perhaps it was founded on the basis of socialism as much as religious Judaism. Are there anti-semites who oppose Bush's Iraq policy and blame it on the Jews? Of course. And I have no doubt that there are anti-semites who support Bush on the War and think that the opposition to Bush is a conspiracy led by Barabara Streisand and "the Hollywood Jews". | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 671 Registered: 1-2006 |
Don't forget the San Remo Conference of 1920, when the League of Nations mandate for Palestine was given to Britain. Article 6 "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land,...." When the UN was created its charter specifically preserved the existing mandates of the League. 1947, UN Resolution 181 recommends partition of Palestine. This resolution could not vest territorial rights in anyone, as no act of the UN General Assembly can do so. 1947 -49 war, and Israel survived effort to exterminate it. Jordan claimed to have annexed the West Bank, only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan's sovereignty between 1949 and 1967. After the 1967 war, Israel did control West Bank. But, it could not be an occupier because no State, including Jordan, had internationally recognized sovereignty over it at the time. Since it was a defensive war after Egypt closed Straits of Tiran, and Jordan attacked, Israel had and has best recognizable title to territory. Just a little history up until June 1967. jd | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4445 Registered: 12-2001  |
Too bad the Arabs were never really consulted in all of this. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs expected to be decently treated by the European powers but this didn't happen. All of the justifications for the State of Israel leave out the Arabs. The Arabs, unlike Native Americans for Australian Aborigines, are not being completely overwhelmed by the colonizers. As I can think of no colonial enterprise that endured where the indigenous population is the larger, I have a bit of trouble understanding why Israel's prospects for the future are anything but grim. Naturally, it would make sense for everybody to just make the best of it now and prosper together. Unfortunately, H. sapiens has a tradition of resorting to sensible options after thoroughly exhausting all others. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 931 Registered: 4-2006 |
Paul- I think your attempt at analogy has some serious difficulties. The only correct analogy with Sheehan's statement would be if Israelis would claim that they fought a war for the Christians, that was against the interest of Israel, due to the actions of Christians living in Israel. You might then raise the issue about whether the Israelis were anti-christian. My questions about Sheehan center on her usenet post that the U.S. went to war for Israel, not her comment about american foreign policy being too favorable to Israel (that is a secondary and telling point however to the first comment). The logical intellectual progression of the usenet statement,( not apparently refuted on Anderson Cooper) is that: The USA went to war for Israel. In the case of "Israel" read the "Jews". The war is against the interests of the American people, hence the interests of Israel (again read the "Jews")is being put before that of Americans. The inference is that this is also the handiwork of American Jews who are neo-cons. Follow with, American soldiers are therefore dying for Israel, (again read the "Jews"). Pretty dangerous demagoguery, at a minimum, that encourages hate by a peace-nik, don't you think? We are fighting a war just for the Jews, and our soldiers are dying just for the Jews? Hmmm...sounds.... philosemetic to you? Now Paul lets take some other things. Sheehan claims her son died for oil.If so, why are you bringing American support for Israel into the mix? As if ending the "occupation" would have made Saddam Hussein disarm wmd if he had them. Additionally what about her association with a group that has an unbalanced approach to securing peace in the conflict and supports the Palestinian cause unreservedly? Israel is a democratic nation whose residents can disagree with their OWN government policy. Sheehan's statement is a completely different animal. Plus Sheehan is not a citizen of Israel. Although THAT would be very amusing. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 932 Registered: 4-2006 |
Excellent article today in The New York Post by Victor Davis Hanson on the dislike and double-standard applied to Israel, captioned " A Hatred Beyond Reason". Since I can't find it on the Post online to link it, some tidbits: "... Israel is always seen as a special exception that somehow deserves what it gets. Other states can retaliate with impunity, brutally killing thousands of Muslim terrorists when Israel is condemned when it takes out a few dozen. When in late 1999 Russians stormed Grozny thousands of Chechnya Muslims died. Yet the press was largely silent. Baathist Syria went after the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982, wiping out much of the city of Hama and killing perhaps more than 10,000. Not many U.N. resolutions or international refugeee efforts there. To this day no one knows the horrific body count from the islamic insurrection in Algeria. Darfur finally earns ocasional airtime, but only after tens of thousands have perished."} More Hanson: "Israel's border fence is referred to as a "Berlin Wall" but you never hear Egypt's nearby massive concrete barrier to keep Palestinians in Gaza described that way". and " The old anti-semitism is, of course, another ingredient. Even sensitive multi-cultural Westerners care little that their Arab "allies" portray Jews as "pigs" and "apes" in their state-run media. Odious tracts like "Mein Kamf" still sell briskly in Palestine, and Iranian and Gulf money subsidizes a mini-industry of Holocaust denial." Yes the Real truth is out there ladies and gentlemen. You just have to look for it. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 964 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes the Real truth is out there ladies and gentlemen. You just have to look for it. I thought you said this was from the Post. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 933 Registered: 4-2006 |
Madden 11- Jayson Blair didn't write it. So sorry.  | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 640 Registered: 2-2003 |
Wendy, Your comment: is reasonable but has nothing to do with the accusation by FactvsFiction, who started this discussion with (my bold) There is no lengthy barrage of criticism cited here, not even a complete sentence of criticism. I believe that Palestinian terrorism against Israel (which often kills and mutilates Israeli Arabs as well as Jews) is not only inhuman and immoral, but also a factor in why Israel continues its occupation. So in my view, anyone who opposes the occupation needs to also oppose Palestinian terrorism, for political reasons, as well as on the grounds of fundamental human morality. However, to attack someone as being anti-semitic because they have tersely expressed opposition to the Israeli Government's policy of occupation without making reference to Palestinian terrorism is merely to engage in the same kind of demagoguery as those who attack critics of President Bush's occupation of Iraq as anti-American. Both are ploys to smear and demonize one's opponent and shut off real debate to avoid the kind of "lengthy" discussion that you mention. I think my example of the Gaza settlers who engaged in the most vile verbal abuse of the Israeli Government and soldiers is a case in point that proves that criticism of the Israeli Government -- no matter how strident -- does not constitute a case for anti-semitism. Cindy Sheehan's criticism of the Israeli Government pales in comparison with that of the Gaza settlers. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12076 Registered: 5-2001 |
The basic situation is that the Israeli strategy isn't working which isn't surprising because massive retaliation didn't work for the Japanese or the Nazis either in World War II. Sharon, love him or hate him, at least had the guts to try a unilateral withdrawal behind a massive wall. Unfortunately, without his leadership this isn't working either. Depending on who wrote the history book it is unclear if the Palestinians lving in the new state of Israel were driven out or fled for their own safety. However, the vast majority of them were not allowed to return, al though the spin is they preferred the relocation camps, which personally I rather doubt. This may be why Israel gets more flack than other countries for their actions, although I wouldn't discount some anti-semitism and maybe a reaction to the unilateral nature of much of what Israel does. Unless reasonable people (if there are any in that part of the world) find a solution, Israel isn't going to survive to see it centennial. Sooner or later the Arabs are going to get their act together and put together a coalition, possibly under UN auspices (although as presently structured we would probably veto it in the Security Council), to reclaim Israel. Sad, but probably true. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15271 Registered: 10-2001  |
Please get new batteries for your crystal ball or upgrade the firmware. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7498 Registered: 10-2001 |
The water must be tainted in West Orange or someone stole Bobk's password. Israel will survive and they will do so at any cost. That is what the state of Israel is all about. Never Forget. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3484 Registered: 9-2001  |
BobK: Even if one assumes that the Israelis kicked out the Palestinians (which is not true--as you say, it is a very complex situation), that does not give the Palestinians a right of return--any more than it does to Native Americans taking back most of the United States, or African Americans returning to Africa to reclaim ancient ancestral lands, or any other ethnic group one can think of which has been dispossessed of its lands. The proper form of historical redress is not to now dispossess Israelis, or to overwhelm the only democracy in the region with a flood of openly hostile voters (which would accomplish the same effect). The State of Israel was formed by colonial powers for complex historical and political reasons, much as Iraq, India, most of Africa, and many other formerly colonized countries were formed. It has as valid a right to self-definition and self-determination as any other such nation-states. I believe that there are many solutions short of the right of return that would be feasible and stable for solving the dispute between Israel and Palestine, and the Geneva Accord (negotiated between prominent Palestinians and Israelis) shows that this can be achieved if reasonable people on both sides prevail. Zbignew Brzinsky (sp?) has an interesting four-step model for getting us out of Iraq that would also apply to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, involving a coalition of regional states and a donor convention from the rest of the world. There are lots of possible ways out of this mess if anyone is willing. Bob, you point to one major fly in the ointment--other Arab nations, who stoke the hatred of radical Palestinians and supply them with money and arms as a way of distracting their own populations from the venality and corruption in their own countries. One has to recognize that recently all the peace initiatives and concessions have been made by Israel, with not a single positive or proactive response from any of the Arab nations, including Palestine. You may see the pullout from Gaza as cynical (no real value there and hard to defend) and the unilateral declaration of borders as hostile, but it was the most substantial movement by either side in a long time, and it is a fact-on-the-ground, and not empty rhetoric. The response has been katushas and tunnels. Where are the Palestinian statesmen with big ideas and broad visions beyond constant warfare? | ||
| Illuminated Radish Citizen Username: Umoja Post Number: 14 Registered: 6-2006 |
In the ideal free-market, democratic middle east that everyone wants, Israel won't be the same place. If Israel is truly secular, and truly democratic, won't foreigners eventually change the demographics? It's even happening in America now, whites aren't the majority of the population anymore (at least if you're talking about culturally white as opposed to racially white.). | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 966 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jayson Blair didn't write it. True enough. At the Times, you actually get fired for lying. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7501 Registered: 10-2001 |
or hired in the first place. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4447 Registered: 12-2001 |
"Israel will survive and they will do so at any cost." Not really. At some point, the cost is MAD. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7502 Registered: 10-2001 |
fine by me. 1,000 dead islamic radicals is better than 1 dead Israeli in my book. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12077 Registered: 5-2001 |
Eats, I agree with most of what you say. However, comparing Native Americans and Palestinians are two different things. First, in present day America, Native Americans can live and vote anywhere they want. They can also bring suit in Federal courts on everything from recovering lands (not very succesful) to hunting and fishing rights (more succesful) to gambling on their reservations. The situation for Palestinians is much different. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 672 Registered: 1-2006 |
Palestine is not a nation. jd | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3486 Registered: 9-2001 |
But it should be. Just not in place of the State of Israel. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3528 Registered: 5-2004  |
Bob, how many decades (centuries?) did it take for Native Americans to gain the rights that you indicate? It was long after the violence between them and the European conquerors ended. Generations had passed, so those professing violence had an opportunity to mellow or die out. Besides, while Native Americans have sovereignty on their land, they are not separate nations. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4448 Registered: 12-2001 |
Native Americans are in the unfortunate class of colonized peoples who were overwhelmed and decimated by the colonizers. The indigenous residents of Palestine are not. There is no comparison between Native Americans and the Palestinians. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12080 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, the Native Americans probably would have held out longer if they adopted guerrilla tactics, instead of fighting the US Army in pitched battles. When they tried (read James Fenimore Cooper) they put the fear of God in the settlers in Western New York.  | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 968 Registered: 12-2003 |
or hired in the first place. Swing and a miss. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7506 Registered: 10-2001 |
No one knows that feeling better than you.. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 673 Registered: 1-2006 |
The "indigenous natives" means what? As to the so-called Palestinians, please read From Time Immemorial, to learn how the UN changed its definition for a "people" to permit the "Palestinians" to come into existence. The book is about 20 years old. jd | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4449 Registered: 12-2001 |
Joel, Should I read that book at the same time as I study how the U.N. shifted from being Western World dominated body to one where the rest of the world participated. The situation would be rather different today if the Arab states had been treated as equal under the law by the European powers from 1919 onwards. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 969 Registered: 12-2003 |
No one knows that feeling better than you. Oh, I can think of at least one person who does. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7509 Registered: 10-2001 |
your mother?  | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 641 Registered: 2-2003 |
My take on the relationship of the Right of Return for Palestinians and the status of Native Americans -- On a Sunday last October I was tabling in front of Kings for South Mountain Peace Action's upcoming "Israelis and Palestinians for Peace" meeting which took place on 11-07-05. I was approached by a guy who I didn't know and who I've never seen since. He asked me if I supported the Right of Return for Palestinians and I said I supported the position of the two groups who would be featured at our meeting -- The American Task Force on Palestine (a Palestinian-American group) and Americans for Peace Now (a Jewish-American group). I explained that their position was that the Right of Return (the right of refugees and their descendants to return to their homes) is a human right guaranteed by international law but that the application of the law depends on the specific circumstances in question. In the case of the Palestinians a fair resolution would be (1) providing financial reparations for Palestinians who lost land and property in 1948 and (2) giving all Palestinian refugees the right to return to the Palestinian state that would be created on the West Bank and Gaza. The stranger (who did not appear to be of Middle Eastern descent) got very agitated and started cursing at me, calling my a f--ing racist and a f--ing zionist pig. I politely asked if he was actively advocating for the Right of Return of descendants of Native Americans who lived on lands now "occupied" by others. I asked if he was a homeowner (he was) and whether he was actively trying to locate the descendants of the original Native Americans who lived their so he could return the land to them. And I said if he wasn't, his call for the Right of Return of Palestian refugees and their descendants was hypocritical. We went back and forth a few times on this theme, he got even angrier until his wife had to pull him away. One of the few unpleasant encounters I've ever had on the sidewalks of Maplewood center. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4450 Registered: 12-2001 |
Between 400,000 and 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled 1948 Israel during the first war. I find it interesting that if these Arabs had remained in place, Israel would not today be majority Jewish. In 1922 the population of British-administered Palestine consisted of approximately 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews, 71,500 Christians and 7,600 others. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 937 Registered: 4-2006 |
tjohn- An equivalent number of Jews from Arab countries had to flee to Israel. Their property, businesses, and personal goods were taken. No one has ever compensated them. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7510 Registered: 10-2001 |
Paul, I'm sorry to hear about the confrontation. I guess it comes with the territory from time to time. Keep your chin up and keep fighting your fight. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 938 Registered: 4-2006 |
Paul- I find it kinda Freudian that in discussing Sheehan you keep on going back to Iraq and critics of the Iraq war. As if opposition to the Iraq war is being attacked if Sheehan is questioned in any way. Can't you view Sheehan's comments and the inferences in a manner divorced from Iraq and your politics? Let's try this one out: Shouldn't you be praising Pat Buchanan too? Supporting him, even? |
