NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 1:18 pm

I've been watching Israel ruin itself by its unreasonably-aggressive tactics ever since 1956. But I've never doubted that, sooner or later, a US President would call their bluff and say, "Enough is enough - get in line....!"

Looks like it's finally happening:-

"US President Barack Obama has drawn a line on Israeli settlement expansion before he meets today with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas as part of his urgent quest to revive peace talks.

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Obama made it clear, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited here last week, that he wants “no natural growth exceptions” to his call for a settlement freeze.

"The remarks - which a former US official called “almost unprecedented” in toughness toward ally Israel - amounted to another challenge to Netanyahu, who has already balked at Obama's call for a Palestinian state."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...tory/0,25197,25550664-2703,00.html

Must admit to being vastly relieved; and lost in admiration for Obama's courage. Not only will this 'tough line' restore the reputation of the United States for 'fair dealing' - it will vastly improve prospects for world peace and an end to terrorism.

And, in addition, I'm convinced that it is the very best thing that could happen for the people of Israel, too. They simply cannot hope to enjoy any real 'quality of life' if they remain in a constant 'state of war' with all their neighbours.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 1:28 pm

Of course it remains to be seen how consistent this position will be in practice, but it does indeed look like a long overdue decision.

In some ways it could actually strengthen Netanyahu's position opposite his fanatical coalition partners, even though he himself would probably prefer to maintain the old course.

But as far as I know the settlements of religious fanatics are basically financed by US aid. Especially now in the difficult economic environment they are an economic luxury causing severe and far-reaching political, security and human rights problems on top.

Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaida have been drawing a lot of energy from the settlements and the accompanying policies. Nothing would satisfy me more than seeing their political resources dwindling and drying out (as well as the nutcase settlers being forced to face reality).
 
IgneousRocks
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:06 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 1:35 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter):
Must admit to being vastly relieved; and lost in admiration for Obama's courage. Not only will this 'tough line' restore the reputation of the United States for 'fair dealing' - it will vastly improve prospects for world peace and an end to terrorism.

Yea, the North Koreans - on seeing this potential 'development' have decided to disarm. What about a tough line on the Palestinian thugs? Even with their own 'state' terrorism will still be bred in this particular middle east hot spot.

Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter):
They simply cannot hope to enjoy any real 'quality of life' if they remain in a constant 'state of war' with all their neighbours.

Well, it's their neighbor who is/was lobbing rockets - unprovoked - into Israel, not vice-versa.
I can take your igneous rocks or leave 'em. I relate primarily to micas, quartz, feldspar.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 1:39 pm

You're entitled to your opinion, IgneousRocks. Maybe we can just 'agree to differ'?  Smile
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
offloaded
Posts: 900
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:56 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 1:50 pm



Quoting IgneousRocks (Reply 2):
Well, it's their neighbor who is/was lobbing rockets - unprovoked - into Israel, not vice-versa

This is true, but you've got to start somewhere. Or restart for the umpteenth time. Who did what and to whom and when is what's kept this conflict going for the last 60 years.
To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 2:55 pm



Quoting IgneousRocks (Reply 2):
Well, it's their neighbor who is/was lobbing rockets - unprovoked - into Israel, not vice-versa.

Some might consider the occupation of your territory by a foreign power provocation enough, not to mention other aspects of Israel's poor treatment of the Palestinians.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 3:15 pm

Or then again a plague on both houses and the bystanders??

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086355.html
Over the years, Washington and the world have coddled both Israel and the Palestinians, whose behavior has come to resemble that of spoiled children.
.....
As with parents who become more and more indulgent the more clueless they realize they actually are - and the more out of control their kids get - Washington and the world have allowed Israel and the Palestinians both to run off the rails in whatever direction they happen to see fit at the moment.

Why? For the same reason that bad parents spoil their children:

They're afraid of them.
......
The result, for Israel, has been an unaddressed clash with its own future, as the number of Arabs living in Israel and the West Bank continues to rise, and Gaza continues to seethe, with no solution remotely in sight.

The consequence, for Palestinians, has been the self-immolation of their movement for independent statehood, and, in blaming the occupation for all ills, an acquired, abject incapability to alter for the better a tragic present.


A good article, nothing new, but an elegant summary.

I suspect that Israel has lost the chance for two states and will have to figure how to be in a minority and resist the pressure for majority government. You would think the fear of that would get it to make haste on other solutions, but nothing much so far????

And the article ends with:
[i]With the perspective of the spoiled child, Ben-Artzi continued that at a time when there was a new Hitler in Tehran, threatening to annihilate the Jews, all the questions of an Israeli-Palestinian peace, two-states, settlements, Jerusalem and the like, should be put aside altogether as "nonsense."

"When you've got cancer," he said, "you don't bother yourself with a scratch on the foot."

And what of Israel's crucial ally, Washington? According to Ben-Artzi, Israel should feel free to attack Iran on its own, even if America is against it. "After the big war with Iran, we'll talk."[i/]

When would after the big war be? Around 2050?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 3:52 pm



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 5):

Some might consider the occupation of your territory by a foreign power provocation enough, not to mention other aspects of Israel's poor treatment of the Palestinians.

Yup. I agree. As a Jew, I find the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to be...well... not much better than our own care as guests of the Nazis. Ethnic Ghettos, firing rockets into them, making them live in the middle ages while Jews live in the 21st century... No wonder the Palestinians have a lot of angry young men who are ready to suicide bomb the Israelis. The only thing the Israelis are neglecting to do at this point is ship them into concentration camps.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
BA
Posts: 10133
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 6:48 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
The only thing the Israelis are neglecting to do at this point is ship them into concentration camps.

Gaza by itself is one big concentration camp.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 8:59 pm



Quoting BA (Reply 8):

Gaza by itself is one big concentration camp.

No, it's a ghetto. A concentration camp is a constructed facility where people are forcibly placed and imprisoned. Let's not fall to hyperbole.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 10:40 pm



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 5):
Some might consider the occupation of your territory by a foreign power provocation enough, not to mention other aspects of Israel's poor treatment of the Palestinians.

Israel still occupies Gaza? You must have been asleep for the Summer of 2005.

Quoting BA (Reply 8):
Gaza by itself is one big concentration camp.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
As a Jew, I find the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to be...well... not much better than our own care as guests of the Nazis.

Right. Because Israel is systematically exterminating Palestinians, right? Millions of Muslims have been killed by Israel, right? Oh, that's right, millions of Muslims have been killed by...oh, wait, Muslims! But that too must be Israel's fault...

On a side note, I never understand when gays don't support Israel--try going to Palestinian areas with your boyfriends DocLightning and Yellowstone.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10889
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 10:43 pm



Quoting IgneousRocks (Reply 2):
Yea, the North Koreans - on seeing this potential 'development' have decided to disarm. What about a tough line on the Palestinian thugs? Even with their own 'state' terrorism will still be bred in this particular middle east hot spot.

Yea really not to mention that Abbas is a joke, he is not calling the shots and his presidency is a joke.

Who is going to help with Hamas?


More fluff and empty rhetoric by Obama.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 11:12 pm



Quoting RJpieces (Reply 10):
On a side note, I never understand when gays don't support Israel--try going to Palestinian areas with your boyfriends DocLightning and Yellowstone.

That's false advertising.

Recent attempts to hold a gay pride parade in Jerusalem were quashed by a thoroughly unholy alliance of jewish, islamic and christian clerics alike who all advocated - and got - continued discrimination.  yuck 
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 11:33 pm



Quoting RJpieces (Reply 10):

Right. Because Israel is systematically exterminating Palestinians, right? Millions of Muslims have been killed by Israel, right? Oh, that's right, millions of Muslims have been killed by...oh, wait, Muslims! But that too must be Israel's fault...

Actually, Israel has killed many Palestinians. The situation is complicated, including children caught in crossfire, innocent families who happened to be living near launch sites used by terrorists, etc. However, Israel has launched rockets into Palestinian areas that are occupied by civilians.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 10):

On a side note, I never understand when gays don't support Israel--try going to Palestinian areas with your boyfriends DocLightning and Yellowstone.

I wouldn't try it. However, the fact that their culture is not accepting of gays doesn't mean that I should support Israel's behavior. If a gay group tried to bomb the Mormon Temple, I wouldn't support that, either.

The Holocaust was over half a century ago. It was horrible, but that is not justification to engage in the same behaviors against our own enemies.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Thu May 28, 2009 11:44 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The Holocaust was over half a century ago. It was horrible, but that is not justification to engage in the same behaviors against our own enemies.

I suspect that it's in some way psychologically related to abused people often become abusive themselves, basically the expulsion and the cruelty towards the people living in Palestine being an echo of the Holocaust, with the palestinian terrorism being a secondary echo yet again.

These things don't just stop by themselves, they fester and propagate like an infectious disease if they aren't countered by something more enlightened than violence.
 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Posts: 2924
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 12:10 am

For all the diplomatic mumbling of a "special relationship" between the United States and Israel, it's clear to me that there's nothing really special about the U.S. support for the Israeli government or rejection of Palestinian rights. American policymakers are not really concerned about peace. Instead, the primary aim of U.S. policy in the Middle East has been the U.S. dominance over the region and its OIL resources for the past 60 years, through support for abusive regimes in several ME nations that play our game and support the ever-increasing U.S. military presence, and buy our high-tech weapons.

But U.S. policy is simply NOT driven by unquestioned support for Israel. Any real lasting peace requires ditching this historical rhetoric to face the reality of U.S. overall MIddle East policy. The centerpiece of every U.S. administration since Eisenhower has been that the OIL resources of the region do not truly belong to the people of the region, but instead exist for the economic benefit of United States.

It is not simply a question of who owns the oil, but who controls oil resources and oil profits. Even if the United States were energy self-sufficient, the U.S. would seek to dominate the Middle East to keep its leverage over the economies of our primary competitors (Western Europe and Japan), which are becoming more and more dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

[Edited 2009-05-28 17:12:29]
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
 
User avatar
n229nw
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 2:16 am



Quoting RJpieces (Reply 10):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
As a Jew, I find the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to be...well... not much better than our own care as guests of the Nazis.

Right. Because Israel is systematically exterminating Palestinians, right? Millions of Muslims have been killed by Israel, right?

Whereas Israel comparing Iran to "another Hitler" (which they've tried to do multiple times and now are using it to totally sabotage any discussion of the settlements or even a two-state solution) is totally a proper analogy, right RJPieces?  sarcastic  Because Iran is systematically exterminating Jews, right? Oh, wait. They aren't even killing the Jews who live in Tehran. So much for that.

Look. Can't BOTH SIDES stop with the Holocaust analogies? They don't do anything for anyone's arguments, because they make it so easy to poke holes in the comparison.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything DocLightning has written on this thread.

I hope that the Obama administration sticks to its guns and finally plays honest broker here.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 11):
Yea really not to mention that Abbas is a joke

Sadly, Abbas had (has) the potential to be one of the best leaders the Palestinians have had. It is just that Israel and the US have done everything possible to castrate him by making impossible demands on him without acknowledging his own needs and demands so that he cannot control the splinter groups without appearing as a traitor and Hamas gains power.
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
 
User avatar
SOBHI51
Posts: 3715
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 1:32 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 3:19 am



Quoting RJpieces (Reply 10):
Millions of Muslims have been killed by Israel, right? Oh, that's right, millions of Muslims have been killed by...oh, wait, Muslims

Where did you get those numbers from?
I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 3:28 am



Quoting RJpieces (Reply 10):
Millions of Muslims have been killed by Israel, right? Oh, that's right, millions of Muslims have been killed by...oh, wait, Muslims!

What the heck do generic Muslims have to do with this? If you want to make a relevant comparison, you should look at the number of Palestinians killed by Israel.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 3:43 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 12):
That's false advertising.

Recent attempts to hold a gay pride parade in Jerusalem were quashed by a thoroughly unholy alliance of jewish, islamic and christian clerics alike who all advocated - and got - continued discrimination. yuck

Yes, and in Palestine, gays who publicly reveal themselves are killed. Which is pretty much the same thing, right Klaus?  Yeah sure

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The Holocaust was over half a century ago. It was horrible, but that is not justification to engage in the same behaviors against our own enemies.


And right now Iran has a President who literally denies the Holocaust and talks of "eliminating" Israel repeatedly while pursuing a nuclear bomb. And to equate Israel's legitimate right to self-defense (since it's civilians were repeatedly and DELIBERATELY targeted for death with suicide bombers aboard buses) to the Holocaust is absolutely disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself for asserting it. I'm not the least bit surprised to see you're from San Francisco, probably Berkeley right? What you just said passes for "intellect" there.

Which again is ironic because Israel has the most lively gay culture in the Middle East by far (and I have gay friends who would happily tell you the same thing). I dare you to proudly proclaim you're gay in the West Bank. See where that gets you.

Even though I often disagree with you Doc, I do have a lot of respect for you. But if you continue to assert that Israel's legitimate right to self defense and the actions it takes to do so is akin to the Holocaust, I can't respect that at all. Lame. Try putting down that piece of shit Noam Chomsky book and read an actual history book about the conflict.  Yeah sure  Yeah sure  Yeah sure
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 3:48 am

Some interesting further information in this Haaretz article:-

"Earlier Wednesday, an Israeli official said that the American administration shows no signs of backing down from its demands that Israel totally freeze settlement growth in the West Bank and open the Gaza border terminals to allow the rebuilding of the Strip.

"These conclusions were drawn from talks held in London on Tuesday by Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor and advisers to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with American diplomats, led by U.S. special envoy George Mitchell.

"According to the official, the Israeli side claimed in the talks that construction in settlements must be allowed to continue, due to natural growth. They suggested construction be limited to the existing outlines of the settlements, and to define in advance areas in which such construction will be authorized. They also said the demand of Israel to completely freeze the settlement construction was out of order, as the Palestinians have failed to fulfill their part in the first phase of the road map, in particular in combating terrorism.

"The American side did not agree to the Israeli suggestions, and in addition to the settlement issue, repeatedly brought up the matter of opening the Gaza terminals to aid and construction materials necessary for rebuilding the Strip."


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088799.html

I personally find the use of the word 'demands - 'The American administration........demands that Israel totally freeze settlement growth in the West Bank and open the Gaza border terminals......' most refreshing. Leaves Israel with no wriggle room at all. George Mitchell is an old hand at negotiating with Israel, he's suffered the runaround before...........

[Edited 2009-05-28 20:48:46]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 4:52 am



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 19):
Even though I often disagree with you Doc, I do have a lot of respect for you. But if you continue to assert that Israel's legitimate right to self defense and the actions it takes to do so is akin to the Holocaust, I can't respect that at all.

I do wish folk would stop making wild assertions about what not even the 2ic in Iran says or more commonly does not say.

1. If you can work out that he denies the Holocaust you must be really good at reading tealeaves. What he does seem to say is that the events associated with the late and unlamented regime in the 3rd Reich have been used to leverage advantage in Palestine and elsewhere.

2. He thinks that Israel should never have been planted in the midst of Palestine. He does not say that Israel should be wiped off the map, with or without a face. He argues that Israel should not have been placed there and says he thinks it cannot survive. This last is quite interesting as it starts to converge on what you can read in many comments about the Palestinian problem that if Israel does not rapidly accept a two state solution (more or less the subject of this thread) it will end up with a one state solution and Jews will form a minority in that state. Only other options are a pogrom worth of Adolf or lesser rights for the majority.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?

An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad .


Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?
The POPULAR VIEW:

iTo raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.

What he actually said and some comment:
"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
(source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)

It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein's dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.

Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy.

This is one chapter of the war against Iran that has already begun with the words of Georg Meggle, professor of philosophy at the university of Leipzig - namely with the probably most important phase, the phase of propaganda.

Marginally we want to mention that it was the former US Vice-Minister of Defence and current President of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz, who in Sept. 2001 talked about ending states in public and without any kind of awe. And it was the father of George W. Bush who started the discussion about a winnable nuclear war if only the survival of an elite is assured.


And what of the holocaust?

Does Iran's President deny the Holocaust?

"The German government condemned the repetitive offending anti-Israel statements by Ahmadinejad to be shocking. Such behaviour is not tolerable, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated. [...] Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed Ahmadinejad's statements to be 'inconceivable'" (published by tagesschau.de 2005-12-14.

But not only the German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and the Federal Chancellor Merkel allege this, but the Bild-Zeitung, tagesschau.de, parts of the peace movement, US-President George W. Bush, the 'Papers for German and international politics', CNN, the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, almost the entire world does so, too: Iran's President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust.


And the meaning of what he actually says?

[i]There again we find the quotation already rendered by n24: "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth." We can see that this is completely different from what is published by e.g. the DPA - the massacre against the Jews is a fairy-tale. What Ahmadinejad does is not denying the Holocaust. No! It is dealing out criticism against the mendacity of the imperialistic powers who use the Holocaust to muzzle critical voices and to achieve advantages concerning the legitimization of a planned war. This is criticism against the exploitation of the Holocaust.

CNN (2005-12-15) renders as follows: "If you have burned the Jews why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

The Washingtonian ''Middle East Media Research Institute' (MEMRI) renders Ahmadinejad's statements from 2005-12-14 as follows: "...we ask you: if you indeed committed this great crime, why should the oppressed people of Palestine be punished for it? * [...] If you committed a crime, you yourselves should pay for it. Our offer was and remains as follows: If you committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at their disposal - a piece of Europe, of America, of Canada, or of Alaska - so they can establish their own state. Rest assured that if you do so, the Iranian people will voice no objection."[i/]

Basically he is saying there is a myth about the holocaust and that is that "If you have burned the Jews" that is no reason to take out one crime with another on Palestinians.

For gods sake, Ahmadinejad is a horrible and obviously rather mad person. Why do so many feel it necessary to distort what he says just because he does it in language that is strange to us in the west. He usually speaks in Farsi.

I think Ahmadinejad is bad for Iran and for the world, but those who traduce what he says are worse.

In any case what he says is of little import as he is not in charge.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 5:39 am



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 21):
But Nav20 is nothing less than an anti-Semite and I think this is something you should be aware of.

As you apparently do not know the difference between Zionism and being Jewish you might find this a help.

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/holocaust-zionism.htm

From its' inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis.

There is a view that Zionism iteslf bears some blame:

It is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:
a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and
b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and
c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid
This response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.


As to Nav being anti semitic, I have read a number of posts where he has written well of many Arabs. As he has of Jews, just not so much of Zionists. Just as I don't recall him writing well of Ayman al-Zawahiri.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 8:25 am



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 19):
And to equate Israel's legitimate right to self-defense (since it's civilians were repeatedly and DELIBERATELY targeted for death with suicide bombers aboard buses) to the Holocaust is absolutely disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself for asserting it.

The mere fact that the state of Israel was established under duress and involved the displacement of an existing population - and as a result continues to generate regional and global repercussions is NOT in dispute and is a perfectly balanced view for any reasonable individual to have. Whether or not it was the right thing to do is where the debate starts and there are obviously many views on the subject.

But nobody should be ashamed of anything unless their assertion is along the lines of either A) All Palestinians should be eliminated or B) All Israelis should be eliminated.

The Holocaust reference is apt given the stark irony between going from living in a ghetto to keeping neighboring citizens in one for want of security - and not only myself, but many other Jews think so.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 11:02 am

I lost what sympathy I had for the Palestinians in 2005 when Israel finally did what they were asked to (at least the first step) in handing back Gaza. The Palestinians responded by electing Hamas and using their new-found property to set up rocket launchers.

After that happened, I cannot blame Israel for not being so eager to give them back any more land.

That said, I agree that the settlements need to stop.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 11:42 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32):
That said, I agree that the settlements need to stop.

That seems to be the one sticking point all reasonable people agree on regardless of what ultraZionist bumbleheads in certain sectors of the Knesset seem to think.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 1:13 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 33):
That seems to be the one sticking point all reasonable people agree on

Agree. There are other issues, though, as to how much of Palestine has in fact been 'handed back.' We all know that Gaza is completely cut off from the outside world by Israeli control of the border with Egypt. It's not as commonly known that the Palestinian Authority' only has a measure of control of the townships. Palestinians can't travel even between West Bank towns without going through Israeli military checkpoints - nor can they cross into Jordan, or Syria, or Lebanon, except on the same terms. And they certainly can't travel to Gaza, nor can the Gazans travel the other way. So mention of 'concentration camps' has at least some validity.

Did a bit of elementary geographical googling - from which I gather:-

1. The land area of the entire place (Israel AND the West Bank) is around 10,000 square miles. A bit bigger than the State of Vermont, about the same size as Massachusetts.

2. The population of the region (as at 2005) was about 10 millions of people. Compared to 670,000 in Vermont and 6.4M. in Massachusetts (despite the presence of the City of Boston, whose hinterland of course stretches far beyond the state's boundaries}.

3. The 2005 population consisted of almost exactly 50% Israelis, some of whom are of course Muslim) and 50% Palestinians (mostly Muslim, some Christian). 'Israel' (1967 borders plus occupied territories) has about 7,200 square miles, 'Palestine' (the West Bank plus Gaza) has about 2,800. And, of course, those figures do NOT include the 3M.-plus Palestinians who, in all justice, have a 'right of return.'

4. The area's most crucial problem is water shortage. Most authorities confirm that Israel is sticking to the 'Oslo Accord' ruling on the subject of water; but usually fail to mention that Oslo provided for 4/5ths. of the available water to go to the 5M. people in Israel, and only one-fifth to the 5M. Palestinians. Added to which, of course, a lot of the water supplied to Gaza, in particular, is too saline to drink. AND a lot of it is in any case sourced from the Jordan River (on which Jordan also depends) or from the Golan Heights and South Lebanon (which will eventually have to be given back to Syria and Lebanon).

5. All this in a place which does have a small amount of excellent arable land, but ALSO has a great deal of pretty arid semi-desert........

My first general conclusion is that it was absolute madness even to try to set up a national home' for a religion of some 15M. in a region of that sort. And especially to allow completely-uncontrolled immigration thereafter, based merely on the claimed religion of a given person's grandmother......

My second conclusion is that this dire situation cannot long endure. "Something's gotta give." I don't even favour a 'two-state solution;' the whole bloody place isn't big enough or well-enough endowed to support even one nation of 10M. people, leave alone two separate ones of 5m. each.

The whole idea of importing many millions of people from all over the world, purely on the basis of their religion, was a nonsense from the start - geographically and economically, leave alone in any sort of moral terms. It only made any sense at all from the point of view of short-term politics. As practised by President Truman - a man I respect in many other respects - in recognising the State of Israel - without apparently giving the implications of that step even one hour's consideration........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Timlin88
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 10:40 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 2:11 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 26):
It only made any sense at all from the point of view of short-term politics. As practised by President Truman - a man I respect in many other respects - in recognising the State of Israel - without apparently giving the implications of that step even one hour's consideration........

Good point. A very good documentary I saw about the history of the whole conflict dwelled on this for a while. It claimed (and wikipedia just corroborated) that Secretary of State George Marshall strongly urged Truman not to recognize the State of Israel because it would inevitably lead to a civil war in the region. Truman evidently didn't agree. This film even quoted Marshall as telling Truman personally that if he recognized Israel, he, Marshall, would be unable to vote for Truman in the upcoming election. Don't know how that worked out.

To me, the only viable solution there ever was was the UN plan of 1947. Unfortunately, too many things have gone wrong since then, and all parties involved are in part responsible. The situation today makes it more or less impossible to get back to that plan and some other solution must be found. People are working on it, but seeing as extremists hold power everywhere, it will be a long while till anything really changes.

Matti
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 2:40 pm



Quoting Timlin88 (Reply 27):
Unfortunately, too many things have gone wrong since then, and all parties involved are in part responsible.

Too right, Timline88. To quote Lord Montagu (who happened to be Jewish) in the 1917 House of Lords debate on the Balfour Declaration:

"... the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country - Arab all around in the hinterland - may never be remedied ... what we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend."

Or Edward Mandell House, foreign affairs adviser to President Wilson, at the same time:-

"It is all bad and I told Balfour so. They are making the Middle East a breeding place for future war."

There were plenty of warnings. A pity (for the sake of the Israelis, just as much as the Palestinians) that they weren't heeded.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 3:27 pm

Actually, Ahad Ha'am, a noted Ukrainian scholar, may have put it best, all the way back in 1897:

...a political ideal which does not rest on the national culture is apt to seduce us from our loyalty to spiritual greatness, and to beget in us a tendency to find the path of glory in the attainment of material power and political dominion, thus breaking the thread that unites us with the past, and undermining our historical basis. Needless to say, if the political ideal is not attained, it will have disastrous consequences, because we shall have lost the old basis without finding a new one. But even if it is attained under present conditions, when we are a scattered people not only in the physical but also in the spiritual sense -- even then Judaism will be in great danger.

Almost all our great men, those, that is, whose education and social position fit them to be at the head of a Jewish State, are spiritually far removed from Judaism, and have no true conception of its nature and its value. Such men, however loyal to their State and devoted to its interests, will necessarily regard those interests as bound up with the foreign culture which they themselves have imbibed and they will endeavour, by moral persuasion or even by force, to implant that culture in the Jewish State, so that in the end the Jewish State will be a State of Germans or Frenchmen of the Jewish race...

...Such a Jewish State would spell death and utter degradation for our people. We should never achieve sufficient political power to deserve respect, while we should miss the living moral force within. The puny State, being "tossed about like a ball between its powerful neighbours, and maintaining its existence only by diplomatic shifts and continual truckling to the favoured of fortune," would not be able to give us a feeling of national glory; and the national culture, in which we might have sought and found our glory, would not have been implanted in our State and would not be the principle of its life. So we should really be then -- much more than we are now -- "a small and insignificant nation,"


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/haam2.html

Not all of that has come to fruition, but the wide splits in opinion between different denominations of Jewry and the markedly poor representation of Judaism's unique cultural and religious values expressed by the Israeli government for most of its existence have certainly borne out as predicted. The favored of fortune, namely the west and the United States, certainly have not given the Israeli state the bed of solace and unconditional love that it would otherwise seek if its very existence didn't create a circle of conflicting interests for all involved.

A very wise man, indeed.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 6:51 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29):
Not all of that has come to fruition, but the wide splits in opinion between different denominations of Jewry and the markedly poor representation of Judaism's unique cultural and religious values expressed by the Israeli government for most of its existence have certainly borne out as predicted.

I dunno, it reads to me a lot like the flip-side of a lot of supremacism. When you speak of cultural purity, it scares the crap out of me.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Fri May 29, 2009 10:17 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):

I dunno, it reads to me a lot like the flip-side of a lot of supremacism. When you speak of cultural purity, it scares the crap out of me.

I think it would help to consider the context of the times in which he was writing.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 12:27 am



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 31):

I think it would help to consider the context of the times in which he was writing.

Yup. And it's a lot later these days. So my concerns are valid. The idea that Israel is supposed to only be home to a certain brand of Jewish Culture scares the daylights out of me.

I mean, does it not echo Milosevic? Hutu Power? Hitler?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29):
Needless to say, if the political ideal is not attained, it will have disastrous consequences, because we shall have lost the old basis without finding a new one. But even if it is attained under present conditions, when we are a scattered people not only in the physical but also in the spiritual sense -- even then Judaism will be in great danger.

Look at it critically. He's concerned about HIS brand of Judaism. He's concerned that acceptance of new cultures and new ideas will dilute HIS Judaism. This is scary stuff, Aaron. It's the same scary stuff when Jews refuse to even consider allowing their kids to date non-Jews. In fact, that very policy helped the Germans ban Jew-Aryan marriages.

Down that path lies danger.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Shawn Patrick
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 7:30 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 1:05 am

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 10):
On a side note, I never understand when gays don't support Israel--try going to Palestinian areas with your boyfriends DocLightning and Yellowstone.

Is that the main reason you support Israel, RJpieces? Big party foul there, bro. Stick to relevant arguments.

[Edited 2009-05-29 18:07:32]
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 1:43 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
He's concerned about HIS brand of Judaism. He's concerned that acceptance of new cultures and new ideas will dilute HIS Judaism. This is scary stuff, Aaron.

You went to Hebrew school, did you not? I don't know what curriculum you may have had, but we covered this guy to a pretty fair extent.

The larger context he's writing about is not losing the spiritual values that are endemic to the culture of the Jewish diaspora - and everything within - ethics, education and family. As an individual, he was very secular - so it's not coming from any kind of theological standpoint. He was mainly concerned with the identity of Jews as a hard-working, ethical and community-based culture. He felt that the establishment of a Jewish state under the conditions known at the time would involve processes that would erode those values. That situation is relatively unchanged at this point since the geopolitical underpinnings are virtually the same with regard to pressure from neighbors and displaced peoples. And I happen to think it's a fair point that still holds a lot of water today.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 2:07 am



Quoting Shawn Patrick (Reply 33):
Is that the main reason you support Israel, RJpieces? Big party foul there, bro. Stick to relevant arguments.

I support liberal democracies, period. But I especially support a beleaguered liberal democracy surrounded by countries and societies that are manifestly oppressive. Citizens who live in Western, democratic countries do the free world a major disservice in abandoning Israel and in forgetting or ignoring our collective values.

My particular comment above referred to gay posters in this thread who should know better.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
BA
Posts: 10133
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 5:02 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
No, it's a ghetto. A concentration camp is a constructed facility where people are forcibly placed and imprisoned. Let's not fall to hyperbole.

Let's not get so literal.

Plenty of critics from Congressman Ron Paul to the Vatican's Justice and Peace Minister have likened Gaza to a concentration camp.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 35):
I support liberal democracies, period.

A selective democracy for Jewish citizens and an unwanted Arab minority that gets chastised for remembering its heritage.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 35):
But I especially support a beleaguered liberal democracy surrounded by countries and societies that are manifestly oppressive.

As oppressive as they may be, they were not founded by ethnic cleansing.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 35):
Citizens who live in Western, democratic countries do the free world a major disservice in abandoning Israel and in forgetting or ignoring our collective values.

Show me one Western democracy that is built for a people of a specific race or religion.
Show me one Western democracy founded by ethnically cleansing an entire people and confiscating their property.
Show me one Western democracy that is ruthlessly occupying neighboring territory, oppressing its inhabitants denying them basic human rights, confiscating their property to build illegal settlements, and is constructing an illegal apartheid wall more than twice the height of the former Berlin Wall.

Just because Israel is open and tolerant towards homosexuals, it now automatically represents Western democratic values according to you?
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 7:58 am



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29):
Actually, Ahad Ha'am, a noted Ukrainian scholar, may have put it best, all the way back in 1897:

...a political ideal which does not rest on the national culture is apt to seduce us from our loyalty to spiritual greatness, and to beget in us a tendency to find the path of glory in the attainment of material power and political dominion, thus breaking the thread that unites us with the past, and undermining our historical basis. Needless to say, if the political ideal is not attained, it will have disastrous consequences, because we shall have lost the old basis without finding a new one.

He was certainly part of a strong opposition movement to Zionism based on theoretical grounds. Although I am not sure his comments are as useful as Doc indicates or as relevant as some of those as noted in reply 22 at:
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/holocaust-zionism.htm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
Look at it critically. He's concerned about HIS brand of Judaism. He's concerned that acceptance of new cultures and new ideas will dilute HIS Judaism. This is scary stuff, Aaron. It's the same scary stuff when Jews refuse to even consider allowing their kids to date non-Jews. In fact, that very policy helped the Germans ban Jew-Aryan marriages.

Down that path lies danger.

Does anyone know why Balfour was convinced in spite of the objections of some prominent members of UK Jewry?

Quoting Timlin88 (Reply 27):
To me, the only viable solution there ever was was the UN plan of 1947. Unfortunately, too many things have gone wrong since then, and all parties involved are in part responsible. The situation today makes it more or less impossible to get back to that plan and some other solution must be found.

All true, but how on earth to get past a situation where Israel feels that stalling is beneficial (and the record since Oslo hardly argues against that view) and the Palestinians feel cheated at most turns, which they probably are.

Maybe the ease with which Israel can get its side to dominate the media is diminishing. But we still get posts on this thread mentioning only the rockets and not the blockade that by and large prompted the rockets. Then again, a more positive contribution from the Arab and Egyptian neighbours would help. Jordan does not seem to be best pleased, even arguing war will become inevitable, although they did not say exactly who would be the other party at war with Israel.

I wonder if the person up above would like to make a positive contribution and declare the ME to be a god-free zone!!! It is definitely time for a change. Three major religions, enough already!  angel 
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5982
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 10:45 am

To continue constructing settlements demonstrates a fundamental lack of will to seriously make efforts for peace or enter into negotiation. As long as expansion of settlements continues there is no basis to sit down and talk. Any words to the contrary are empty so long as these actions are in evidence.

One further point of order - to compare gaza to a ghetto is not the same thing as comparing treatment of Palestinians by Israel to the genocide of the holocaust in WW2.
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
 
Timlin88
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 10:40 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 10:52 am



Quoting BA (Reply 36):
Show me one Western democracy founded by ethnically cleansing an entire people and confiscating their property.

I think you're treading on some very thin ice there. Confiscating property is one thing, ethnic cleansing is something entirely different. I cannot agree that that's what Israel's doing. They hardly round up large groups of Palestinians and kill them, and never have for that matter, even though Israel is a state founded in bloodshed (1949 and all that). Many Palestinians have died or been horribly wounded by the lovely term "collateral damage", but that doesn't equate to ethnic cleansing.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
All true, but how on earth to get past a situation where Israel feels that stalling is beneficial (and the record since Oslo hardly argues against that view) and the Palestinians feel cheated at most turns, which they probably are.

You're probably right, Palestinians don't have the resources they would really need to stand up for themselves on a purely political level and thus are in a worse position to negotiate hard than Israel. But let's not forget that during the Clinton negociations, it was Arafat who staunchly opposed the division of Jerusalem as it was planned, because the Temple Mount would have remained under Israeli control. That plan had already been accepted by Ehud Barak. They were hair's breadth away from a historic agreement, and Arafat blew it. There's no other word for it. Now, in all fairness, he did say that had he accepted that plan, he would have been assassinated on his return for failing to obtain the Temple Mount. He was probably right to be afraid of that.

One thing that baffles me is Israel's refusal to negociate with Hamas. They seem incapabable of accepting that Hamas is a political force, democratically elected and ruling the people next door. They should get over this high horse "we don't negotiate with terrorists" attitude and take Hamas seriously. Seems to me that the election of Hamas is more of a reflection on Israel than on the Palestinian people as a whole : put people in a desperate situation, they will do desperate things. The question Israel should be asking itself is not "How can they have elected this party?!?" but rather "What did we do to make them do this?"

On the same level, Hamas should also recognize Israels right to existence. These two measures will update things so to speak, bring the conflict into a more modern chapter. Both sides will have said "This is how things are NOW", not still be imagining some ideal situation 50 years ago. Because, whatever side you're on, if no negociations take place, the rockets will continue falling and the wall will continue growing.

Matti
 
us330
Posts: 3407
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 7:00 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 11:50 am



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 19):
And right now Iran has a President who literally denies the Holocaust and talks of "eliminating" Israel repeatedly while pursuing a nuclear bomb. And to equate Israel's legitimate right to self-defense (since it's civilians were repeatedly and DELIBERATELY targeted for death with suicide bombers aboard buses) to the Holocaust

I'd never thought I would say this, but within the various doctrines and relating to the use of nuclear weaponry, Iran's decision to pursue a nuke actually makes some sense.
From their perspective, they have a foe (Israel) that possesses at least one nuke, even if they don't officially acknowledge it. That same foe has also demonstrated its preemptive and unilateral capacity in years past (see the strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor). It makes sense for the Iranians to possess a nuclear weapon, from their defense perspective, simply because it would serve as a potential deterrent for any future Israeli attack--they wouldn't be as willing to attack if they feared that Tel Aviv or Jerusalem would evaporate in a mushroom cloud.
That all said, my explanation rests on the assumption that Iran is a rational state actor, and the question remains whether they intend the weapon to be an offensive or a defensive weapon.

Quoting Timlin88 (Reply 27):
Good point. A very good documentary I saw about the history of the whole conflict dwelled on this for a while. It claimed (and wikipedia just corroborated) that Secretary of State George Marshall strongly urged Truman not to recognize the State of Israel because it would inevitably lead to a civil war in the region. Truman evidently didn't agree. This film even quoted Marshall as telling Truman personally that if he recognized Israel, he, Marshall, would be unable to vote for Truman in the upcoming election.

This is not surprising at all. If you know the context of the times, and how the U.S. State Department operated back then, you'd know that the State Department (Truman called them "the striped pants boys") was dominated by Arabists--full of people that had studied arabic, had often worked in arab areas, and had a general fondness for them.
Truman, on the other hand, came from a background that was sympathetic to the Jews--his religious tradition favored the reestablishment of the Jews in Palestine.
There is a very interesting story to how and why Truman chose to recognize Israel when he did. I actually wrote a paper on it in university.
If you want to know more about political leanings in the State Dept. concerning the arab/jew question up until the establishment of Israel, I'd suggest checking out "Power, Faith, and Fantasy" by Michael Oren.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 34):
You went to Hebrew school, did you not? I don't know what curriculum you may have had, but we covered this guy to a pretty fair extent

All we covered in my hebrew school was how to read hebrew and recite the prayers, and understanding our traditions--it was very dogmatic. We never got into discussions of Jewish philosophers. If we had, I think I would have enjoyed the experience a lot more and wouldn't have nearly been expelled...  Big grin
To be honest, I had never heard of the guy until he was posted in this thread.

Quoting BA (Reply 36):
Let's not get so literal

Then I would politely suggest that you pick your words better. If you don't want people on the thread to interpret "concentration camp" to mean anything less than what was constructed by the Nazis, then I would suggest that you spell that out--especially for a term and comparison that is almost guaranteed to generate controversy.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 1:13 pm



Quoting BA (Reply 36):
Show me one Western democracy founded by ethnically cleansing an entire people and confiscating their property.

The United States of America, for instance.

I know that the USA has mostly progressed beyond this rather dark beginning, but in some ways there are remarkable parallels, and some of the consequences persist to this day.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 2:37 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
Does anyone know why Balfour was convinced in spite of the objections of some prominent members of UK Jewry?

No-one will ever know for certain, Baroque. Politicians weren't mercilessly questioned by the 'meejah' in those days, and Balfour didn't write any proper memoirs. But (as you'd expect of me by this time  ) I have some theories.

First of all, the Balfour Declaration was no 'bolt from the blue.' It was basically a contribution to continued British efforts to bring the United States into WW1. Which had started in 1915, after the sinking of the 'Lusitania,' and continued from then until the United States entered the War in April 1917. Worth remembering that there were momentous events going on all over the place at that time - including 'early rounds' of what turned out to be the Russian Revolution. They were much aided in these efforts by the Zionists, led by people like Lord Rothschild.

Secondly, the chronology of the debate on US entry to the (first) war centres on the Zimmerman telegram(s) - revealing German plans both to embark on 'unrestricted submarine warfare' and to promote and finance a Mexican attack on the United States - copies of which appear initially to have been provided to the British (and, via them, to the Americans) by the Zionists.

The third angle was that Britain, in those days, was perfectly entitled to consider itself to be the world's leading power. WW1 was just a 'temporary embarrassment,' from that point of view - as it proved to be, for a few years at least. Putting a 'sympathetic regime' (like the Zionists) in charge of Palestine would just about have guaranteed de facto British control of the oil pipelines that were already being constructed to export oil to the world. PLUS giving Britain more than a fighting chance of retaining control of the Suez Canal, the 'Eighth Wonder Of The World' at the time.........

One has also to bear in mind that 'people' at that time thought of Arabs as romantic - and also nomadic - characters. 'Home' was wherever they pitched their tents for the night. I don't suppose that it ever occurred to Balfour that some 'Arabs' (like my Palestinian neighbours, two doors down) were the proud owners of olive trees which they and their forebears had lovingly nurtured for 500 years.

Until the Israeli Army drove them out at gunpoint, bulldozed their house AND the trees for the 'wall,' and forced them to move here............

So I don't imagine for one moment that it was some sort of massive conspiracy. Just lots of people adding two and two and somehow coming up with answers between five and seven......

A familiar pattern, I guess, to anyone who has studied history.

[Edited 2009-05-30 07:39:38]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 3:03 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 42):
copies of which appear initially to have been provided to the British (and, via them, to the Americans) by the Zionists.

I think it actually came from the UK cable company that the Germans had to use for comms to the US!!!

The cable itsef is here:
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/

Maybe Zionist help with the US was an aim, but Rothschild money was another, although I thought more for the French.

And I guess 5.3851648071345040312507104915403 is between 5 and 7.  wink 
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 3:03 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 42):
copies of which appear initially to have been provided to the British (and, via them, to the Americans) by the Zionists.

I think it actually came from the UK cable company that the Germans had to use for comms to the US!!!

The cable itself is here:
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/

Maybe Zionist help with the US was an aim, but Rothschild money was another, although I thought more for the French.

And I guess 5.3851648071345040312507104915403 is between 5 and 7.  wink 
 
us330
Posts: 3407
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 7:00 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 4:16 pm

My opinion on the issue: I support Israel, but I think that the establishment of settlements is incredibly stupid, and if not suicidal, then at least shooting-oneself-in-the-foot-esque.

I do not support the settlements--I think their creation serves only to legitimize some of the complaints against Israel (that it is being imperialist, that it is taking Palestinian land, etc.), too closely aligns the country's mission with the Orthodox and the Ultra-Orthodox wackos (whose rhetoric more closely resembles that of Christian Evangelists and Islamic Fundamentalists, than that of the mindset of the mainstream Israeli Jewish population) , and postpones any chance of peace.

My biggest complaint about Israel is that the state is too closely wed to the Orthodox Jewish apparatus--nowhere is it said that if the Israeli political establishment divorces itself from them does it automatically not become a Jewish state. The state can still be a haven for Jews and honor its founding mission even if it does not consult the Orthodox opinion in every matter.

Quoting BA (Reply 36):
Show me one Western democracy that is built for a people of a specific race or religion.
Show me one Western democracy founded by ethnically cleansing an entire people and confiscating their property.
Show me one Western democracy that is ruthlessly occupying neighboring territory, oppressing its inhabitants denying them basic human rights, confiscating their property to build illegal settlements, and is constructing an illegal apartheid wall more than twice the height of the former Berlin Wall.

Just because Israel is open and tolerant towards homosexuals, it now automatically represents Western democratic values according to you?

If you look back and read up on the history of just about every western country, I think you'd be hardpressed not to find a single instance of both statement one and two happening. They might not have happened at the same time, but they still occurred and were a crucial part in how many western countries (europe mainly) became associated with a common stereotype.

Heck, the U.S. is more guilty of number two than Israel was (see below for why I object to you using "ethnic cleansing" with Israel).

Number three is awfully specific. You could pick out a string of controversial events from every western country's past to specifically condemn it.

And while Israel doesn't necessarily represent the full values of democracy, it is the one country in the middle east that comes closest to doing so, and that is one of the reasons why the U.S. supports it. Also, you can argue that plenty of western countries do not necessarily represent western democratic values for various reasons.

If you are going to place Israel under a high-powered microscope to examine its faults, then you should at least do the same with all the other countries. Otherwise it comes across as bias, plain and simple.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 41):
The United States of America, for instance.

I know that the USA has mostly progressed beyond this rather dark beginning, but in some ways there are remarkable parallels, and some of the consequences persist to this day.

Again, I am a proud American, but I can still be a proud American and admit that there are certainly events in my country's past that I am ashamed of. (watch this statement come back to bite me in the rear end if I decide to enter politics....)

Quoting Timlin88 (Reply 39):
I think you're treading on some very thin ice there. Confiscating property is one thing, ethnic cleansing is something entirely different. I cannot agree that that's what Israel's doing. They hardly round up large groups of Palestinians and kill them, and never have for that matter, even though Israel is a state founded in bloodshed (1949 and all that). Many Palestinians have died or been horribly wounded by the lovely term "collateral damage", but that doesn't equate to ethnic cleansing.

Thank you for saying this. Just because a group of people with some shared link, whether it be cultural, religious, ethnic, etc. have died, doesn't automatically mean a campaign of cleansing is underway. The term usually implies some sort of "master plan" for the eradication of a group--which is something that Israel does not have or intend to create.

In regards to your point that Israel is a state founded in bloodshed--few independent states aren't founded in bloodshed. The U.S. certainly was, and plenty of others from a diverse range of cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds were as well (ie Algeria, much of South America, East Timor, etc.), so you can't hold that simple fact against Israel.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 38):
to compare gaza to a ghetto is not the same thing as comparing treatment of Palestinians by Israel to the genocide of the holocaust in WW2

I can agree with that statement--the problem is that many people use the word "ghetto" and "concentration camp" interchangeably, as if they were exact synonyms of each other--which they clearly are not. I object to the comparison of Gaza to the concentration camps.
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 4:41 pm

I will not post in this thread, I will not post in this thread, I will not post in this thread......that's what I kept saying, but I have to ask you guys something.

Nav, are you saying that the Jews were responsible for US Entry into WWI, the October Revolution, and enablers of the British Empire?
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 4:50 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 44):
I think it actually came from the UK cable company that the Germans had to use for comms to the US!!!

Bit of a 'tangled web,' Baroque. I tried to post a link supporting the view I expressed, but A.net wouldn't accept it. Same thing just happened with another one I found - Please google the subject for yourself.

Thing is, there were at least two telegrams - one dealing with 'unrestricted submarine warfare' (i.e. German submarines sinking US ships) and another with inciting Mexico to attack the United States. For his part, Zimmerman himself always maintained that both were forgeries....

One thing is certain - that Balfour and many of his colleagues were in close touch with the Zionists of the time, particularly Weizmann. And it is entirely consistent with the state of knowledge at the time that no-one involved even thought about the interests of the inhabitants - no-one knew ANYTHING about Arabs except what that 'rather unreliable' officer (T. E. Lawrence, later hero-ised as 'Lawrence of Arabia') was reporting, about how they might be useful in driving the Turks out of Akaba.......

Besides, no-one at the time thought of Palestine as Palestine. It was just part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Equally, at that time, no-one in Britain OR the USA OR Europe would have thought twice about 'trading' whole countries and peoples among themselves - they'd all been doing that for centuries, without even a passing thought for the 'PBI' - "Poor Bloody Inhabitants."  Smile

Anyway - in answer to your original question - I reckon that it never even occurred to Balfour and the others that the people living in Palestine had any rights at all...
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 4:57 pm



Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 46):
Nav, are you saying that the Jews were responsible for US Entry into WWI, the October Revolution, and enablers of the British Empire?

Hi, Dtwclipper.  Smile No - just that the poor bloody Palestinians are paying a high price for having always been occupied by someone.

And paying a high price in PARTICULAR, right now, for what whoever wrote the Book of Moses said that Moses said that Abraham said that God said about four thousand years ago..........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Obama To Israel - No (= No!) More Settlements

Sat May 30, 2009 5:28 pm



Quoting BA (Reply 36):
Let's not get so literal.

Plenty of critics from Congressman Ron Paul to the Vatican's Justice and Peace Minister have likened Gaza to a concentration camp.

Also recall that the US built concentration camps for Japanese-Americans in WW2. Concentration camps are not necessarily death camps, although the latter is what most people think of if you use the term "concentration camp."

Quoting Timlin88 (Reply 39):
I think you're treading on some very thin ice there. Confiscating property is one thing, ethnic cleansing is something entirely different. I cannot agree that that's what Israel's doing.

I think kicking out the vast majority of an ethnic group also counts as ethnic cleansing, even if you don't kill them. You've still effectively eliminated an ethnic group from a particular area.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adipasquale, Dreadnought and 19 guests