The State of Israel should be dismantled...

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

Statements like this display abnormal ignorance. If I was a true anti-semite, I would be calling for the extermination of Aras as others here have.

Go and read up on what a Semite is and then come back to this discussion, boy.

Chuck, people like you are pitiful hate filled drains of life. You do little to bring anything good to the world. All you want to do is rant and rave against others. It's easier to shovel your kind of crap than it is to get out, give of yourself, and make a difference. That must be why you live on the internet. Nobody in real life can stand you, and they avoid you like the plague.

 

[Drifterwood]

Now, drifter, you say that the Arab forces during the 1948 war were hopelessly outclassed by the IDF.
Well, that's a good reason not to go to war, isn't it?

Are you sayng that when a superior force opposes you, you should just roll over? I think not.

It must be added, however, that that initial conflict, if memory serves, went on for nearly a year, so the imbalance can't have been that total.

Yes, but that shows that on this occasion the Arab forces did quite well.

The fact is that war changes facts on the ground.
If you're going to war, you'd better be able to win.
Otherwise, don't go.
What point are you making?

The right to defend yourself which is what is consistently given as an excuse for the current diproportionate response and the Israeli policy of preemptive aggression.



Seventy-seven percent of Palestine was given to Arabs in the creation of Jordan.
Israel got just a percentage or two more than the Arabs of the remaining land, if I recall.
But a great deal of their land was in the Negev Desert, which was considered inhospitable and not very useful for agriculture, though the Israelis achieved surprising things with some of it.
Was the division all that unjust? I'm not sure.

Yes, you can research the facts on Wiki. At the time of the Balfour declaration there were only 80,000 Jewish people in Palestine, and 75,000 Christians. There were ten times as many Arabs.

I have quoted the ownership and population figures before and they were correct.


Two issues here.
One, the expansion of Israel territory after winning wars initiated by the other side, particularly in 1967.

No, 800,000 Palestinians were deliberately driven out of the homes that the UN apportioned them in 1947/8/9. This is the issue.

Yup, war is hell, no doubt.
The other, of course, is the creation of settlements in Palestinian territory.
All 21 of the settlements that were in Gaza were dismantled.
Four have been dismantled in the West Bank.

Four of how many? And how many others have popped up. You will have to acknowledge at some point that there is a fundamentalist section of Israel that wants Eretz.

It seems that not all of the West Bank settlements will be dismantled under any eventual agreement for establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank.

The West Bank is close to implosion. Without being rude, your honest desire for a working sttlement even here, is a tad naive.

However, land will be given in compensation, at least under some understandings of how an eventual agreement will read.
(I should emphasize: I don't defend the settlements.)

There have been many unfulfilled Israeli promises before and no doubt a good reason will be given again.



One small issue: The Israelis did not begin that war, drifter.
I call that an important point.

The Israelis were just as responsible for starting the first War. Most of their future Prime Ministers were terrorist leaders before that.



Actually, no. American money had certainly helped Israel build its armed forces, but I don't believe that American hardware predominated until after the 1967 war. For example, the Israelis used Mirage fighter jets, built in France.

Again, a quick reference to historical fact will show you that the IDF was in part funded by private donation from the US for the first war. Private donors funded the IRA in the 70's and 80's. If a Government does not make it a crime to support terrorism, it is complicit. Isn't that the argument for the Axis of Evil?



An exaggeration. The Americans, for example, have had good relations with the government of Saudi Arabia, a relationship that hardly depends on the U.S.'s connection to Israel.

A good relationship with the most fundamental Islamist Monarchy is not perhaps what the espoused opponents of Islamism should crow about.



Agreed.



'Fight' is an ambiguous word.
Fight in the military sense?
Well, they have that long chain of Arab successes, don't they?
Fight at the negotiating table?
Ah, now you're talkin'.
And that's what at least Abbas and other PA leaders are doing.
And we can only wish them well.

Every honest exponent of Israel will tell you that Hell will freeze over before Israel allows the Palestinians to return and engage in a secular democracy. They are propbably right. Try espousing this as an Israeli Prime Minister, you will be shot. This is why I conclude the rather depressing prediction that Israel will get wiped out when the balance of power changes in the world, as surely it will at some time.

For me, the situation has always been a humanitarian one and one of basic human rights. Israel needs to acknowledge that it's early founders had a Zionist dream that, in the modern world is unsustainable. Having done this, I believe they should make accomodation of the displaced and suitable reparation. We may have some hope then of peace. But who benefits from peace?

 

[mitchymo]

When you're at war, generally whoever has the bigger arsenal does the most damage and wins.

That's something Israel definitely should have learned from looking at history and using other nations as an example, as you suggest.

This whole idea of equivalent response is asinine. They are at war. Israel has no reason to stop until Hamas, the people they are at war against, are dead or in submission. If the tables were turned and it were Hamas with the bigger, more powerful arsenal, we'd see the same thing the other way.

My point is mostly that you can't take this half-assed "equivalent response" BS of the UN seriously. It's completely nonsensical. Either you're okay with them having a war there or you're not. And you can't be "not okay" with it and then not say anything while Hamas is lobbing grenades into Israel everyday for months, which is precisely what the UN has done.

I am inclined to agree here.....its easy for many nations to condemn when they are not in Israel's situation....a resolution is needed and Israel feels that enough is enough, Hamas broke the ceasefire, Hamas broke peace and stability, Hamas has no justification, they are not conducive to a working peaceplan, its time they were dealt with, Israel should be left to do what it feels is best after several years of a thorn in its side,s

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

The solution in Northern Ireland has been to create an assembly with the membership so constructed that both Unionists and Republicans have real power and there must be agreement for policies.

Of course a prerequisite was that on the Republican side Sinn Fein IRA had to agree to a cessation of terrorist murder. Even so the Northern Ireland assembly has been suspended for much of its life as group of Sinn Fein IRA were caught plotting to murder their Unionist colleagues. Anyway the assembly functions under the umbrella of a politically stable United Kingdom, and with a lot of support from outside the UK, including Ireland and the USA.

And part of the reason that the IRA refused to disarm for so long was that Unionist militias wouldn't reciprocate. There was also the matter that the British army acted as an occupation force in Catholic neighborhoods of northern Ireland. The withdrawal of the British army was one of the major causes of progress in the peace talks there because Unionists weren't having their asses covered anymore. It also helped that Irishmen were no longer imprisoned without trial.

I agree that it's a potentially good model to work from. Progress in northern Ireland has shown that it's not necessary for all sides to like each other, just that they are provided a legitimate civil structure for having their needs heard.

Why doesn't anyone have a problem with part of Palestine being given/created for Jordan? Why don't the descendants of that land attack and hate the people of Jordan?

The Israeli-occupied West Bank was part of Jordan after the British colony was divied up after World War I, creating Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine. Jordan annexed the West Bank in the 1948 war that established Israel. Israel occupied it after the 1967 war and Jordan officially wanted it back until the 1980s.

Many Palestinians are unhappy with Jordan because they feel the government hasn't fought for them hard enough. This actually describes the Palestinians' relationship with most of the Arab governments, who use the conflict as a rallying point for their people, but don't have much interest in helping the Palestinians directly.

until the colonizaiton of Iraq is complete.

I am not saying I agree with it, but lets get real, thats the endgame.

If you mean the traditional definition of colonization, then you're wrong. But if you mean that the U.S. might try to make Iraq a long-term puppet state or submissive ally, then you may be right.

 

[midlifebear]

Can anyone tell me how on earth a palestine exists in two pieces to begin with.....it seems completely stupid to have a future nation divided either side of another nation and a bunch other stuff edited out by midlifebear.

This is a interesting question. I think we need the wisdom of Sr. Rubirosa regarding this one. Although I do not believe he is officially a Quebecois, he certainly has experience as a Canadian to enlighten the general LPSG-er on what silly things can divide a nation.

As for the Israelis and the Palestinians they both have my sympathy. The beaches are nice but the countries are simply masses of poured concrete surrounded by some rather fierce deserts. :frown1: Not terribly scenic places to vacation -- even during protracted periods of peace.

 

[kalipygian]

Can we dispel a few myths?

Before the first war between Israel and the Palestinians, noone thought that the Palestinians had any hope of military success.

During the war itself, the IDF had twice as many troops as the Arab League (most of whom only entered the territory given to the Palestinians), and whilst it sounds like the heroic stance of defense against five big countries, the reality is very different.

The IDF were a vastly superior force both in numbers and equipment, and leadership.

The Arab League was concerned that the division was unjust to the Arabs, they were right.

The Arab League was concerned that the Arabs left in the Israeli section would be treated like second class citizens, they were right.

The Arab League were concerned that the Israelis would want to expand their territory, they were right.

They wanted a unified Palestine with a secular democracy (of course they would they had an overwhelming majority). But this is what some are now saying is the solution, though I don't agree. There was only going to be one outcome of the first war, and the Israelis knew it and used it to expand their territory and to expel 800,000 Arabs whom they saw as a fifth column. So no truth in their assertion at Independence of democratic rights for all.

The IDF was partly funded by sympathisers in the US. This is the beginning of Arab resentment to the US, whom they saw as enabling the Israelis to expel the Palestinians. By the time of the next wars, the Israelis were fully backed by US military hardware and have since had an insurmountable mikitary advantage against any of their neighbours. As known by anyone with half a brain, the US has always used Israel as their foothold to exert influence in the region. So much for the Monroe Doctrine.

There will be no peace in the area, region and further afield until Israel compensates the real victims of the conflict for their loss of land and wealth. Do the Palestinians have a right to fight for this?

How is the Monroe doctrine relevant here? It relates to the US reserving the right to intervene in the affairs of countries in this hemisphere to itself. It was originally aimed at objecting to Spain attempting to regain control of it's recently independent colonies.

 

[Notaguru2]

It's always a one-way street with you terrorist sympathizers.

Name one country under the control of radical Islamists that "obeys and accepts UN resolutions and charters."

qft

 

[Elmer Gantry]

How is the Monroe doctrine relevant here? It relates to the US reserving the right to intervene in the affairs of countries in this hemisphere to itself. It was originally aimed at objecting to Spain attempting to regain control of it's recently independent colonies.

The Monroe doctrine also called for the USA to not interfere with existing colonies or nations in the Western hemisphere. This was later perverted by Teddy Roosevelt's assertion of the right of the United States to intervene in Latin America in cases of “flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation”. Leading the way to the invasions of Haiti, Cuba and Panama amongst others.

This was basically confirmed by JFK in rationalising his stance on Cuba. But it is far from the originlal intention of the Monroe Doctrine.

 

[Guy-jin]

Quite a bit of what you're saying is inaccurate and biased, Drifterwood. It's not surprising given your long history of anti-Americanism at this forum. I'll try to give actual, factual responses to your veiled anti-American untruths in case anyone actually is believing what you're saying.

Things like, "Israel was fully backed by US military hardware". You completely ignore the Neutrality Act and the fact that the United States government purposely stayed out of the 1948 War. You ignore the fact that some of those individuals who were caught transferring military hardware to Israel from the US were prosecuted in US courts with varying degrees of punishment. The US government officially did not support them through sale of military hardware until 1964. What you should have said was, "Israel had some US military hardware illegally given to them by American Zionists who were breaking American law and some of whom were prosecuted and punished for it." See how that's different?

I think even the unwashed masses know that Israel was backed by French military hardware officially at the time, in no small part because it was in their interest to do so because of their war in Algeria.

The insinuation that America was the main or even a major supporter of Israel at the time is laughable. Suez Canal anyone? It was your England and France that were allied with Israel in that action, and it was the United States who brokered their withdrawal.

The growing friendliness between the US and Israel in the 1960s was generated as a result of the Cold War more than anything. It actually had nothing to do with Zionists in America because until after the Six Day War, most American Jews weren't Zionists.

But, if you'll remember, the US remained neutral during the Six Day War. It wasn't until after Israel's independent victory in the Six Day War that US public opinion, and importantly the opinion of American Jews, truly shifted and the US started to really form an alliance with Israel. You'll even recall, that the movement of the US carrier fleet into a position to defend Israel from Syria during the Six Day War was actually done because of Soviet support of Syria. It was merely to preserve the one, tiny, potential sphere of influence in the Middle East from Soviet dominance that the US was even present. Moreover, the fleet didn't actually do anything besides discourage Soviet involvement. (And I note strongly that you pretty much completely ignore Soviet involvement on the Arab side of the issue throughout the decades.) So much for them being "fully backed by military hardware [after the first war]."

Sorry if the facts get in the way of applying that lovely anti-American tinge to everything you post here. Maybe you should stick to something that's actually true, like the Bush Administration lying about WMDs, instead of painting an artificial history of the world to push through your dream of a world where America is the enemy of all for eternity.

And yeah, learn what the Monroe Doctrine is before spouting off.

For someone who dislikes America so much, you certainly have learned to lie like an American politician. :tongue: "History is what you make it," eh? Too bad there are some of us who actually know what we're talking about and can see clearly where you're making sh*t up.

 

[Notaguru2]

Quite a bit of what you're saying is inaccurate and biased, Drifterwood. It's not surprising given your long history of anti-Americanism at this forum. I'll try to give actual, factual responses to your veiled anti-American untruths in case anyone actually is believing what you're saying.

Things like, "Israel was fully backed by US military hardware". You completely ignore the Neutrality Act and the fact that the United States government purposely stayed out of the 1948 War. You ignore the fact that some of those individuals who were caught transferring military hardware to Israel from the US were prosecuted in US courts with varying degrees of punishment. The US government officially did not support them through sale of military hardware until 1964. What you should have said was, "Israel had some US military hardware illegally given to them by American Zionists who were breaking American law." See how that's different?

I think even the unwashed masses know that Israel was backed by French military hardware officially at the time, in no small part because it was in their interest to do so because of their war in Algeria.

The insinuation that America was the main or even a major supporter of Israel at the time is laughable. Suez Canal anyone? It was your England and France that were allied with Israel in that action, and it was the United States who brokered their withdrawal.

The growing friendliness between the US and Israel in the 1960s was generated as a result of the Cold War more than anything. It actually had nothing to do with Zionists in America because until after the Six Day War, most American Jews weren't Zionists.

But, if you'll remember, the US remained neutral during the Six Day War. It wasn't until after Israel's independent victory in the Six Day War that US public opinion, and importantly the opinion of American Jews, truly shifted and the US started to really form an alliance with Israel. You'll even recall, that the movement of the US carrier fleet into a position to defend Israel from Syria during the Six Day War was actually done because of Soviet support of Syria. It was merely to preserve the one, tiny, potential sphere of influence in the Middle East from Soviet dominance that the US was even present. Moreover, the fleet didn't actually do anything besides discourage Soviet involvement. (And I note strongly that you pretty much completely ignore Soviet involvement on the Arab side of the issue throughout the decades.) So much for them being "fully backed by military hardware [after the first war]."

Sorry if the facts get in the way of applying that lovely anti-American tinge to everything you post here. Maybe you should stick to something that's actually true, like the Bush Administration lying about WMDs, instead of painting an artificial history of the world to push through your dream of a world where America is the enemy of all for eternity.

And yeah, learn what the Monroe Doctrine is before spouting off.

For someone who dislikes America so much, you certainly have learned to lie like an American politician. :tongue: "History is what you make it," eh? Too bad there are some of us who actually know what we're talking about and can see clearly where you're making sh*t up.

Didn't you know? Terrorist-sympathizers and people with anti-American viewpoints don't want to acknowledge the truth. The truth destroys everything they puke on the rest of us.

 

[Guy-jin]

The Monroe doctrine also called for the USA to not interfere with existing colonies or nations in the Western hemisphere. This was later perverted by Teddy Roosevelt's assertion of the right of the United States to intervene in Latin America in cases of “flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation”. Leading the way to the invasions of Haiti, Cuba and Panama amongst others.

This was basically confirmed by JFK in rationalising his stance on Cuba. But it is far from the originlal intention of the Monroe Doctrine.

Yeah, and that still has nothing to do with America's non-military support through discouraging Soviet involvement in the Six Day War and preserving Israel as a Middle Eastern sphere of influence, which is really what he was referring to.

He was trying to apply the Monroe Doctrine backwards. However, there is no backwards end to the actual Monroe Doctrine. Drifterwood is trying to use the part of the Monroe Doctrine that America would not involve itself with European internal strife or wars as long as Europeans stayed out of the Western Hemisphere against America. Of course, even were that how the Doctrine is implemented now, Israel and the Middle East isn't part of Europe anyhow, so it wouldn't apply.

His statement basically makes no sense and displays a strong misunderstanding of the Monroe Doctrine.

 

[kalipygian]

The Monroe doctrine also called for the USA to not interfere with existing colonies or nations in the Western hemisphere. This was later perverted by Teddy Roosevelt's assertion of the right of the United States to intervene in Latin America in cases of “flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation”. Leading the way to the invasions of Haiti, Cuba and Panama amongst others.

This was basically confirmed by JFK in rationalising his stance on Cuba. But it is far from the originlal intention of the Monroe Doctrine.

I could have put that better. What was stated as policy in Monroe's time did not actually say the US had the right to intervene in the affairs of other countries in the Americas, but that is how it has mostly been used in the last century. It said the countries in Europe and the America's should not interfere in each other's affairs, colonies should not be newly established, re-established, or extended. The country at that time had little power to actually impose this on anyone. The British were very involved in supporting independence for the Spanish colonies, so they could trade with them freely.

 

[Drifterwood]

Actually, it says considerably more that you take my lifelong involvement in human rights to be an anti American stance. Perhaps, given the last eight years though

Now I shall read the rest of your post.

 

[Drifterwood]

How is the Monroe doctrine relevant here?

A case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[atomicTIGER]

They need to both go fuck each other in the ASS! AND leave the US Americans OUT of it! ITS NOT OUR PROBLEM! We have problems here in the US! Big problems! Like forcing the broken failed automakers to actually make a car we want and not year after year after year FAIL! FUCK ISRAEL and all those other bastards--who have only one thought on their minds--ANd that is to kill and create MISERY! They are brutal uncivilized war mongers. FUCK THEM!

 

[vince]

Didn't you know? Terrorist-sympathizers and people with anti-American viewpoints don't want to acknowledge the truth. The truth destroys everything they puke on the rest of us.

Hogwash. Where in God's name did you learn this knee-jerk, head in the sand, poorly informed, one-sided nonsense? There are always at least two sides to every issue. This Palestine problem cannot be reduced to black and white. Thank goodness your incoming President doesn't think like this. The way some of you reduce the argument is pure Bush Think.

There seems to be selective memories (or perhaps no memories) of who is, and who has been terrorist in this 60 year old conflict.

Three Israeli Prime Minsters-
Menachem Begin (he blew up hotels),
Yitzak Shamir (member of the infamous Stern Gang and who once remarked that "neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat."),
Ariel Sharon, (who was long been involved in terror. In 1983, he was found indirectly, but personally, responsible for a civilian massacre by Lebanese militia in two Palestinian refugee camps. At least 800 innocent men, women and children were murdered in cold blood, most of them Palestinians, after Sharon ordered his men to allow the militiamen access to the camps.)

These politicians were also terrorists or sponsored state terror. I wonder why so many in the west condemn Arab/Muslim terrorism, but give a pass to White-Euro/Jewish terrorism. Is it racist? Or is it some kind of collective brainwashing? Is it the lingering legacy of guilt over what the "Western Powers" allowed the Nazis to get away with?... Probably a combination of all three.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Truth is always the first causality of war. (and this one has been going non-stop for 60 years)
In war, the victors are the ones who get to write the history.

It's very late here. I'm going to write more about this tomorrow. The ignorance and injustice just makes my blood boil.

btw- The death toll is now at 507... 20% of them are women and children. 40% of the wounded are women and children. This doesn't count innocent male victims. Oh, but I forgot... It's their own damn fault since Palestinians=HAMAS.

 

[B_Hung Jon]

The Jewish State is a true theocracy. The only way to change that is to dismantle the religious aspects of it and figure out how to create workable borders with its neighbors. But I think that should be true of Saudi Arabia and other religious states as well, including the Vatican City State.

 

[nudeyorker]

and a single state created for and governed by both Palestinians and Jews.

That would force them to get along.

Well I'll have two of whatever you are having, because since the UN granted the state of Israel to be occupied by both Palestinians and Jews they have never gotten along. What makes anyone think that anyone will change? The only concessions have been made by Israel.

 

[faceking]

Personally, I'd like this shit to be settled out once and for all. Let the Arab world push the Israelis to the brink.

 

[nudeyorker]

Personally, I'd like this shit to be settled out once and for all. Let the Arab world push the Israelis to the brink.

Same thing could be said about how many people in the world feel about the US!