Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Excellent post. I would add that democracy is a great deal more than just counting ballots correctly and fairly (remember Florida?).

You also have the rule of law, precedent, protection of minorities, and a sound understanding of constitutional principles. It doesn’t mean that there won’t be bumps along the way in any if not all of those areas, but for it to be a true democracy, they will ONLY be bumps. Let’s not forget that American democracy failed in 1861 — 72 years after our constitution had been put into place.

Getting back to the Middle East, the U.S. puts far to much faith in the ballot box and not enough on developing the social and political culture that keeps democracy healthy. The fact that a “terrorist organization” can win an election (and in one of the more “westernized” parts of the Middle East at that) will hopefully cause the U.S. to re-evaluate its entire approach to the Middle East.

I wonder if Bush is unifying the Middle East after all? Unifying it against Israel and American intervention.

And about China…How would we know if there were people up in arms over there? Half their news is censored. And it was and is having its issues anyway….just not with us, like the rest of the world. :-)

AP,

I guess that we in this country will have to learn a new word.

In the stunning words of George Bush,

“It’s called diplomacy”.

Hamas will be drunk with power for awhile demanding that earth and heaven yield to its will. Then, after the corruption, internal civil strife, and loss of international funding set in, so will the reality that power is only as useful as it is absolute, or in the public’s interest, ALL the public’s interest.

A reality Americans are having to grapple with again on their own home turf as our President’s secret attemtps to make his own power absolute, become revealed.

I guess that we in this country will have to learn a new word.

In the stunning words of George Bush,

�€œIt�€™s called diplomacy�€.

Well, it’s not a new word, but when Bush uses it, it usually has a new definition.

When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.
Plato

Who is surprised?

People in the middle east are:

educated the children to hate Isreal and the west

will send their children to die to kill civilians

Hamas is a terrorist group - as a government they will lose all financial support from USA and fail to build an economy and civil war will continue. Failed governments and ecomomies always blame others - the victim mentality works to divert the attention from their real problems and gives the masses some thing to do.

What does this mean AP? The failure of Democracy?

If you were to put aside your partisanship for just a few moments and think about this rationally…

Let me sum up your post: democracy doesn’t create peace.

Does this mean that dictatorship is preferable to democracy if the people would freely choose dictatorship? Or does it simply strengthen the principle that the people should decide?

Details: Hitler was elected to a minor position in government but if I remember correctly was not freely elected as absolute ruler.

Democracy ends after the dictatorship is in power. But the Palestinians have never had a democratic election. Were there free elections under Arafat? No. Arafat controlled the press, the vote, the counting of the votes, and the announcement that the PA had again won.

Let’s not forget that ‘colaborators’ (anyone suggesting that peace is possible without total victory) are routinely dragged into the street and shot by Palestinians.

Should we continue to prop up the PA as a ‘moderate’ alternative when it has always been Hamas that has been in charge? There really is no change here except for the fact now that the mask is off and even the Euroweenies cannot hide from the fact that the Palestinians do not want peace and continue to want war.

Better that we all deal in the open than pretend reality is something different, especially when the Euopeans have essentially been funding terror against Israel all these years by funding the illusional Palestian Authority, Arafat (billions in the bank), Fatah…

I don’t see anything useful in your post at all unless you have a partisan axe to grind and don’t care about facts.

RfD,

“Hamas is a terrorist group - as a government they will lose all financial support from USA and fail to build an economy and civil war will continue. Failed governments and ecomomies always blame others - the victim mentality works to divert the attention from their real problems and gives the masses some thing to do.”

I guess that’s just the penalty for being a democraticly elected government.
We talk a mean democratic game, but when a democracy that we dissagree with pops up, well now, we just can’t have that.

Reporting for Doody:

Ofcourse, having your Land confiscated to build Settlements has absolutely NOTHING to do with enraging Palestinians to fight back.

Ofcourse, having nothing but assault rifles and rocks to fight American-made Tanks, American-made Apaches, American-made Jets and American-made Gizmos has absolutely no effect on making Palestinians Suicide Bombers.

Ofcourse, having the Settlements increase by 300% since Oslo has nothing to do with Palestinians feeling that negotiation does not get them anything.

Ofcourse, having Israel drop 500 pound bombs into the most densely populated bantustan in the world and killing dozens of civilians for each terrorist dead has nothing to do with Palestinians feeling that no ceasefire is taking place.

I swear. There will never be peace as long as the US is part of the negotiations. You can never have peace with such a biased third party.

I don�€™t see anything useful in your post at all unless you have a partisan axe to grind and don�€™t care about facts.
Posted by: esimonson at January 27, 2006 01:05 PM

Hello, Mr. Kettle? We have a Mr. Pot on hold with a message for you…

ericsimonson:

If Israel wants peace, why have the Settlements increased by 300% since Oslo?

Just exactly how much Land do you think Palestinians should have? How much water? How many Palestinian Refugees should come back home?

This hypocrisy you have is disgusting. If Israel were any other country, the reaction would be far different.

“Between 1994-2004, the donor nations gave the PA $6 billion. Where did all this money go? Fifty-six million dollars go to salaries every month. There are $100 million in revenue every month. There are 37,000 fictitious jobs - the colonel, his wife ‘the coloneless,’ his son, his daughter - they all get paid, as you know very well.”
-Mahmoud Al-Zahar

That’s from the debate transcript found at Memri.org.

I should also point out that the social wing of Hamas is regarded as highly efficient and honest. They handle virtually the entire welfare system in Gaza and it works. Their Books are clean.

Hamas ran on an anti-corruption platform.

Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

Nonsense.

There has never been any genocide on Jews by Arabs in two thousand years.

Only Europeans massacred Jews.

So unless there are any Europeans posing as Arabs in the Middle-East, I doubt there will ever be any “Arab Final Solution”.

Hamas is a peaceful, loving organization.
It is the US that are terrorists.
GW Bush is why Pal and Isr can’t live in peace.
Impeach Bush now.

AP,

Good post. Not great (too partisan), but good. I was wondering which column would be the first to address this issue.

Remember, though, that Bush hasn’t been the only president pushing democracy as the cure-all for the world’s ills. Pretty much every president since WWII has done that. And every president since Carter has spoken the oft-quoted fallacy that “no two democracies have ever gone to war against each other”. (Never mind the fact that the first two democracies in history, Athens and Syracuse, went to war against each other!)

Steve K:

Excellent post. I would add that democracy is a great deal more than just counting ballots correctly and fairly (remember Florida?).

You also have the rule of law, precedent, protection of minorities, and a sound understanding of constitutional principles.

Yet another attempt to redefine the word “democracy” to fit only those countries we consider worthy of it. Democracy, by definition, is government by the people. That pretty much means elections, either to decide the issues or to choose who will decide the issues. It doesn’t mean human rights protections, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, or any of that stuff. Those are the things we have in addition to Democracy that make our country so great.

I recently found THIS webpage, which does a pretty good job of explaining how democracy alone isn’t enough. I would be interested to hear your opinions about it.

esimonson:

Should we continue to prop up the PA as a �€˜moderate�€™ alternative when it has always been Hamas that has been in charge? There really is no change here except for the fact now that the mask is off and even the Euroweenies cannot hide from the fact that the Palestinians do not want peace and continue to want war.

Euroweenies, eh? How enlightened of you — childish name-calling is always helpful in a rational debate.

But you’re right, Eric. The “mask is off”. The Palestinians have spoken, and they have said they want the destruction of Israel. So now that all the excuses are out of the way, are you and the rest of this country finally willing to look at WHY they want the destruction of Israel?? I don’t buy that it’s solely due to religious differences — since there are millions of Muslims all over the world who AREN’T voting for terrorist parties or calling for the destruction of Israel.

Are you willing to consider now, after all of this, that perhaps, just maybe, Israel has done something wrong to encourage this sort of hatred? Is that a possibility that you’re willing to allow on your radar-screen somewhere? Or is this all STILL just the fault of hardliners in an otherwise peaceful Palestinian population?

Nah, there are much better reasons to impeach Bush. However, this “democracy is on the march” is just making him (and us) look dumb when these countries democratically elect hard-liner anti-american leaders.

Anyone up for dominoes? How about Battleship?

Aldous,

You realize that Hamas has said they will not stop their terrorism until Israel is destroyed? And that all Israel is asking before negotiating with them is that they retract that pledge?

You can’t force a horse to drink water. These people don’t want to participate in meaningful dialogue. They don’t want democracy. Give them a pile of money and they will spit on it and burn it just to show their contempt. Cutting off their noses to spite their face is a way of life. Also, how can you keep yabbering about the settlementsas being the reason for this vote when Israel was (I hope no longer) leaving the settlements?

Sad day. Oh, and thank you Bush for continuing your excellent record of destroying everything you touch. Heckuva job.

kctim,

Hamas is a peaceful, loving organization. It is the US that are terrorists. GW Bush is why Pal and Isr can�€™t live in peace. Impeach Bush now.

I assume you’re being facetious.

The Isr/Pal problem has been mismanaged by pretty much every US president who’s been involved. The Democrats and Republicans both have pretty much tried to blame the entire thing on Arafat (who was by no means blameless, but certainly didn’t deserve ALL the blame). The US has NEVER called Israel to task for its part in this conflict. Considering how much money they get from us, you’d think we’d be asking for a little better conduct from them.

Bush has actually done more than most presidents in reversing that trend. Under his administration, for the first time, the US allowed the UN Security Council to condemn the actions of Israel without being stopped by a US veto. We didn’t go so far as to vote FOR the resolution — we abstained on that vote — but it was more than Clinton, Reagan, Carter, or any other president in recent history has done.

The problem is that there’s a misconception in this country that Israel = Judaism, so that criticizing Israel is considered anti-Semetic. The equation is simply not true, however — I know several American Jews who are opposed to the actions of Israel, too. But the belief is so popular that no American President is willing to risk a backlash by being the one to call Israel on the carpet.

This is where I think Bush missed a golden opportunity. After 9/11, Bush had a lot of “political capital” — he was given a pretty long leash to do what needed to be done. He chose to spend that capital leading us into Iraq. He would have better served the “War on Terror”, IMHO, by directing that effort toward Palestine. Imagine if, instead of pressuring the UN for an invasion of Iraq, if he had instead pressured Israel to turn the occupied Palestinian Territories over to UN control. Then, instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq, we could have spent that money rebuilding Palestine, growing their economy, compensating those who have been “relocated” by the Israelis, and helping them truly become an autonomous country.

By ending Israeli occupation of Palestine, we could have defused one of Al Queda’s biggest recruitment tools, built an Islamic democratic model for other countries to follow, and shown the entire world that we’re not just pro-Jew/anti-Muslim.

But, unfortunately, Palestine didn’t have as much oil as Iraq, so it wasn’t as high of a priority.

RC
“I assume you�€™re being facetious”

Yeah. Just trying to fit in over here, not allowed to disagree or your a blind follower.

I’m more for cutting off ALL US aid, but I like your ideas to. They are more practical.

OOOPPPS!!!
We’ve changed our government! (and I wasn’t even watching)!!!! (maybe that’s why the Palestinians election didn’t meet our standards? ( I wish I was joking)
We no longer live in a REPUBLIC OR a DEMOCRACY (which we never have).
We live in a REPRESENTIVE DEMOCRACY.
There is major difference.

Please read the links and teach. The representatives we elect don’t seem to know this information. They seem to believe that they have a majority rule, regardless of who’s in charge. It is through EDUCATION that we can defeat corruption, KNOWLEDGE about our own government,that will put US the CITIZENS back in charge and current truthful (I’m not sure I trust any of the networks)INFORMATION to avoid falling into the uneducated traps will continue to deepen the mire we are currently in. We need to get people to realize that VOTING is not just for some but for all - it is not only a RIGHT, but a DUTY, and a MAJOR OBLIGATION weALLhave as a citizen of this great country.

And we need to seriously consider what we need to do to stop the indifference most citizens have. Be it a holiday, tax deduction, etc. Somehow we need to make it FEEL mandatory.

No one is capable of taking over our government, unless we allow it. Instead of fighting about PARTIES we need to be trying to fight for our COUNTRY and our GOVERNMENT. Right now we don’t have time to argue about who is right or wrong especially other counties. We need to start worrying about our OWN

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html#Q76
Constitutional Representative Democracy

==================================================

Forms of government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_government

Representative democracy

Democracy
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/democracy

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pure+democracy

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/social+democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

Republic:

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=republic

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=democrac
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/republic

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=republic

SOURCES
The American Heritage® Dictionary

Columbia Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Careful Linda, you’re starting to sound like me.
Next thing you know, you will be thinking for yourself more and more.
Then you will be ready for:
infowars.com

“Instead of fighting about PARTIES we need to be trying to fight for our COUNTRY and our GOVERNMENT”

I think I’m in love.

Rob wrote:

Yet another attempt to redefine the word ‘democracy’ to fit only those countries we consider worthy of it. Democracy, by definition, is government by the people. That pretty much means elections, either to decide the issues or to choose who will decide the issues. It doesn�€™t mean human rights protections, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, or any of that stuff. Those are the things we have in addition to Democracy that make our country so great.

Have to disagree with you there Rob. Democracy is made up of a lot of things — not just elections. Unless you can show me a country that you consider a “democracy” but doesn’t have the other things I mentioned (or at least a significant amount of them), I gotta say you’re definition is a little warped.

“Sometimes I hate always being right.” Posted by American Pundit at January 27, 2006 11:30 AM

Careful, you’re sounding like a Repuglican, don’t start getting that self-righteous bighead.

kc and linda,
maybe after you get a room you’ll be a bit more relaxed and able to listen to other points of view than your own.

You a riot Dave.
I find it funny that the ones talking about the people waking up, working together and taking back our country are the ones who need to “listen to other points of view than our own.”

I am so sorry for being soooo closed minded for thinking that way.
It’s Bush’s fault.
It’s Bush’s fault.
It’s Bush’s fault.
There. I’m sure those are the “other points of view” that you were wanting to be heard.

PS
Linda made a statement. I agreed with it responded in a corny way (its Friday! unless Bush did something to make that bad also) and I’m sure she thought it was dumb.
Lighten up, the cornball crap is ALL on me.

You folks do have some interesting viewpoints.

Here’s my take. Hamas is definitely a terrorist organization, dedicated to the elimination of Israel. No way to deny it, or get around it since they have publically called for the erasure of Israel from the map.

If by democracy you mean a free election of a government, no matter what the type, the the Palestinians just participated in a democratic process.. The fact that we may not approve of the government being formed is totally irrelevant. It’s there, get over it.

As to the hatred the Palestinians feel for Israel, that goes back to 1948. The Balfour Declaration that carved Israel from what had been Arab land for centuries. Naturally, the Arabs didn’t like it.

The situation is easier to understand if we take a hypothetical situation in this country, based on historical facts. The state of Kentucky, where I live, was once inhabited by the Cherokee, among others. The white settlers chased the Cherokee out. Let’s say that the descendants of the Cherokee filed a lawsuit asking for their land back. The Supreme Court agrees with the Cherokee and gives all residents of Kentucky who cannot prove Cherokee ancestry 60 days to vacate the state and find another place to live. How would we feel? Maybe like kicking a little Cherokee butt?

I do not condone the methods of Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups, but I can understand how they might feel.

Steve K,

Have to disagree with you there Rob. Democracy is made up of a lot of things �€” not just elections. Unless you can show me a country that you consider a �€œdemocracy�€ but doesn�€™t have the other things I mentioned (or at least a significant amount of them), I gotta say you�€™re definition is a little warped.

I’ll use the best, closest-to-home example I can think of — the United States of America, circa 1790.

In 1789, we adopted our Constitution. We became the model for democracy, which we’re still trying to promote around the world. Yet, at that time, and for decades after, we still maintained slavery, lack of women’s suffrage, government-sponsored religious persecution, etc. By today’s standards, we were a barbaric, bigoted, oppressive society. But we were still a democracy (a representative democracy, to be specific).

Again, to qualify as a democracy, all you really need is choices to vote on. Civil rights, rule of law, etc. are important to a free society, but they’re not required for democracy.

A big reason that democracies succeed is that citizens have to take responsibility for (and live with the consequences of) the choices they make in the election booth. It’s a learning process, and sometimes a slow one.

For decades, though, the international community has taken the exact opposite aproach to the Palestinians, rewarding and making excuses for things as terrible as deliberately blowing up busses full of schoolchildren. It’s no wonder that the Palestinians have not learned to connect their choices to consequneces.

If the Palestinians are finally forced to take responsiblity for their actions, including their polticial choices, this could turn out to be a great learning experience for them.

They say they want a war with Israel, and they celebrate acts of terrorism, while Israel, a true democratic government, responds in half-measures in order to avoid to the extent possible the ire of the international community.

Elect Hamas, however, whose stated goal is all out war with Israel, and they might just get what they say they want—which can end only one possible way, with their own destruction.

If the gloves come off, Israel will crush them totally and nobody will be able to do a thing to stop it.

The biggest victors in the Palestinian elections were the Israeli right, who will now have a much freer hand to impose their will.

AP,
“Everywhere President Bush encouraged free and fair elections — from Riyadh to Baghdad, from Cairo to Beirut — angry Islamists gained political power…Anyhow, you can be sure Hamas isn’t going to pick up the Middle East peace process where Fatah left off. It’s a whole new ballgame.”

That’s it, blame Bush. How original and just. These militant islamist have been breeding hatred and it’s not the Jews or the US’s fault. It’s there fault, and don’t even try to insinuate that Fatah were better off than Hammas; they’re both terrorists that hate Israel. This is Germany 1935 and we now have a chance to stop this hatred before an annihilation and eradication of Jews even begins. The thing to watch here is what side people are going to be on? Who’s “with us or against us” as our President so aptly phrased it about the terrorists. Let’s see who the abolitionists will be in this dilemma. I’m sure the Bush bashers will be front and center; they’re wrong and will be proven wrong (AGAIN!), yet it’s going to be interesting to live this history, rather than read about it like we did with Hitler and WWII.

As I’ve been saying, figure out what side you’re on and get on it…

Get the room first, kc.

rahdigly,

This is Germany 1935 and we now have a chance to stop this hatred before an annihilation and eradication of Jews even begins.

There’s a much bigger problem here, though… how exactly do you “stop this hatred”? Iraq was easy — just take out Saddam and the Baath Party. Unlike Iraq, this isn’t a case of a dictator in power over an oppressed people — these folks were democratically elected BY the people! If your plan is to go in and take out all those who oppose Israel, you better be willing to commit some serious genocide, because the Palestinian people — en masse — have spoken up in favor of war on Israel.

AP:

What is with you and Al Gore? Condemning leaders before they even get sworn in. Give Hamas some time to do the math.

1. Israel if militarily superior.
2. We are dependent on foreign aid.

People change. Politicians change. The world looks very different once elected.

There is a process in place that will lead to change in positions and attitudes. Democracy is a great moderating influence on ideas. I don’t think it should be condemned and declared a failure before the people are even sworn in.

Craig

You and Al Gore been talking?

So problems cannot be solved under current conditions.

Nobody who hopes for peace can be happy with the result. It is obvious that democracy can produce bad results. But what is the alternative?

So we blame the President for being in favor of democracy. The alternative he should have supported was to prop up a government that didn’t represent the people and try to recreate and perpetuate the neo-colonial control by the Israelis.

We have a bad situation and a problem that cannot be solved at this time and must be tolerated. I don’t see it as a failure of anyone’s policy, nor to I see any solution at this time.

George Marshall, one of our greatest Secretaries of State and a man of unquestionable honor opposed U.S. recognition of Israel during the Truman Administration. He lost the argument to Clark Clifford, someone for whom principles were more fluid. We could talk about how history could have been different. I respect that our President is standing on the principle of democracy. I don’t see any other way.

I think of this like kayaking down white water rapids. You don�€™t know what you are going to do until you see which way the water breaks.

Rahdigly, the liberal posters here have been wrong about this from the start—at least since the start of this thread.

American Pundit said in the orginal post:

President Bush painfully tried to spin the free election of Israel’s mortal enemy as “positive”

This is nonsense, and saying such a thing shows a willingness to say anything at all, even something completely false, in order to bash Bush. Bush has actually said that he isn’t going to deal with this new goverment at all unless they completely renounce everything they stand for.

I agree that Bush has made major blunders in dealing with the Palestinian issue, and he gets no points here on either style or substance from me. So this has nothing to do, from my perspective, with defending Bush.

All of Bush’s blunders stem from following the same policies America has followed through Carter, Reagan and Clinton and from abandoning the principles he’s followed in other parts of the world. The mistake has been an over-reliance on the powers of toothless diplomacy and turning a blind eye to what the Palestinians say to each other in their own language while striking a pose of victimhood and speaking of “peace” to the international community.

Allowing Arafat to die a natural death was one significant blunder. Taking anything that came out of Oslo at face value was another.

Despite decades of diplomacy, billions of American and international dollars, and two Nobel Peace Prizes, the Middle East “peace process” is now officially in a worse state than it was twenty years ago. All hail the diplomatic prowess of the international community!

Perhaps it’s in the worst state ever. After all, an even worse terrorist organization than the last terrorist organization that ruled the Palestinian territories (Arafat’s) is now in power.

When will Bush, the UN, Israel, and all the nations of the world catch on to this? It isn’t that difficult. You don’t coddle terrorists. You don’t give money to terrorists. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. You either kill or isolate them. There is no third way.

Sanger,
“You don’t coddle terrorists. You don’t give money to terrorists. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. You either kill or isolate them. There is no third way.”

Don’t be silly. No need for histrionics. There is most certainly a third way. In fact, bribing terrorists is an excellent idea, and throughout the history of the region, it hs worked very very well. Co-opt movementd, pay off leaders, absolutely, by all means. In much of the world, what we consider bribery is considered a perfectly honorable and acceptable way of resolving conflicts.

In a sense, all negotiations are a bribe. In a sense, the Camp David agreements were merely bribes of enormous proportions. To this day, we still pay Egpyt & Israel to keep the peace.

Will it work with the Israelis and the Palestinians? Maybe not. But I wouldn’t rule it out for a second.

There are better ways to resolve problems than killing people.

Personally, I don’t have much sympathy for the Palestinians, who have time & again resorted to the most ruthless violence against the Israelis. I don’t have much sympathy for the Israelis, either, who time & agains have suppressed the Palestinians with ruthless violence.

The Israelis are trying the South African ‘apartheid’ approach by creating impoverished Palestinian Bantustans. Israel is a very fine democracy if you are Jewish. It is not a democracy if you are not Jewish. Hamas is unlikely to accept a long-term Bantustan solution. And neither side is likely to come to their senses, and establish secular states.

We could stand aside, and let them have at each other. If the Israelis want to have a Jewish state at Palestinian expense, and the Iranians want to have an Islamic state, and the Iraqis want to have an Islamic state, and the Palestinians want to annihilate the Jews, then let them resolve their own problems, for better or worse.

But if we must interfere, why not pay them off? It’s better than watching people cut each other’s throats.

Rob,
“If your plan is to go in and take out all those who oppose Israel, you better be willing to commit some serious genocide, because the Palestinian people �€” en masse �€” have spoken up in favor of war on Israel.”

You can “take out” the Iranian Islamofascists without destroying everyone in Iran. I’ve mentioned before that the world community has to (MUST!) come together and sanction this regime. It has to! Iran controls the world largest oil supply and they must be hit where it hurts them most. Period.

Now, Bush was definitely right to encourage democracy throughout the middle east; this is a case of the palestinians showing us who they really are and support, terrorists! Not all, but damn, come on! They replaced one Jew hating group with another. The election result tells us more about the Palestinians and what they believe. Bush was also correct to not deal with them until they renounce their views of Israeli destruction.

Sanger,

“The mistake has been an over-reliance on the powers of toothless diplomacy and turning a blind eye to what the Palestinians say to each other in their own language while striking a pose of victimhood and speaking of “peace” to the international community.”

I definitely agree with you. It’s always been the Israelis that have made concessions and the PLO has done nothing (NOTHING!). The palestinians always play that victim bull crap while they send suicide bomber after suicide bomber and terrorist faction after terrorist faction and I feel enough is enough. Let’s make economic sanctions that’s strict enough to make them suffer and let’s destroy all six of the Nuclear Plants that they have. Then, they’ll have to make concessions and recognize Israel as a Jewish State. If not (and probably not), then it will be worth the effort in the long run; no matter how many people die and how much destruction takes place.

Phx8, I wasn’t disagreeing with you. In fact, bribing terrorists in the way you describe is what I meant when I suggested isolating them.

If they can be bribed, by all means, bribe them and isolate them from the goals of their followers. I think that’s what we’ve done with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Al Sadr (so far) in Iraq.

When dealing with that part of the world, you can’t always stand on principle—no disagreement.

Palestine is different, though. We tried bribing Arafat, for decades, and he still called for the Second Intafada and kept on inciting the terrorists while holding out his hand for donations from Europe and the US.

It was an incredibly sobering moment, and the whole world missed the boat. Palestine was offered their demand for a state and they refuesed it because it didn’t include the destruction of Israel.

But when Arafat’s duplicity was made obvious, when he refused the offer of an independent Palestine and took the path of inciting terror instead, he needed to keep a well-deserved appointment with an Israeli missle. WE, and Bush, sadly, buckled to pressure from the Europeans and kept that from occuring.

And we all see the results now: Hamas in power. The Palestinians, I suspect, are going to pay for this and pay dearly. It didn’t have to be this way.

>>The state of Kentucky, where I live, was once inhabited by the Cherokee, among others. The white settlers chased the Cherokee out. Let�€™s say that the descendants of the Cherokee filed a lawsuit asking for their land back. The Supreme Court agrees with the Cherokee and gives all residents of Kentucky who cannot prove Cherokee ancestry 60 days to vacate the state and find another place to live. How would we feel? Maybe like kicking a little Cherokee butt?

J Back,

I may be wrong, but when Truman and the Brits conceded Palistine to the Jews, I don’t think there was a state. It was a British Protectorate. At the time there were as many or more Jews living there as Arabs. Truman drew up the borders and the Brits took off like a stampeding herd for parts unknown. The ‘48 war would never have taken place if the withdrawl of British forces had been done properly.

Kctim,
Thanks for the support and the love note, but I’m afraid I may fall off your pedestal rather quickly.

I really don’t see how Bush can honestly be blamed for what has happened in Palestine. From what I’ve heard, most of the Middle East is illiterate - which means, I suspect, that most only know what they are told by their comrades.

I’m quiet sure that Bush and the US have been touted as the most horrible, idolizing monetarily greedy, torture-loving, war-mongering people to ever exist.

I remember being in Spain many years ago (Franco was very much alive and in control) and seeing a Spanish newspaper showing a US policeman beating a small child. My first reaction was to be horrified. My second was to take a much closer look, where, even with untrained eyes one could see where the picture had been spliced. I’m sure the process has been refined since then.

While I can find much to criticism Bush’s Administration, (as well as several others) what has happened in Palestine has more do to with ignorance - the much the same ignorance that seems to be plaguing our own country.

I still maintain that EDUCATION is our only choice - that and more voters - REGARDLESS of political of affiliation.

P.S. Again thanks for helping me out with the ah strong and slant and other stuff. As you can see I am using it without abandon.
Dave, (heaven forbid)maybe be right -

Maybe we should get a room so we can conspire together (I went to the site you posted!!!)
We wouldn’t want to bore Dave by repeating ourselves! ;-)

Marysdude

Truman recognized the state of Israel and was recognizing the facts on the ground. He didn�€™t cede anything to anybody. We need not always look at everything through the American prism. The U.S. was not a particular supporter of Israel until after 1967. In fact, during the Suez Crisis the U.S. acted against Israel and our French and British allies to the benefit of Egypt.

I think this whole post and most of the comments are a little off the mark in that they implicitly treat the U.S. as the actor and everyone else as objects. We have to recognize that we don’t have the power to do everything and others have to acknowledge that not everything is our fault.

The Palestinians have put themselves in between a rock and a hard place. Because of the choices they made, many of them will die and if they persist in their error, it will wreck their prospective country. The circumstances are not entirely of their making, but they have the most to gain or lose by making good choices.

What should we do about it? Not much. We can’t deal with Hamas as long as proudly proclaim themselves to be terrorist.

I saw a Hamas candidate interviewed on TV. Three of her sons had killed themselves while trying to kill Jews. The woman was proud of them. In fact she claimed she had encouraged them when they were young to do just what they did. What is a mother to do? They blow up so fast, don’t they?

Marysdude, your read of history is pretty good.

There was no nation called “Palestine” when all of this went down. In fact, most of the national boundaries of the Middle East were arbitrarily carved out of European colonies at one time in history or another.

But hell, that’s true of North and South America too. The boundaries between Canada and the US are old boundaries of English colonies, and the boundaries of Mexico are roughly carved out of the lines of the old boundaries of the colonies of France, England and Spain.

In the Middle East, there are huge swaths of Arab lands and one tiny stretch of land for the Jews. At certain places, you can actually stand and look from with your own eyes from the Eastern to the Western border.

Israel wants a tiny piece of real estate where they, the most persecuted minority in the history of the world, can live and feel safe, but anti-semitism and Arab nationalism doesn’t want to give them anything and wants them destroyed.

The number of “Palestinians” now in the Palestinian territories hugely outnumbers the population of Arabs who have historically ever lived in the tiny slice of land where the Jews want to live and make a safe refuge for themselves in the face of the world’s genocidal hate.

Anybody who disagrees with the international community’s decision to create this homeland for the Jews is fifty years too late. The world made that decision, just as they determined the borders of all the states in the Middle East.

After the holocaust, the Jews who have taken the world up on this offer of a homeland do not deserve to be blown up on busses and killed in their beds just because Europe or the UN might be having second thoughts now about the decisions THEY made decades ago.

rahdigly,

You can “take out” the Iranian Islamofascists without destroying everyone in Iran. I’ve mentioned before that the world community has to (MUST!) come together and sanction this regime. It has to! Iran controls the world largest oil supply and they must be hit where it hurts them most. Period.

Iran’s a different story. When was the last time Iran lost land to someone, and the US vetoed a 14-1 Security Council vote to defend them? The answer is NEVER. Iran is in a position of safety and security relative to the Palestinians.

And, for the record, Iran doesn’t have the world’s largest oil supply. Saudi Arabia has the largest, and Iraq has the second largest. Iran is at best third on the list.

Now, Bush was definitely right to encourage democracy throughout the middle east

I agree. I don’t necessarily agree with his methods (i.e. invading Iraq), but I do agree that encouraging democracy in the region is a good thing.

this is a case of the palestinians showing us who they really are and support, terrorists! Not all, but damn, come on!

Yes, the Palestinians are supporting terrorists. These terrorists have done horrible, horrible things, and are daily spreading a message of hate and violence throughout the Middle East. I’m in complete agreement there…

…but…

Who exactly do you think they SHOULD have voted for?? The unfortunate truth is that the Palestinians are a horribly downtrodden people, and the only ones standing up to defend the rights of those people ARE the terrorists! We’re not defending the rights of the Palestinians. Israel certainly isn’t defending the rights of these people. And every time the UN has discussed the idea, the US has vetoed it.

By constantly ignoring the very real problems that the Palestinians are facing, by consistently turning a blind eye to the atrocities that have been performed against them, we have forced them into the arms of the enemy. If you’re stuck at the bottom of a hole, which keeps getting deeper, and the Americans won’t help you out, and Europe won’t help you out, and the only people offering to help you out are the terrorists, are you going to live at the bottom of the hole on general principle, or are you going to take the only helping hand that’s been offered? That’s the situation the Palestinians have been in for decades. It’s no wonder they’ve thrown their support to Hamas! What choice have they been given?

They replaced one Jew hating group with another. The election result tells us more about the Palestinians and what they believe. Bush was also correct to not deal with them until they renounce their views of Israeli destruction.

The Palestinians are losing ground every single day. Israel is dismantling settlements with one hand, while building a wall to claim Palestinian land with the other hand. The Palestinian people have never been in a position of safety — their land has constantly been under seige. The ONLY people offering to defend them have been the terrorists.

If you want the Palestinian people to “renounce their views of Israeli destruction”, you’ll first have to stop Israel from stealing their land. If you want the Palestinian people to support someone other than terrorists, you’ll first have to show them that someone other than the terrorists is willing to defend them.

The reason why the US needs to do this is because WE are the ones who have kept it from happening for decades. Through our vetoes on the UN Security Council, we have ensured that nobody BUT the terrorists could raise their voice in defense of Palestine.

This isn’t just about President Bush. This is about Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford… a consistent policy of neglect that has spanned several decades and both parties.

Rob,

Bull. The Palestinians were given the chance to go back to pre-1967 borders with a promise of peace and they said no. Nothing short of the complete destruction of Israel will satisfy them - hence Hamas. The peace talks were working, and that is what drove the vote for Hamas, because they don’t want peace.

Also, the analogy between Palestinians and American Indians is bogus. There was hardly anyone at all living in Palestine before there was an Israel.

sanger,

Anybody who disagrees with the international community�€™s decision to create this homeland for the Jews is fifty years too late. The world made that decision, just as they determined the borders of all the states in the Middle East.

Creating a homeland for the Jewish people wasn’t the problem — kicking the existing residents out of their homes to do it was. That’s a practice that is expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, that practice is still occurring today.

Israel has had the means to end this conflict for decades. It just takes three basic steps:

#1) Israel needs to decide where the border between Israel and Palestine will be. It can be as big or as small as Israel wants it to be, as long as they uphold #2 below. Hell, they can claim the whole damn Palestinian territory if they’re willing to go that route.

#2) Accept that with the land comes the people. Accept the people who live on the land that is claimed for Israel as citizens, with full rights and priviledges thereof. Do this regardless of race, religion, or political belief. Do not relocate anyone.

#3) Transition the remaining territory into self-rule and eventual independence.

The problem, of course, is that Israel is not willing to accept #2. They are unwilling to give the Palestinian people full citizenship rights within Israel, for fear of losing the Jewish majority. So they’re constantly redefining the Israel-Palestine border so as to claim as much Palestinian land as possible, and as few Palestinian people as possible. Establishing a solid, unmoving border is not within Israel’s best interest, because they would lose the ability to reset the playing field as local demographics change.

Jack,

What is a mother to do? They blow up so fast, don�€™t they?

That is about the sickest thing I’ve ever read on WatchBlog. Do you actually think that was funny?

Rob, the very same international bodies who ratified each of the many versions of the Geneva Convention are the same bodies who created the state of Israel. Any objections to their decisions should be taken up with them, and not the civilians of modern-day Israel who had nothing to do with those orginal decisions.

What if the French sent suicide bombers to Louisiana to protest the fact that it used to be French? What if the Dutch or English sent suicide bombers to New York because long ago the French and English were driven from their homes in these places?

After WWII, many Germans were evicted from their homes in what is now Poland, the Czech Republic amd Russia. Many Japanese were evicted from their homes in what used to be parts of the Japanese Empire. I’m not saying that this was always fair, but it all happened generations ago.

Only the Palestinians have failed to be intigrated in other places at this point, and that’s because the vast Arab territories that surround Israel refuse to intigrate them as part of a campaign to try to isolate them and make them miserable as part of a PR campaign to rid the Middle East of Israel.

The boundaries of the present state of Israel are only partially determined by the orginal mandate. They are also determined by several wars in which Arab states invaded Israel in an attempt to exterminate and commit genocide.

The vast majority of those who live in Palestinian territories today NEVER lived in Israel. Some of my ancestors were driven from their homes in Ireland, but I’m not about to lay claim to these places where I’ve never lived and to which I have no contemporary claim just because history was once unfair to my anscestors.

There are huge uninhabited areas of places like Jordan and Saudi Arabai where the Palestinians now living in squalor could go, but they’re not allowed to go there because they are pawns in a game to eradicate Israel.

maybe it’s time the UN recognizes a Palestinian state complete with official boundaries so at least both sides know what they’re fighting for.

President Bush painfully tried to spin the free election of Israel’s mortal enemy as “positive”

This is nonsense, and saying such a thing shows a willingness to say anything at all, even something completely false, in order to bash Bush.

sanger, I’m merely quoting President Bush. He described the free and fair election of Hamas terrorists as “positive”.

“There’s something healthy about a system that does that,” President Bush said.

If you don’t like it, take it up with him.

You and Al Gore been talking?

Of course, Craig. Al Gore gets all his talking points from me. You should, too. After all, I predicted this outcome a year ago. :)

sanger,

Ok… great. So any Palestinian claim to the original mandate of Israel is bogus, or at the very least undefendable. I agree.

But Israel isn’t sitting on just its original mandate, as you have pointed out. It’s occupied a great deal of land (the “Palestinian Territiories”) during wars with its neighbors. And in taking over that land, Israel has been unwilling to accept the population that is on that land. They are STILL — TODAY — moving Palestinian people off of that land to make room for Jews. These are the actions of modern-day Israel, not the leftover remnants of the mistakes of Europeans in 1948. And they are in violation of Geneva Convention rules.

Here’s the serious response:

Let me sum up your post: democracy doesn’t create peace.

Does this mean that dictatorship is preferable to democracy

Preferable to whom, Eric?

The US is obviously better off with Musharraf in charge of Pakistan and the Saudi royal family in charge of Saudi Arabia, and Mubarak in charge of Egypt. Or would you rather see terrorists running those nations too?

The fact that we may not approve of the government being formed is totally irrelevant. It’s there, get over it.

John and Jack — I think you’re saying the same thing — no doubt Arafat’s PLO and Fatah were parasites on the backs of the Palestinians. Neither were given a mandate to rule or speak for Palestine.

And given Hamas’ record of honesty and good governance, I fully expect them to govern Palestine well — and to continue working toward the destruction of Israel. As I said, the two are not mutually exclusive.

…I think of this like kayaking down white water rapids. You don’t know what you are going to do until you see which way the water breaks.

See, this I don’t like. I am a firm and unrepentent foreign policy conservative. President Bush’s extremely liberal passion for turning over Middle Eastern countries to freely elected terrorists doesn’t make America safer.

Jimmy Carter had the same disease with his human rights agenda. He stopped supporting the Shah of Iran, who tortured and suppressed Iranian Islamist militants — and gave the Islamists their first state.

Now President Bush comes along with his mistaken belief that “democracy yields peace” and gives away the entire Middle East to the terrorists along with all its strategic resources.

Both those guys may follow ideologies that help them sleep better at night, but it doesn’t strengthen America.

American Pundit, I hope you don’t think you’re fooling anybody by selectively pulling out one word like that and saying that it means something it doesn’t.

What Bush said was “And there was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that’s positive.”

Then he went on to say, “I have made it very clear, however, that a political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal.”

Tom,

maybe it�€™s time the UN recognizes a Palestinian state complete with official boundaries so at least both sides know what they�€™re fighting for.

Exactly. Recognizing official boundaries is the important part. It would discourage Israel from redefining the border whenever it was most convenient to them.

Also, while I don’t think Palestine is quite ready for full independence, I do think that it’s high time the UN took over the occupation. Having their greatest enemy in control of building their state hasn’t really been working all that well….

American Pundit, I hope you don’t think you’re fooling anybody by selectively pulling out one word like that and saying that it means something it doesn’t.

sanger, now you’re pulling out one single quote and trying to fool everyone. Here’s what President Bush said in context:

So the Palestinians had an election yesterday, and the results of which remind me about the power of democracy. You see, when you give people the vote, you give people a chance to express themselves at the polls — and if they’re unhappy with the status quo, they’ll let you know. That’s the great thing about democracy, it provides a look into society.

And yesterday the turnout was significant, as I understand it. And there was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that’s positive. But what was also positive is, is that it’s a wake-up call to the leadership. Obviously, people were not happy with the status quo. The people are demanding honest government. The people want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find health care.

And so the elections should open the eyes of the old guard there in the Palestinian territories. I like the competition of ideas. I like people who have to go out and say, vote for me, and here’s what I’m going to do. There’s something healthy about a system that does that. And so the elections yesterday were very interesting.

On the other hand, I don’t see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform.

President Bush clearly feels that the election of Hamas terrorists was “positive” and “healthy”. He just has a problem with their agenda.

AP,

President Bush clearly feels that the election of Hamas terrorists was �€œpositive�€ and �€œhealthy�€. He just has a problem with their agenda.

Wow… that’s more than most Republicans would say about the election of a Democrat! (Or vice versa…)

Rob, where are you getting any of this about a violation of the Geneva Conventions? The Palestinians have tried to push this idea about the Geneva conventions for a long time now, and it’s gotten nowhere even in the European courts because it’s nothing but Palestinian propaganda that can’t even get a hearing in otherwise sympathetic international courts.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, the only one that might pertain (which covers the treatment of civilians) does not pertain to territory taken in a defensive war.

Even the Europeans agree that Israel fought defensive wars against invading Arab armies. There are no grounds whatsover to say otherwise.

The whole world knows full well that if they open that Pandora’s box, France, Poland and other European countries will have to give parts of their countries back to Germany in order to restore the pre-WWII boundaries. Germany fought an aggressive war, and they lost land as a result. That’s the price you pay.

The international community, especially those in Europe, just don’t want to go there, and it would be rank hypocricy for them to demand that Israel do something they’d never consider doing themselves.

American Pundit:

I think your point about Saudi Arabia is spot on. If the Saudis had an election tomorrow, I understand that the subjects there would probably vote for a conservative, leadership essentially directed by an even more conservative set of clerics (i.e. Iran). Since we must continue to manage multiple relationships with countries who have the resource we want most, why destabilize those relationships by throwing in a “mob rule” vote where the rule of law simply doesn’t exist? As far as Iraq goes, we brought a mob rule election to a country that really isn’t a country. It’s a collection of three tribes who have fought each other to the death for hundreds of years. Sure, Saddam was a scumbag, but the world is full of them. Why destabilize the one who could provide two million barrels of badly needed oil-per-day, and spend an unbelievable amount of money doing it, so that we now have a much much bigger problem of handling what would have been a small problem for the loss of resources that should come out of Africa? If we had simply stood up and told the world that we’re different now, we’re the only superpower left, and yes, we will now refer to the Defense Department as the Offense Department, never let Iraq have a vote, but instead leave a very large military presence in Iraq, maybe even change the country’s name—a rebranding (bidness folks understand rebranding), and stay there until we’ve sucked every last natural resource out that we needed, then left it to the camels as it once was, we’d at least have been philosophically consistent and forthright. No one could have denied that we weren’t “stand up guys.”

No one could have denied that we weren�€™t “stand up guys.”

Heh. Seriously though, that’s a big problem with President Bush’s foreign policy. The world wonders why President Bush is willing to got to war for democracy in Iraq, but supports coups against the democratically elected leaders in Venezuela and Haiti. The world wonders why deomcracy in the Middle East is so important for world peace, but democracy in Pakistan is unnecessary.

Beyond the apparent hypocrisy, you have to wonder why President Bush is supporting a democratic agenda in places that will surely put terrorists in charge if given the chance. How does Hamas rule in Palestine, SCIRI rule in Iraq, Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt, Islamist rule in Saudi Arabia, and Hezbollah rule in Lebanon benefit the United States?

AP.
“… You have to wonder why President Bush is supporting a democratic agenda in places that will surely put terrorists in charge if given the chance. How does Hamas rule in Palestine, SCIRI rule in Iraq, Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt, Islamist rule in Saudi Arabia, and Hezbollah rule in Lebanon benefit the United States?”

Well said. But this is a point where I actually agree with Bush. In the long run, we’re better off with countries run by governments which reflect the desires of their people, even if that means groups like SCIRI, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others attain power. I agree with the idea of placing human rights, self-determination & self-rule, and so on, at the forefront of American foreign policy. It’s our greatest strength.

But it does require a different mindset. Helping countries transition to representative governments has to be a peaceful process (when we participate). It absolutely will not work when imposed by military force, by invasion & occupation, as in the case of Iraq.

It requires a different mindset, for example, an even-handed approach towards the conflict between Israel & the Palestinians. It requires coming to terms with Islamic regimes. It requires developing a respectful relationship with countries like Iran.

For the Bush vision of democracy & liberty to succeed, the US will have to put aside talk of terrorists. We’ll have to stop attempting to intimidate Iran and other countries.

This will take a lot of patience. It may mean years of gritting our teeth while the fires of democracy burn hot in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other nations. There are a lot of injustices to be righted, past policies to be atoned for, resentments to be aired, and so put to rest.

As someone noted earlier, education will be key. Interaction, globalization, trade, and western culture will ultimately make the process successful.

The real test will be whether we can help other countries make these cathartic transitions peacefully.

American Pundit:

I think the answer for why Bush is pushing for democracy where it probably doesn’t serve the U.S. is because he is an idealogue, just not a very deep thinking one.

Ideally, I get it. I’m an idealist and I’d love the world to be one big democracy. (Based on the last two presidential elections, I’m not convinced we’re really a democracy right now, but I digress.) But this just wasn’t the right place or time. The Middle East is a far different place than Central America or a non-oil producing country in Africa or even Eastern Europe. The stakes are much much much bigger. The dollars to be made for American interests in Iraq alone are simply mindnumbing.

The U.S. has a history of destablizing countries and then not receiving the benefit that it wanted, and usually ending up with something worse and much more expensive to manage. Bush has decided that a vote by newly annointed “citizens” whose civics education was received at the business end of an AK-47 somehow must be better than just dropping in a puppet. In Iraq’s case, I believe that we should not have gone there in the first place. But because we did, we should have set the tone that we were there to “update the management structure of the oil-for-food program.” We would now manage it. We would provide the food and we would receive the oil.

Bush strikes me as a John Wayne wannabe, and it would not surprise me at all if Cheney and Rumsfeld were for turning Iraq into a U.S. colony, but somehow “the democracy thing” popped up. Hmmm. Now what do we do? We can’t afford to stay and fix the infrastructure. It’s not easy to tell an enemy from an ally there. The Shiites and the Sunni are ready to do battle to the death. Both are ready to kill our military, civilians, and journalists in the process. At least the Kurds are pretty happy with where they are and are moving forward.

I’m with the purple-hearted senator on this one. It’s time to come home. Let the civil war really ramp up. We can sit this one out and shift our focus to kicking some but in Africa and taking their oil. Once we’re done, we can introduce democracy there—but only after we take what we came for and thoroughly crush anyone who stands in our way (this is where I fade out with a menacing laugh—cue the echo)

sanger,

The Geneva Convention violations have nothing to do with Israel not giving the land back. They have everything to do with the treatment of the civilian population of that land. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically forbids moving the conquered civilian population out of the area, or moving the occupying civilian population into the area.

Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories specifically violate the clause in Article 49 which states:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Israel has every right to occupy the territory. But they don’t have the right to uproot the population. Yet that has been happening, again and again, for decades. And we support them doing it.

And, yes, Europe does “want to go there”. Consider, for example, the March 7, 1997 draft resolution to the UN Security council, proposed by “France, Portugal, Sweden and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, expressing concerns over continued settlements in the Palestinian territories, and calling upon Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention. That one got a 14-1 vote in the Security Council. It would have passed if that 1 vote hadn’t been a US veto. That’s one of over two dozen resolutions regarding Israel that we’ve vetoed, as the sole opposing vote, since 1983.

Do you still want to stand by that statement that even Europe doesn’t believe Israel is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention? Because that simply ain’t true. And, based on voting records, everyone knows it except the US and Israel.

rob,

Are you willing to consider now, after all of this, that perhaps, just maybe, Israel has done something wrong to encourage this sort of hatred?

Yes, wanting to live is a grave wrong. Are you kidding me?

You and Aldous are articulating the far-left’s radical ideas about Israel: It’s all the ‘joos’ fault. Nice.

But then it’s not very different from pronouncements of 9/11 being our fault as well, is it? Our ‘imperialist’ foreign policy and support for the zionist state?

Hellooo?

What jews did was return to the land of their fathers. Palestinians were not ejected from their land to make way for jews. ONLY AFTER— after ‘Palestinians’ decided in their anti-semetic hatred that ‘jews’ should all be killed and forced out of Israel did any Palestinians lose their land. Palestinians decided the jews had to die and they had the unfortunate problem of losing the war they started.

Geneva Convention specifically forbids moving the conquered civilian population out of the area, or moving the occupying civilian population into the area.

There are no civilians, Rob. Because there is no ‘Palestinian’ military. It is a guerilla war fought by ‘civilians’.

The problem here is that Americans are simply myopic about Palestine. Unless the US is willing to face the abuses of BOTH sides, they will never be a honest broker.

esimonson:

Land of their Fathers? Kinda hypocritical, eh? Even the Bible says that the Jews stole the land from other people in the Old Testament. Remember the City of Jericho? Their justification was that God gave them the Land.

Really. The American People’s unwillingness to admit ANY blame on Israel is the main reason this is going on.

BTW… We already know you favored the killing of women and children. Thanks for confirming it.

Take a look at this map:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/

Sad situation. I read somewhere that the mitochondrial DNA evidence points to close relationship between many Jews and Palistinians. They are ,after all, children of Abraham.
If Isreal could get over the idea that it has to be a Jewish state and just be a good state where Jews are safe there could be some hope. Isreal does not recognize a marriage between a Jew and an Arab for example. Why could’nt the settlements on the west bank just been housing developements where anybody could live?
Pretty naive I’m afraid. This is more evidence of just why religion must be kept separate from government for peace.

Rob,
“Who exactly do you think they SHOULD have voted for?? The unfortunate truth is that the Palestinians are a horribly downtrodden people, and the only ones standing up to defend the rights of those people ARE the terrorists! We’re not defending the rights of the Palestinians. Israel certainly isn’t defending the rights of these people. And every time the UN has discussed the idea, the US has vetoed it.”

???? So, let me get this straight, you’re saying the palestinians are the victims here? The US and the Israelis are the problem? It’s the US’s fault for Vetoing them in the UN. ??????

How many times do the Arabs countries veto anything to do with Israel? What’s always talk about is that Saddam had 17 UN violations against him; however, Israel has nearly double that amount b/c the UN is filled with anti-Israel countries. Remember, it was our current UN Embassador that (then with the State department) lobbied to overturn the “Zionism equals Racism” resolution in the UN. Remember that? Were the palestinians “vitcims” then?! Was it Americas fault or Israels, for that matter?

Come on Rob, you have to stop blaming the US and Israel and start placing your finger on the real problem; the palestinians and the radical muslims. They are the ones who are “intolerant” and can’t live amongst anyone else. Until they do, they will get no sympathy from the US and Israel and, hopefully the rest of the world will wake up, as well.

“It’s no wonder they’ve thrown their support to Hamas! What choice have they been given?”

As opposed to Fatah?! Arafat?!! Each of the groups had one thing in common, they hate Israel and won’t recognize a Jewish state. Period! So, they weren’t “thrown” into anything, their hatred and ignorance will get them killed and it’s their own, damn fault. And, if Iran keeps up their disgusting hate, then the US and Israel will solve the world’s energy crisis; we’ll take them out and seize their oil. Oh yeah, you read that right. Keep it up, Iran. Think we won’t put you in your place. They’re nothing but a bunch of “Hitler in headscarves”…

When all a people sees is the military boot of democracy, how can you expect anything other than disdain for it?

We love to talk about all the good he have to offer… but we fail to show it.

In the long run, we’re better off with countries run by governments which reflect the desires of their people, even if that means groups like SCIRI, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others attain power.

phx8, that assumes the choice is either-or. It’s not. It is absolutely possible to build up democracies in these countries that don’t elect terrorists. But it takes time.

We already saw what happens when you rush to democracy in Angola in 1992, Bosnia in 1996, and Liberia in 1997. Elections were held before the militias were disarmed, before the countries were stabilized, before democratic media and institutions were established, before moderate parties were organized and trained. That environment played right into the hands of leaders who used fear and prejudice to gain votes.

The pro-Iranian Islamist government in Iraq is a fresh lesson in what happens when you hold pre-mature elections, and yet President Bush still pushed for an ill-timed election in Palestine against the better judgment of both Israeli officials AND Palestinian President Abbas.

Yes, democrifying ((c) American Pundit, 2006) the Middle East is the long term goal, but it’s better to set the stage for a peaceful transition to democracy, rather than prematurely forcing opening up the polls and putting the people through the assured violent failure of terrorist leaders elected in the heat of passion.

You’re arguing that, in the long run, the violence and instability will be worth it. My point is that the violence and instability are unnecessary.

rahdigly, esimonson,

Nobody here is saying that it’s “all the �€˜joos�€™ fault”. There’s fault on both sides. And, yes, when you weigh it out, the Palestinians are more at fault than Israel. That’s not in dispute.

The problem is that people such as yourselves want to place ALL of the blame on the Palestinians. Your claiming that Israel has clean hands in this, when it clearly doesn’t. If you want to address the problem in the region, you have to address the WHOLE problem, not just one side of it. Why is that so hard to understand?

There are no civilians, Rob. Because there is no �€˜Palestinian�€™ military. It is a guerilla war fought by �€˜civilians�€™.

There are no civilians??? So, a newborn Palestinian baby is automatically a “guerilla” in your book? There’s a word for that, Eric. It’s called “racism”.

How many times do the Arabs countries veto anything to do with Israel?

Never, because none of Arab countries have veto power. There are only 5 nations who have veto power on the Security Council — US, UK, France, Russia, and China.

What�€™s always talk about is that Saddam had 17 UN violations against him; however, Israel has nearly double that amount b/c the UN is filled with anti-Israel countries.

The makeup of the UN Security Council changes on a regular basis. There are 5 permanent members with veto power (listed above), and 10 seats that rotate through the UN members. The list of countries that have, while on the council, sponsored resolutions against Israel in the last 15 years includes (but is not limited to):

Algeria, Pakistan, Tunisia, Libya, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Egypt, Bangladesh, Colombia, Jamaica, Mali, Mauritius, Singapore, France, Portugal, Sweden, UK, Botswana, Honduras, Indonesia, Nigeria, Oman, Rwanda…

If you want to argue that the “Hitlers in headscarves” all hate the Jews, fine. But Singapore? Jamaica? Sweden? Honduras? Come on, people! Countries from every part of the world have condemned Israel’s part in this! Why can’t we see that?

Tony,
“When all a people sees is the military boot of democracy, how can you expect anything other than disdain for it?”

The same goes for when all we see is “suicide bomber after suicide bomber” and a never ending hatred for Israel. The “boot of democracy” isn’t the problem; it’s the palestinians and their hate. The Israelis are always giving up something in the “Peace process”; however, the palestinians never give anything up. Ever! That’s bull…

rahdigly,

This is all the result of 18th and 19th century colonialism, of western countries sticking their noses where they didn’t belong in an effort to “save the heathens” from their pagan gods.
For millenia these folks managed to live in relative peace, though the borders were always in flux.

“The Israelis are always giving up something in the �€œPeace process�€;”

Here is some history;

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

>>The U.S. was not a particular supporter of Israel until after 1967.

Jack,

Not a particular supporter is right.

Truman was very brave indeed to back the move, because there were powerful political forces against such a move. Of course Truman was never one to quible when he thought something was right or necessary.

But, that does not limit the importance of the US agreeing to it. Without our ‘support’ there would have been no Israel.

As for land grabs and settlements infringing on Palistinians and dislocating them…that did not occur until after the 67 war. Borders were expanded because Israel rightfully wanted some buffer between it and those opposing forces around it.

I’ll not say that the creation of Israel was the right thing or wrong thing to do. I will say that it is too late to change that now. But, something had to be done, and a separate nation in a God forsaken corner of the world…a dry patch of land, with little potential and limited population seemed to be the best at the time.

In other words, sending the dislocated Jews back to their places of origin would have been even less desirable.

Rob

Yes I do.

I have nothing but contempt for suicide bombers. If their mothers want to praise and encourage their behavior, my contempt extends to them as well. The funniest thing that can happen is if the suicide bomber blows himself and his friends up while trying to strap on the bomb. Sort of like a Nazi killing himself with poison gas.

I visit this site occassionally just to read the outrageous, demented, convoluted thinking that is sometimes expressed by would-be “great thinkers” and self-nominated purveyors of “truth.” Really folks, do you have any idea how silly most of you sound? It is rare to read anything approaching sound thinking, compassion for justice and truth, or a committment to patriotism. Blather on boys and girls…if nothing else, you are very entertaining.

Jack:

I couldn’t agree with you more on your lack of empathy for the families of suicide bombers. When you see the righteous, pleased attitudes of surviving family members after one of the barbarous attacks, it’s is impossible to view the Palestineans as victims. The image of the toothless hags dancing in the street after 9/11 stayed with me. Now when there is a particularly bloody attack against zionist or western forces, the adults give candy to the children to celebrate the event. What a sick culture!

Rocky,
“This is all the result of 18th and 19th century colonialism, of western countries sticking their noses where they didn’t belong in an effort to “save the heathens” from their pagan gods.
For millenia these folks managed to live in relative peace, though the borders were always in flux.”

Wrong, Rock. The palestinians have yet to prove the can coexist with Israel; so until they do, they are the ones I’m going to blame, not Israel or 18th century colonialism. It’s their fault that Arafat did nothing in way of peace process, b/c he made so much money off the war and Abbas and the fatah did nothing as well. So, now we have a known terrorist group in the gov’t; which I think will turn out to be good, b/c now they have to be held accountable and every (political) move will be calculated by other gov’t’s and the press. We’ll see if they add anything to the Peace Process (yeah right).

rahdigly,

“Wrong, Rock. The palestinians have yet to prove the can coexist with Israel; so until they do, they are the ones I�€™m going to blame, not Israel or 18th century colonialism.”

Where in your rant does it prove that for the reasons I stated, this hasn’t been caused by intervention by colonialists?
Have you no concept of history, or is just another “gut feeling” of yours?

Rock,

Nice try with characterizing my post as a “rant”. Since you’re such an “historian”, maybe you can tell me if the Ottoman Empire was before the 18th century colonialism? How about even further back then that, let’s say the 6th century. This is for all those trying to tell us that Jews and Muslims had a “relatively” peaceful co-existence.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jews-umar.html

“THE Pact of Umar is the body of limitations and privileges entered into by treaty between conquering Muslims and conquered non-Muslims. We have no special treaty of this sort with the Jews, but we must assume that all conquered peoples, including the Jews, had to subscribe to it. Thus the laws cited below and directed against churches apply to synagogues too. The Pact was probably originated about 637 by Umar I after the conquest of Christian Syria and Palestine.”

rahdigly,
“This is for all those trying to tell us that Jews and Muslims had a �€œrelatively�€ peaceful co-existence.”

Also from your link;

“All this we promise to observe, on behalf of ourselves and our co-religionists, and receive protection from you in exchange; and if we violate any of the conditions of this agreement, then we forfeit your protection and you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels.”

All who were conquered were allowed to live in relative peace, and in fact many cultures prospered, by adhering to those agreements.

So, what is your point?

James,
Feel free to add something to the discussion.

AP,
Good comment. I fall for the non-violent, kumbiyah version of liberal idealism everytime, and occasionally Bush & Rice will appeal to it. Unfortunately, Bush & Rice usually smack me back to reality within 24 hours by burbling something about attacking Iran or Syria or whatever.

A hallmark of the Bush administration policy is their lack of preparedness, their lack of planning. It seems every event sends them reeling, like a boxer who steps into the ring, and acts stunned after the opponent lands a hook. The Bush people are constantly backpedaling, with ‘x’s’ in their eyes, they’re in perpetual reaction mode. Again and again, there seems to be an initial plan, but no contigency planning to back it up. When something happens like the election of Hamas, the Bush administration seems absolutely dumbstruck.

AP, you make a good point about proceeding with caution. However, a cynic could call this the ‘go-slow’ approach of gradualism, something the Civil Rights movement faced for decades. Caution? Yes. An excuse to enfranchise dictatorships, a la Jean Kirkpatrick? No.

The disappearances of Arafat & Sharon from the political stage are incredible gifts for the Middle East. Unfortunately, everyone will have to deal with their legacies of polarization and violence.

For everyone’s sakes, lets up the Israelis and the Palestinians aren’t forced to reap what they have sown.

Bill,
You write: “If Isreal could get over the idea that it has to be a Jewish state and just be a good state where Jews are safe there could be some hope… This is more evidence of just why religion must be kept separate from government for peace.”

Right on the mark. Unfortunately, it’s against the law in Israel to run for office as an advocate of a secular state. It’s ironic. The state Israel resembles more than any other in the world is Iran.

Maybe it is time to either pull out of this region and let the chips fall where they may or to start at one end and just go forward and kill whatever moves. This hate has been there longer than this country has been in existence. So for fools such as every Pres. since 1948 to think we can make a difference is a waste of time. It is now time for one or the other.

phx8,

“The disappearances of Arafat & Sharon from the political stage are incredible gifts for the Middle East.”

Unfortunately, it allows the Netanyahus of the Middle East to step up and possibly wreck havoc with their hard line stand against the Palestinians.

Sooner or later these folks are going to have to get along. The fight for the region may be inevitable, but no one is going to walk away unbloodied.

aldous,

Land of their Fathers? Kinda hypocritical, eh? Even the Bible says that the Jews stole the land from other people in the Old Testament. Remember the City of Jericho? Their justification was that God gave them the Land.

Really. The American People�€™s unwillingness to admit ANY blame on Israel is the main reason this is going on.

BTW�€� We already know you favored the killing of women and children. Thanks for confirming it.

What I don’t understand is why you have such an animus against Israel and seem to prefer terrorism over democracy. What is there to blame Israel for? For occupying ‘Palestine’? 

Your premise seems to be that Israelis are to blame here for perpetuating the violence. You seem to want to ignore that fact that Palestinians were not driven out of their homes to make way for Israelis. They were not even driven out out of hate. They were driven out because they attempted to destroy Israel. Palestinians could have chosen to live together in one state in peace, but instead, they chose war and hatred. 

You seem to posit that in these circumstances Israel is to blame for defending itself, and for not promptly either: laying down to have their throats cut, or leaving the middle east altogether. 

You might note that the population of Jews in the rest of the middle east has declined down to virtually none because they have been driven out or killed. But then, they are of course to blame for this too I suppose.

AP,

Yes, democrifying ((c) American Pundit, 2006) the Middle East is the long term goal, but it�€™s better to set the stage for a peaceful transition to democracy, rather than prematurely forcing opening up the polls and putting the people through the assured violent failure of terrorist leaders elected in the heat of passion.

You�€™re arguing that, in the long run, the violence and instability will be worth it. My point is that the violence and instability are unnecessary.

This brings up a good point. But then who is it that is demanding immediate results from the Bush administration and criticizing it savagely when results are not forthcoming immediately?  And what exactly is anyone capable of doing that would end the violence?

Democrats and Liberals have destroyed any credibility they had by waging an unprincipled campaign of propaganda against Bush. Especially in light of those who voted for the war and then went against it for political reasons. 

The argument has not changed and it will not change, this is a long term problem that requires that we sometimes take action to produce some immediate results. One action, one election, one battle, will not instantaneously produce liberal democracies throughout the middle east. Who said that it would?

I think that many on the left in this country do not listen as well as they think they do, because I keep hearing the left repeat what it believes Bush has said rather than his actual words.

phx8,

Right on the mark. Unfortunately, it�€™s against the law in Israel to run for office as an advocate of a secular state. It�€™s ironic. The state Israel resembles more than any other in the world is Iran.

That’s funny, I believe there are Arab legislators in Israeli Parliment are there not? Which also pulls the cover off the lie that all Palestinians were robbed of their homes and driven out. The Arabs who stayed in Israel are a minority to be sure, but they are not oppressed and imprisoned in camps as some would have you believe. Arab Israeli’s are citizens of Israel who vote and drive cars, hold jobs, own houses, businesses, property… Many are in fact very well off. Imagine if the majority of Palestinians had welcomed Jews who came to find a new life after the Holocaust and the end of WWII.

Imagine if instead of murder, they chose peace. Many Arabs and Jews view each other as cousins, the sons of Abraham and Ishmael.

I see a desire for peace on the part of Israelis, I have never seen it on the other side. It takes two to tango, but when one side follows the rule of law and is willing to have peace and the other does not, then where does the fault for misery lie?

There is nothing Israel can do to bring peace short of dismantling their state and leaving the middle east altogether. On the other hand if Palestinians stopped fighting and trying to kill Israeli’s for one year— I’d predict that after ONE SINGLE YEAR without a suicide bombing that Palestinians would be able to begin traveling into Israel with less restrictions. In a few more years, they would have their own state, and some years after that such a state could become a part of Israel or visa versa. IF- they stopped hating and fighting and instead focused on building peace where they are.

I do not see this happening. Partly because many keep insisting that Israel is somehow to blame for not having peace.

People where fed up with FATAH saying they whee going to fix all the infrastructure problems. This has been happening for the last six years. These people want basic services yet they spend the money they receive on suicide bombers and the like (terrorism).Hamas over the last two years has been fixing basic service structures within araes they control. Extremists believe extreme things they don;t underestand democracy or freedom because they are taught to hate anyone not like them. Muslims kill more muslims every year than any other religous group out there. They are not freedom loving people and it is there believf system that will continue to hold them back.

” They are not freedom loving people …”

You actually wrote this? They hate people who they feel have been living on their religious homeland. Keep in mind that until 1950s, they all lived in the general area of Israel. Then US and Britain helped establish most of the area that is now Israel. Then, of course you have the 6 day war when Israel took control of the Gaza Strip. (It’s very similar to the Muslims hatred of US troops in Saudi Arabia.) You also have to see the desperation of the Palestinian people and the conditions they live in.

In short, they pick hard liners because their leaders in the past (those who were more friendly to the US) have been very corrupt and ineffective against Israeli aggression.

This has nothing to do with anyone�€™s opinion on freedom. As far as I can tell, there are very few �€˜freedom-haters�€™, but there are quite a few who hate American (and US foreign policy.)

(posting issues: I’ve noticed that’s it’s very difficult to post a comment here lately… I get an server error. Then I try to repost the comment and it’s then double posted. I’ve found that if I post a second comment, then both comments show up. No idea what to make of it.)

Rocky,
“All who were conquered were allowed to live in relative peace, and in fact many cultures prospered, by adhering to those agreements. So, what is your point?”

My point is “All who were conquered”!! You call be conquered living in relative peace?! I notice you missed the part about:

“The Pact of Umar has served to govern the relations between the Muslims and “the people of the book,” such as Jews, Christians, and the like, down to the present day.

In addition to the conditions of the Pact listed below, the Jews, like the Christians, paid a head-tax in return for protection, and for exemption from military service. Jews and Christians were also forbidden to hold government office. This Pact, like much medieval legislation, was honored more in the breach than in the observance. In general, though, the Pact increased in stringency with the centuries and was still in force in the 20th century in lands such as Yemen.”

You also failed to respond to the Ottoman Empire, as well. The muslims have be waring for 1,000 of years; that’s (way) before, during and after the 18th century colonialist. The (radical) islamists haven’t proved tolerance and, until they do, I’m not going to accept that it’s anybody’s fault but theirs. Period. That’s my point…

“The muslims have be waring for 1,000 of years; “

… guess that’s about half the experience the Christians have with war…

Tony,

Wrong. All religions and culture have been through war (to some extent). The Christians have proven they can “tolerate” other religions. My point is that the Muslims have been waring for thousands of years and they still are; they haven’t proven they can live with anyone (including themselves). So, you can go on believing what you want, you just won’t convince me that they are tolerant and that they are even close to being right.

rahdigly,

“My point is �€œAll who were conquered�€!! You call be conquered living in relative peace?! I notice you missed the part about:”

Yeah, I’d call after being conquered, which is when I would have signed the “Pact of Umar” living in relitive peace. By signing the “Pact” you agreed not to rebell, and as a result you pretty much got on with your life. You were even allowed to worship as you wished as long as you didn’t do it in public.
I don’t