Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The Palistinians wouldn’t be in this prediciment if the arab world hadn’t decided to attack Israel in 1967.

I still cannot comprehend how the fact that Israel won the land while defending itself from an unprovoked attack doesn’t render the issue mute on the world stage.

It’d be like if that British guy who sold everything he owned and bet it on a single spin of the roulette lost and then asked for his bet back. DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY!

blipsman, your reference above is absolutely correct. I too fail to see how anyone with historical information on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict can criticize Israel for using land obtained in a defensive war with Palestinians as a buffer to protect its homeland.

On the other hand, American Pundit reveals another potentially monumental blunder by the Bush administration. If fighting escalates now in this region and spills over to cause problems in neighboring areas, Bush has left his decision yesterday vulnerable to immense criticism for being the catalyst for escalating and out of control bloodshed committed by both sides. No doubt, Bush defenders will point to decades of U.S. acting as neutral broker having failed. But, diplomacy never fails until one either gives up on it, or one or the other side of the conflict wins. Since neither side is going to win, it will be Bush’s fault for ending diplomacy and our role as mediator as the bloodshed reaches new highs.

Blipsman: If Israel were willing to give the Palestinians full citizenship rights and return them to their homes, then it would be a non-issue. The problem is with a little thing called the Geneva Convention. It is a violation of International Law to uproot a conquered people and kick them out of their land. Either you keep the land AND the people, or you give both back. Israel doesn’t want to keep the Palestinian people (because it would threaten the Jewish majority in the state), but it does want to keep the land (in order to defend its borders). Hence the conflict. Of course, Israel would have had its hand slapped by the U.N. several times in the past, had the U.S. not abused its veto power on the Security Council. Hence the hatred of the U.S. among Palestinian refugees.

“I too fail to see how anyone with historical information on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict can criticize Israel for using land obtained in a defensive war with Palestinians as a buffer to protect its homeland.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Israel obtain this land in war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and not the Palestinians?

***First of all Israel has tried every option, Palestinian independence, multiple peace plans, peace talks and Arafat won’t let it happen. Hammas, Al Axsa and Hezbollah need to be routed out. We can’t let these groups control negotiations and with Arafat they are in the front and dictating the terms.

I am all for the Palestinians having their own state but all avenues are exhausted, something else needs to come about. How much longer can we allow it to go uncivilized because that is exactly what it is.

This is a clarion wake-up call that says in no uncertain terms we of the westernized mindset will not put up with terror and YOU will get no more excusing from the west to engage in such activities. It is unwarranted and completely unacceptable.

I was against Sharon when he blew the chances at peace talks in 2000, but now I’m not so sure it wasn’t justified. Things aren’t going to change unless we, the west roll up our sleeves and change it and extract the madmen from power.

Sad to say it but start up the catapillar backhoes! Do what you need to do.

And as for killing Arafat who has been nothing more than a front for Hammas, I do agree whole-heartedly, kill that backwards A-hole as it is he who has kept the Palestinians subjegated and not Israel.

Rob, when one brings up the geneva convention to criticize the Israelis, it begs the question of how using human suicide bombers fits into the geneva convention. And given that the leadership of the Palestinians continue to believe that the Isrealis should be driven into the sea and how Hamas has the murder of every jew in Palestine as a part of their political platform, how can anyone seriously believe Isrealis will allow full citizenship and the right to return for Palestinians. Or that anyone who suggested it would not be labeled completely nuts.

Israel is a democracy,IF you are Jewish. I would call that a theocracy.

The outright theft of Palenstinian homes and property is at the heart of the Israel-Palestinian Issue. If the U.S. declared Rhode Island a Jewish Homeland, forcibly removed the residents from their homes, and then gave them to Jews without compensating the Rhode Islanders, do you think there might be an intifada in Rhode Island?

Then you make Rhode Islanders second class citizens subject to the whims of the ruling class of Jews. Where would the rest of the U.S. stand?

I am not advocating the destruction of Israel, or supporting the terrorism of the PLO, but a true historical context of Israel needs to be understood to understand the problems there, not just from 1967 on.

If Israel returns the Gaza to the Paletinians, it is a step, but a small step. The details of what policies are really pursued rather than floated out as dressing need to be observed. What sometimes sounds good in soundbites on TV turns out to often do nothing to alleviate the oppression of the average Palestinian.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Israel obtain this land in war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and not the Palestinians?

That’s just the thing, Bo. The label “Palestinians” is a political term more than anything. The “Palestinians” were Egyptians and Jordanians. They’re not some unique ethnic group or anything.

Alex: You are absolutely right that suicide bombings and other terrorist acts perpetrated by Hamas and other organizations in Palestine are deplorable. But consider this — what are their alternatives? Their options are:

(1) accept whatever fate Israel chooses for them;
(2) fight back;
(3) appeal to outside sources for help.

Option (1) is not acceptable to them, as it requires them to give up their homes, their property, and their rights (the sorts of things protected by the Bill of Rights in the U.S.), and go be homeless in Gaza. That’s not an acceptable option to them, and it wouldn’t be to me, either.

Option (3) hasn’t worked either. The 1967 war proved that none of the Arab nations in the region have the power to help. The rest of the world (for the most part) sympathizes with them, but won’t act outside of the U.N — and the U.S. has shot down every attempt they’ve made at getting U.N. support (since 1972, we’ve vetoed 38 Security Council resolutions supporting Palestine, most against 14-to-1 majorities!).

The only option we’ve left them is to fight back. Of course, with the U.S. funding Israel’s military (we give more aid to Israel than to the entire continent of Africa), they can’t win on a battlefield, so they’re forced to take the fight to the streets.

The vast majority of Palestinians, like everyone else in the world, don’t want to kill anyone. They just want to live in peace. They only turn to men like Arafat and the Hamas terrorists because they see no other choice. Is George Bush going to defend their homes? No. Is Ariel Sharon? Certainly not? They need another option.

Again, I ask you: What choice have we given them?

“That’s just the thing, Bo. The label “Palestinians” is a political term more than anything. The “Palestinians” were Egyptians and Jordanians. They’re not some unique ethnic group or anything.”

I’m wondering then who the people were that lived in what is now Israel before it was created by the UN?

I don’t know how much is “monumental” here. President Clinton implied that the pre 67 borders could not be obtained back in 2001 due to the settlements. Also, he addressed the right of return to a Palestinian state and not to Israel.

In the end this letter may be more political than anything.

I don’t know how much is “monumental” here. President Clinton implied that the pre 67 borders could not be obtained back in 2001 due to the settlements. Also, he addressed the right of return to a Palestinian state and not to Israel.

In the end this letter may be more political than anything.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/clintplan.html

Bo, where do you think the Palestinians came from. Those and a few other countries in the area.

Two ragheads are sitting in an Iraqi sand dune enjoying a pack of camel’s milk when Abdul whips out a picture of his eight year old recently martyred son. Hazziz, not wanting to be outdone whips out a picture of his recently martyered seven year old twin sons. Abdul exclaims “praise Allah, they seem to blow up so young these days!” Ha ha american pundit.

David, I’m not sure I follow your question. How do a people who have inhabited an area for hundreds of years (call them Palestinians if you want, Arab if you must) have less a claim to that land than the Jews? I understand that Jews have a biblical claim to that area, but if we are going to start citing religious texts as legitimate foundations for territorial posession, why don’t we give New York back to the Iroquois?

Bo, the people surrounding Israel participated in, and supported, and if not either of these, lived in the territories surrounding Israel’s national borders. Many of these people did not prevent, and in many cases accomodated neighboring countries military attacks upon Israel from places like the Golan Heights. Israel engaged in war to defend against those attacks and at the end of those wars, Israel controlled territories adjacent to its borders and maintained military control of those areas as a buffer against future attacks launched from those vantage points.

Froget the Iriquois analogy. A better analogy is a foreign power launching an attack against the U.S. form 2 miles outside the international coastal boundary. We engage in war with them and after winning declare that we will now control waters out to the limits of where the previous attack occured. Self-defense, pure and simple.

Israel offered in the past, to return those lands if a peaceful accord could be reached that assured Israel such territories would not be used again for lobbying artillery attacks inside Israel. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I am sympathetic to the Palestinian’s plight, but, it is up to the Palestinians to afford Israel an assurance of security before it makes any sense for Israel to retreat from those buffer zones.

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you. Israel has been attacked from surrounding territories more than once. Now the ball is in the Palestinian’s court.

I don’t know how much is “monumental” here. President Clinton implied that the pre 67 borders could not be obtained back in 2001 due to the settlements. Also, he addressed the right of return to a Palestinian state and not to Israel.

Haha! That’s right. I forgot. Clinton is still president and Bush just does what Clinton says.

It is interesting that originally the UN and the jews declared they wanted no more than 20% of Israel to call their home. It would have most likely stayed that way had not their Arab neighbors gone to war with them.

If you ever get the chance to read about the British treatment of the migrant and indigenous peoples of Israel(pre-ww2)you will reallize that the Brits were far worse in many respects to them than Israel is now. Due to it not being monitored as it is now. Firing squads, torture, beatings and the like.

Another good hit is the book “By way of Deception” on the Israeli secret police the Mossad. If you want to get a sense of what the Israelis are really up against check it out.

I think it is curious, the conjecture about the Palestinian participation in their own subjugation.

While the Jews were the subject of horrors in the Holoacast;England and America have admirable qualities in their forms of government;and Terrorism is a horrific form of resistance:
Neither the Jews nor the Allies can claim not to have made use of terrorism in their persuit of national goals.

A good resource for information on the Palestinian - Israel situation is www.merip.org ( in case my tags don’t work) or the link
Middle East Research Information Project

Before you blindly side with the poor Israeli’s you should have some knowledge of the history of the region.

Zionism has been about occupation and expansion of Israel since it’s inception. Security of Israel has been at times a “stalking horse” to cover the real aims of Israel.

Hmmm the link didn’t work… anyone want to educate me as to what I did wrong?

I should have mentioned the Arab- Israeli Primer is what I was refering to on the linked site which may be found on the bottom left of the Home page.

Hey Greg. The tag should look like [a href=”www.merip.org”]Middle East Research Information Project[/a]

Substitute angle brackets for the square brackets.

Before you blindly side with the poor Israeli’s you should have some knowledge of the history of the region.

Zionism has been about occupation and expansion of Israel since it’s inception. Security of Israel has been at times a “stalking horse” to cover the real aims of Israel.

That’s exactly what it looks like (under the current Israeli government, anyhow). The question is, does the US help, hinder, or get out of the way? And what are the possible repercussions?

If we actively defend Israel, we incur the wrath of the entire Islamic world community from Morocco to Indonesia and the Philippines.

If we stall Israel, a solution may come someday, but at the cost of suicide bombings and Israeli raids into Palestinian cities until that day.

If we just step back, Israel will continue to persue their goal, but they may not be able to withstand the retaliatory attacks that will follow.

So pick your poison.

Lee-

My earlier comment was not to shift some kind of blame on Clinton, but rather to say that the current position put forth by GWB in his letter is not a “monumental” departure from our stated previous positions. Clinton was President as I remember, so his words at the time would constitute policy, and they are similar to what Bush put forth in the letter. That’s not an indictment of our previous President.

In other words, Bush provided some political support for Sharon (who is under heavy fire) without really committing to new policy.

I’m wondering then who the people were that lived in what is now Israel before it was created by the UN?

Bo, there are Israeli arabs who lived in what became Israel in 1947. The Palestinians are those “refugees” who live in the West Bank and Gaza territories Isreal won while defending itself against attacks.

My understanding is that Israel refuses to give them Israeli citizenship in part because were their numbers added to the arab Israelis, the muslim population would nearly equal that of the Jews. In fact, some suggest that Israel wants a seperate Palestine in order to prevent an arab majority in Israel. Of course, then the question becomes whether arabs are forced to leave or will just choose to do so of their own free will…

Hey George. Just FYI, Clinton was not President in 2001.

You may remember that both Clinton and Bush made public statements that the settlements must be removed from Palestinian territory as a precondition to a peace settlement.

Bush has now changed US policy by sanctioning illegal Israeli settlements built on Palestinian land.

No other country has the leverage to make Israel abandon the settlements. Bush has now made it clear that he will not do so. I doubt that any peaceful agreement can now be reached between the Israelis and Palestinians, so in effect, Bush has abandoned a peaceful solution to the problem.

It is a monumental shift.

Greg;
How can you say that Arafat has not been instrumental in holding back the Palestinians from attaining peace negotiations? Because that is the subjegation that Palestinian leadership has created for itself.

They want Jerusalem. They want larger territories and they want in fuller essense “Israelis out of Israel completely. Arafat is a puppet for Hammas, Al Axsa and Hezbollah. All of these terror groups are integral in the negotiations that Arafat has had thus far.

The Palestinian leadership is the source of their own subjegation treating terrorism as if it is just a random crime issue and not a greater policy of the destruction of Israel. I have to be a leftist-hawk on this due to the overwhelming evidence that this is a terror policy that Palestinian leadership is fronting for. They are puppets for Hammas, Al Axsa and Hezbollah. And they don’t want peace they want the jews out and they aren’t going to get it either. So that isn’t subjegation?

The irony is that in a century (post ww2) when most imperial and occupying countries were slapped on their wrists and told to return what is not theirs, the state of Isreal was formed and allowed to grow. Wars, ‘winning’ land and defeding borders and territories…such language makes me wonder what century we live in? All countries are now at least apologetic for their imperialist histories. But nobody is looking for an apology from Israel - rightly so, you can’t say you’re sorry for something you still believe is right. (Not yet anyways)

In any case, Israel is there to stay now. Due to the power structures we have constructed for ourselves, money and USA being at the top, Israel is comfortably embedded and pre-‘48 borders is an illusion. Palestinians, understandably, cannot accept this with the resignation and apathy that I show off. Their only hope is learning the new language our world speaks; they still speak about principles, property, rights and resistence to oppression. How quaint. They still act because they believe their actions make a difference. They are not clued in to the modernization and politicization of language to the effect that ‘physical resistence’ is now called ‘terrorism.’ When they ‘speak up’, the world only hears ‘mad ranting’. Their downfall is that they don’t realize how they are perceived by the rest of the world - they are too preoccupied with their condition. They will only be heard or taken seriously when they start playing the game of politics and rhetoric that we have all come to know and respect. South Africans succeeded in the game eventually, chances are Palestinians will too…eventually, if they are not driven, negotiated, bought or starved out in the meantime. Ethnic cleansing is not a term we use re. this middle-eastern conflict - too harsh, too familiar. Time will reveal the words, the language we will employ to describe and explain these events in future history books.