Should the US veto a UN resolution granting Palestine statehood?

[klimatos]

You miss the point, these "occupied" territories became "occupied" in war, guess who initiated the war and what was it's intend?

Nothing will change no matter what territories PA will be granted, they will not be satisfied as long as we walk the earth.

Yours,
Israel Israeli

Israel started the 1967 war. I know this because I was there as an U. S. intelligence officer. The U. S. intelligence community knew that the war was coming as early as late May of 1967. The Arab intelligence communities were completely in the dark. You may also like to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War . The intent of the war was to increase the amount of land under Israeli control. In this, they were successful. Israel made no secret of this and bragged about it in their newspapers.

As to your assertion that the Palestinians will not be satisfied until all Israelis are dead. This is pure Israeli propaganda. Are there Palestinians who believe that way? Of course there are. And there are also Israelis who believe that all Palestinians should be wiped off the face of the Earth. There are bigots and nut cases on both sides.

 

[klimatos]

For those of you who are interested in the start and causes of the 1967 war, here is the CIA's take on it: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

 

[estro]

Israel started the 1967 war. I know this because I was there as an U. S. intelligence officer. The U. S. intelligence community knew that the war was coming as early as late May of 1967.

Again you leave out the most important fact: against the UN resolution Egypt consternated its forces in the Sinai forcing Israel to mobilize reservist forces [which paralyzes national economy] and blocked the Tirant passage. Syrian army was put into battle positions as well.
Please don't tell me this war was a surprise to them.

 

[Bobbywhy]

The below excerpts from the Wall Street Journal, dated 9 September 2011, by Jay Solomon in Washington and Joshua Mitnick in Ramallah clearly express one idea (starting with “A widely…”) that I have been attempting to promote here on our Forum:

“The Palestinians' push at the U.N. is in many ways ceremonial. Only the Security Council has the power to formally authorize the creation of a new state, which Washington has made clear won't happen.

But Palestinian officials said they were likely to work around the Security Council and seek a vote among the 192-nation General Assembly aimed at giving Palestine the status of a nonmember observer state. Only the Vatican now has that status.

A widely expected vote in favor could give the Palestinians far more rights at the U.N. and membership at key U.N. and global bodies, such as the U.N. Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

Israeli officials are already expressing concerns that their government could face growing legal challenges at both the Human Rights Council and the ICC if the General Assembly votes in favor of the Palestinian initiative. Indeed, Messrs. Ross and Hale told Mr. Abbas that actions by the Palestinians at the ICC was a "red line" that the U.S. believed couldn't be crossed"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904836104576558934293836042.html

If the Palestinian Authority (PA) does petition the UN Security Council for the recognition of Palestine as a full UN member state in my opinion the United States should veto it. I agree with the others here who say as long as the terrorist Hamas party has any political power, no full UN member state should be considered.

 

[Proton Soup]

I think of Israel, insofar as it's aligned with the US, as a gigantic US military base in the ME, with more potentially pro-US force than all of the other places you mentioned combined. Of course this doesn't mean that Israel is going to just do the US's bidding, but it's a rather large heavily armed entity in the middle of the ME that the US doesn't ever have to worry about being a haven for extremist Muslim terrorists.

The US interests in the ME are oil and the prevention and diffusing of any potential large scale Arab-Muslim motivated anti-US threats. For example, Israel is just as interested, even moreso, in keeping Iran (or anybody else in the ME) from having any serious
nuclear military capability as the US is.

Israeli domination of Palestinians facilitates the furthering of Israel's Zionist goals. From the US point of view, a bigger Israel which dominates Palestinians is preferable to a smaller Israel on a more or less equal political footing with a historically anti-US, anti-Israel, organized and growing Palestinian state. The current situation poses no serious threat to either Israel or US interests. That's essentially why Israel and the US have perpetuated that situation rather than genuinely working toward a two-state situation. A two-state solution carries with it potential problems that are precluded by the current status quo.

These are just my opinions Proton Soup. Any criticism of them by you or anyone else is welcomed.

first, i appreciate your candor. oil is precisely what the US government is interested in. but the threats of insurrection by arabs is caused by this drive to dominate them. so, there is certainly this interest in suppressing violence against the US and oil infrastructure, but that violence is something we generate.

and as far as israel is concerned, they weren't in such a strong position with the USG until after the 1967 war. it was in '67 that israel proved that they were able to easily dominate the region militarily (in a war they provoked, fwiw). by proving they could "whip their a**", to quote LBJ, israel became the USG's strongest ally in the region.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkelstein-on-the-june-1967-war/

JM: Did the ’67 War cement the relationship with the United States?

NF: Yes, there’s no question. You know, Israel’s main arms supplier before 1967 was France. It was France that provided the Mist [spelling?] airplanes for the airforce. And also it was France that helped them build the Dimona, the nuclear reactor. They had ambivalent relations with the US, sometimes warm, sometimes cold. But after ’67, and the record’s very clear on this, ’67, the United States, I guess it’s a National Security advisor to Lyndon Johnson, he’s very thrilled — why? You knocked out Nasser. And they’re worried about this Arab nationalism spreading to places like Saudi Arabia, all those rickety regimes which have all of our oil that happens to be under their land, so they’re very happy that Israel has knocked out Nasser. And that’s the beginning of this relationship, which I think is really misunderstood here as Israel determining US foreign policy — it’s just not what’s happening.

There’s a common interest. Israel has always sought to dominate the Arab world and so has the United States. Now, for different reasons — the US for the oil, Israel, because it viewed itself being in a, as it were, intrinsically conflictual relationship with the Arab world, so it has to either dominate it or it’s going to be destroyed, that’s how they see it.

In particular people like Ben Gurion, they never thought you could live at peace with the Arab world because they said we’re aliens, we forced ourselves on them, they’ll never accept us. And so they always felt that they’re going to in conflict, as did the US because the US wanted their oil.

now, you'll notice that israel and the USG have different motivations historically for arab domination. and i think this is where things are going to get tricky, because the goals have shifted in the US. the issue of blowback has come to the US in a very personal way. so now we've got this idea that our past policies haven't worked, and dictators can be hard to control. so we're going to win over the common man by bringing them democracy. and this is exactly what israel fears - they were freaking out over the peaceful protests in egypt. and then there is this other thing you rarely see mentioned of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_union" . so, considering that US and europe both are pushing for a modernization in the arab world, israel is going to have to change now or get left behind. maintaining the status quo is becoming less and less of a USG interest.


and, of course, the whole idea of whether oil is a legitmate USG interest is something else altogether. we dont' even get most of our oil from there. our interests would be mostly financial. access is a bigger problem for the europeans, and they don't even seem interested enough to invest in heavy military hardware.

 

[MarcoD]

I am undecided on this, but I also see to much emphasis on intentions and interests.

Intentions and interests don't play a role in enforcing rules. A manner of defusing an existential conflict is just to be hard-line on that all international rules are obeyed.

An advantage of recognizing a PA claim on statehood could be that international justice is served and that the PA, and Israel, can constantly be reminded on their international responsibilities.

 

[ThomasT]

@ Proton Soup
Thanks for the interesting reply, and the link to the Finkelstein interview. I had previously had the idea that Finkelstein was a bit of a kook, but decided to do some research on him and it turns out that he seems to be pretty credible.

 

[russ_watters]

Israel started the 1967 war.

While that is true given that they fired the first shot, I think it is an overly simplistic view, to the point of absurdity, given that the Arab forces around them were mobilizing against them -- basically all of every military force around Israel, plus parts of half a dozen others who didn't border on Israel were massed on/near their borders with Israel.

The U. S. intelligence community knew that the war was coming as early as late May of 1967. The Arab intelligence communities were completely in the dark.

If that's true, why did the Arab forces mass their troops on the border, starting in May? Was it a Brownian motion coincidence?

The intent of the war was to increase the amount of land under Israeli control. In this, they were successful. Israel made no secret of this and bragged about it in their newspapers.

Of course - and by the same token, the intent of the Arabic forces was to overrun Israel:

On June 2, Jordan called up all reserve officers, and the West Bank commander met with community leaders in Ramallah to request assistance and cooperation for his troops during the war, assuring them that "in three days we'll be in Tel-Aviv".[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Arab_preparations

So while Israel "started" the war on June 5, on June 3, a Jordanian commander was telling his community that by June 5 they'd be in Tel-Aviv. Only with blinders on is it possible to hold the simplistic view that Israel started the war, without acknowledging that the Arab nations were intending to start it.

As to your assertion that the Palestinians will not be satisfied until all Israelis are dead. This is pure Israeli propaganda. Are there Palestinians who believe that way? Of course there are.

It's not Israeli propaganda if it's generated by Arabs! More importantly, it's written into the Hamas charter.

And there are also Israelis who believe that all Palestinians should be wiped off the face of the Earth. There are bigots and nut cases on both sides.

Sure, but on the Arab side, they are the dominant group!

 

[klimatos]

It's not Israeli propaganda if it's generated by Arabs! More importantly, it's written into the Hamas charter. Sure, but on the Arab side, they are the dominant group!

Russ, Einstein once remarked that although everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. You assert as fact that the Hamas Charter advocates the killing of every last Israeli. This is not so. Here is a link to the Hamas Charter and all of its thirty-six boring and bombastic articles:
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html

Note that the Charter calls for the freeing of Palestine from Zionist occupation. It does not call for killing all Israelis.

You also assert as fact that those who advocate killing all Israelis are the "dominant group" within the Palestinian community. Where is your evidence for this assertion? By "evidence" I do not mean opinion. I mean evidence in the same sense that applies to other threads on this Forum.

Just because this thread is political does not mean that we should not strive for objectivity and avoidance of emotional language.

 

[klimatos]

Only with blinders on is it possible to hold the simplistic view that Israel started the war, without acknowledging that the Arab nations were intending to start it.

The question was which side started the war, not which side might have started it in some alternative universe.

Israel started the war with carefully coordinated and well-planned attacks on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel has admitted to spending months in training their troops specifically for these attacks. These attacks were an action, not a reaction.

If Egypt was planning on an immanent attack on Israel, they had a funny way of going about it. Large numbers of their best troops were out of the country fighting in Yemen. And most of their warplanes were destroyed on the ground, not in the air.

 

[klimatos]

Bless me holy Mary, I can only think about 1 word that can appropriately describe this, this word begins with "b" and ends with "t".
Who sold you this "fact"?

I regard this post as a libel against Israel and its people.

If you had read all of my post, you would see that I was speaking from personal observation in the West Bank. For verification, see: "Report to the 30th Session of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", May 2003. This report may be viewed at:
http://www.cesr.org/downloads/Thirsting%20for%20Justice%20-%20Right%20to%20Water%20in%20OPTs.pdf

Speaking of personal observation, you say you are an Israeli. Have you ever been to any Palestinian settlement on the West Bank? Have you ever compared them with nearby Israeli settlements? On what experience or other evidence are you basing your opinions on water rights in the West Bank?

 

[klimatos]

A viable Palestinian state which renounces violence and any territorial claim to Israel would be very much in Israel's interests

Come On!, Tim. No nation in the history of this planet has ever renounced violence. Why should we expect the Palestinians to be endowed with this supernatural forbearance. What other impossible criteria and we going to require before statehood is granted? The ability to leap tall buildings with a single bound?

 

[tiny-tim]

A viable Palestinian state which renounces violence and any territorial claim to Israel would be very much in Israel's interests, and the Israeli government has been trying to achieve this ever since Oslo.

It would, of course, also help Middle East peace generally.

Come On!, Tim. No nation in the history of this planet has ever renounced violence. Why should we expect the Palestinians to be endowed with this supernatural forbearance. What other impossible criteria and we going to require before statehood is granted? The ability to leap tall buildings with a single bound?

That strand in this thread finished some time ago, see …

… A demilitarised Palestine, with a peace treaty with Israel, and treaties of alliance with the Arab League countries, would be perfectly viable.

Good point about the word, 'viable'. It's probably not the best word to use here. Too vague, for one thing. My apologies.

But since you've revived it , by the "violence" which Israel wants the Palestinians to renounce before the occupation ends, I meant suicide bombers, gunmen who murder families, and the rockets which war criminals in Gaza have been launching daily at purely civilian targets.

 

[klimatos]

by the "violence" which Israel wants the Palestinians to renounce before the occupation ends, I meant suicide bombers, gunmen who murder families, and the rockets which war criminals in Gaza have been launching daily at purely civilian targets.

Violence works both ways. Even Israeli sources admit that the IDF have killed far more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian terrorists (or "freedom fighters" if your sympathies lie that way) have killed Israeli civilians.

I don't have totals since 1948, but from September 2000 to May 2002, Israel lost 319 civilians killed and 2,707 civilians wounded. Source: IDF. In that same time frame Palestine lost 1,538 civilians killed and 19,189 civilians wounded. Source: Palestine Red Crescent Society.

By the way, why are you upset about targeting civilians in time of war? The United States used to maintain an entire military organization whose sole function was to attack civilian targets. It was called the Strategic Air Command (SAC). U. S. fighter pilots used to joke that SAC stood for "schools and children". Attacking civilian targets was a major goal of the U. S. military in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

The IDF routinely targets civilian facilities. How do you think the Palestinian civilian deaths and injuries noted above came about?

 

[MarcoD]

Man. I looked at the Gaza Strip, they might as well give it too Egypt. Then I looked at the West Bank situation. It's a complete mess. The only solution looks to be: no solution. They either learn to live together (unlikely), or the problem will nuke itself out of existence. :grumpy:

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

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, Einstein once remarked that although everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. You assert as fact that the Hamas Charter advocates the killing of every last Israeli. This is not so.

You're splitting hairs, klimatos. If you really cared about facts, you'd acknowledge the factual difference between the philosophies of the two sides, rather than implying they have equal parts of extremism and splitting hairs over the precise meaning of Hama's goals. Whether it's killing every Israeli or just "discarding the evil, crushing it and defeating it" without quite killing all of them not a hair worth splitting. The point remains that this extremism is written into the charter of Hamas. Later it says that peace/peaceful solutions are against their religion. In other words, there is no point in negotiating with them in good faith, because they don't believe in the concept of negotiation in this situation. The only solution is war: "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad." Why should we even bother negotiating with such people?

The two sides do not have equal levels of this type of hatred/extremism.

You also assert as fact that those who advocate killing all Israelis are the "dominant group" within the Palestinian community. Where is your evidence for this assertion?

"Dominant" means they are the ones in power. Hamas won elections, then military victories to secure governing power. Regardless, of the physical reality, the Palestinian people also support Hamas, by an 80% margin: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideis...veals-4-out-of-5-Palestinians-Support-Hamas-/

Just because this thread is political does not mean that we should not strive for objectivity and avoidance of emotional language.

Agreed! And hairsplitting too!

The question was which side started the war, not which side might have started it in some alternative universe.

I'm not talking about alternate universes, I'm talking about the realities of this universe that actually matter: you don't think it matters at all that there were hundreds of thousands of Arab troops lined up on the Israeli border at the time that Israel fired the first shot?

If Egypt was planning on an immanent attack on Israel, they had a funny way of going about it. Large numbers of their best troops were out of the country fighting in Yemen. And most of their warplanes were destroyed on the ground, not in the air.

I don't know who, exactly, was in Yemen, but they had most of their troops readied for war (from the wiki on the six day war):

On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai, including all of its seven divisions (four infantry, two armored and one mechanized), four independent infantry brigades and four independent armored brigades. No fewer than a third of them were veterans of Egypt's intervention into the Yemen Civil War and another third were reservists. These forces had 950 tanks, 1,100 APCs and more than 1,000 artillery pieces.[27] At the same time some Egyptian troops (15,000–20,000) were still fighting in Yemen.

Violence works both ways. Even Israeli sources admit that the IDF have killed far more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian terrorists (or "freedom fighters" if your sympathies lie that way) have killed Israeli civilians.

Yes, but again, whether it is important to you or not, it is important to others that Hamas has it written into its charter! How can Israel possibly be expected to negotiate with an entity that has as an article of faith a principle of non-negotiation? It's ridiculous!

 

[Evo]

The IDF routinely targets civilian facilities. How do you think the Palestinian civilian deaths and injuries noted above came about?

Proof of this?

The truth is hamas cowards position themselves in civilian neighborhoods and intentionally use civilians as human shields. It's not the fault of the Israelis.

As I previously posted.

"Israel has done more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."

Speech to the UN.

Goldstone Gaza Report: Briitish Col. Richard Kemp Testifies at U.N.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo

 

[rootX]

Man. I looked at the Gaza Strip, they might as well give it too Egypt. Then I looked at the West Bank situation. It's a complete mess. The only solution looks to be: no solution. They either learn to live together (unlikely), or the problem will nuke itself out of existence. :grumpy:

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

I don't know what's worse, US Republicans vs Democrats issues or Israel vs Palestine issues :tongue:

It's most about blaming each other in both cases.

 

[russ_watters]

The IDF routinely targets civilian facilities. How do you think the Palestinian civilian deaths and injuries noted above came about?

Proof of this?

I think you missed more hairsplitting there, Evo. Clearly, Israel targets buildings that have primarily civilian purposes -- the terrorists use them as cover for their attacks, so Israel has no choice! A year or two ago, there was a big flap about Israel bombing a school, then the Youtube video came out showing the Hamas rocket being launched from the shadow of the building!

 

[Evo]

I think you missed more hairsplitting there, Evo. Clearly, Israel targets buildings that have primarily civilian purposes -- the terrorists use them as cover for their attacks, so Israel has no choice! A year or two ago, there was a big flap about Israel bombing a school, then the Youtube video came out showing the Hamas rocket being launched from the shadow of the building!

I mentioned it.

The truth is hamas cowards position themselves in civilian neighborhoods and intentionally use civilians as human shields. It's not the fault of the Israelis.

And if you watch my youtube link to the UN speech, it is verified.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, I missed that you got that. :grumpy:

 

[klimatos]

Let me clarify my position. The nation of Israel is a geographic and political fact. The stated goal of Hamas for a Zionist-free Palestine is both unrealistic and ridiculous. I believe that Hamas as a political party is not in the best interests of the Palestinian people.

On the other hand, I do not believe that the Israelis are all good guys and the Palestinians are all bad guys. That point of view is both simplistic and childish.

As to Palestinian militants operating from "civilian neighborhoods", can you show me any neighborhoods in either Gaza or the Palestinian portions of the West Bank that are not civilian? Where would you have them operating from?

 

[tiny-tim]

By the way, why are you upset about targeting civilians in time of war?

Don't be ridiculous. Of course I'm upset about targeting civilians (whether in time of war or not.

The United States used to maintain an entire military organization whose sole function was to attack civilian targets. It was called the Strategic Air Command (SAC). U. S. fighter pilots used to joke that SAC stood for "schools and children". Attacking civilian targets was a major goal of the U. S. military in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

How is this racist lie about what the USA "used" to do "in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam" relevant to this Israel/Palestine thread?

(btw, Strategic Air Command didn't even exist in WWII, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Air_Command" , and it certainly did not have the policy you claim )

The IDF routinely targets civilian facilities. How do you think the Palestinian civilian deaths and injuries noted above came about?

The IDF targets only military facilities (including buildings used to manufacture or store munitions), and armed groups or individuals. Any innocent civilian casualties "come about" …
i] because the Palestinians operate from civilian areas or in crowds of civilians (often including children)
ii] from occasional Israeli mistakes, which the Israelis admit.

Even Israeli sources admit that the IDF have killed far more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian terrorists (or "freedom fighters" if your sympathies lie that way) have killed Israeli civilians.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. You're relying on a curiously chosen 20-month (!) period 10 years ago.

And even if it is true, so what?

Every Palestinian killed is listed as a civilian! (Especially those brave suicide bombers! )

The Palestinians try to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.

The Israelis try to kill as few innocent civilians as possible.​

 

[klimatos]

I feel that there is a need for me to clarify my position on certain matters. I am sure that many of you consider me to be anti-Israeli. I am not, nor am I pro-Israeli. I am pro-American. I am under binding oath to act in the best interests of the people of the United States of America—as I see those interests. My oath does not require me to follow any “party line”.

For a number of years, I served as a US intelligence officer in the Middle East. I undertook missions lasting several weeks to several months in Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. Like all intelligence officers, my primary function was to obtain information and materials of interest to my government.

Information collection was broken down into four phases: observation, source evaluation, analysis, and reporting. I was specifically trained and instructed not to allow official US policies to influence my analysis and reporting in any way. Up until the Bush years, policy-makers were forbidden any contact with analysts. Such contact was referred to as “pissing in the well”. I was instructed to be as objective as humanly possible. If any policy slant was to be given to my information, they would do it—not me.

As many of you will note, this insistence on objectivity is entirely consistent with the philosophy of science—and the philosophy of this Forum. When I left intelligence work and returned to academia, I grew interested in the atmospheric sciences and retired with that interest intact—hence the name “Klimatos”. I have not forgotten the Middle East, however, and have returned there many times—purely as a tourist, of course.

As I mentioned in my lead paragraph, I am not anti-Israeli. I am very much opposed to those Israeli (or any other nation’s) policies that I feel are not in the best interests of the people of the United States. I am indifferent as to whether they are in anybody else’s best interests.

Nor do I consider myself to be anti-Semitic. I grew up in Jewish neighborhoods, and those of my childhood friends that are still alive are almost all Jewish. Do we agree on Israel? Oh, hell no! But we can argue about it without getting emotional. That’s what friends are for. It’s probably irrelevant, but I might mention that as a young teenager I was the shabbat goy at the local shul.

In summary, I have tried to keep the factual parts of my posts as objective as I have been trained to do. If I am in error on my facts, by all means bring the error to my attention with the proper citations. Please don’t confuse facts with opinions, however. You are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine—no matter how pig-headed and objectionable you find them to be.

Shalom, Salaam, Peace

 

[ThomasT]

How is this racist lie about what the USA "used" to do "in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam" relevant to this Israel/Palestine thread?

I'm guessing that klimatos was trying to point out the hyprocrisy of condemning a particular military tactic, or terrorism in general, when in fact it's been used extensively by at least one party in the Israel-US alliance.

Edit: I don't understand what you mean by "racist lie".

 

[tiny-tim]

The stated goal of Hamas for a Zionist-free Palestine is both unrealistic and ridiculous. I believe that Hamas as a political party is not in the best interests of the Palestinian people.

oh, so now you know better than the Palestinian people do, as to what is in their interests?

Hamas has democratic majority support in Gaza. Its voters do not think its goals are "unrealistic and ridiculous".

As to Palestinian militants operating from "civilian neighborhoods", can you show me any neighborhoods in either Gaza or the Palestinian portions of the West Bank that are not civilian?

There are plenty of desert areas, and deserted fields far from any civilians, that they can operate from.

Where would you have them operating from?

I would have them stop trying to kill Israeli civilians, and to destroy or absorb Israel.

So would Obama, and so would the vast majority of American voters.

… I served as a US intelligence officer in the Middle East
…
I was instructed to be as objective as humanly possible. If any policy slant was to be given to my information, they would do it—not me.
…
In summary, I have tried to keep the factual parts of my posts as objective as I have been trained to do.

oh come off it!

your "factual parts" are selective, without references to check, full of "policy slant", and in some cases both unrealistic and ridiculous.

 

[klimatos]

After further consideration I have decided that I will no longer post on this thread. I do so without any real hard feelings. The Israeli-Arab discussion seems to have gone the way of the climate-change discussion. Emotion has far outstripped reason. (Of course, those who have been emotional will insist that they have only been reasonable!)

I shall continue to post on less contentious threads. May the Peace of God that passeth all understanding be upon all of you.

 

[ThomasT]

The truth is hamas cowards position themselves in civilian neighborhoods and intentionally use civilians as human shields. It's not the fault of the Israelis.

I'm sure there's cowardice and courage, good and bad judgement, on both sides. But I think we have to conclude that the root cause of the conflict is the Zionist agenda.

Imo, there's not going to be a two-state solution, whether the US vetoes UN Palestinian resolutions or not. Because, and it seems clear to me, Israel doesn't want, and never has wanted, a two-state solution. Why should it? It's got most of the land and is steadily annexing more.

But there's still the problem of the (non-Jewish) Palestinian Arabs. Palestinian Arabs are sort of the Zionist state's 'immigrant' problem, even though the Palestinians were there first. Those in authority in Israel, and much of the population, don't want a large ethnic non-Jewish population. So how does Israel deal with Palestinian Arabs? It constrains their freedom and slowly squeezes them out. It's a war of attrition.

 

[Evo]

As to Palestinian militants operating from "civilian neighborhoods", can you show me any neighborhoods in either Gaza or the Palestinian portions of the West Bank that are not civilian? Where would you have them operating from?

How about they not turn civilian neighborhoods into combat zones at all?

 

[OmCheeto]

Shalom, Salaam, Peace

hmmm...

Do you know how to say; "I know nothing", in Hebrew, Arabic, and Parsi?

I will take your answer tomorrow, as I have a 9/11 house warming party at, OMG, 45 minutes ago! , and dinner with my sister at 6.

ps. I vote no on the veto.

 

[Evo]

even though the Palestinians were there first.

Go back in time, the Israelites where there first.

 

[rootX]

the Palestinians were there first.

Go back in time, the Israelites where there first.

One of them got dropped from the sky

 

[Bobbywhy]

Dear Mr. OmCheeto, in your post #100 above when you wrote "Parsi" were you by any chance referring to the language of Iran: Farsi?

 

[ThomasT]

Go back in time, the Israelites where there first.

That seems unlikely, since Israel didn't exist before 1948. I suppose one might say that Jewish Arabs inhabited Palestine before non-Jewish Arabs. But if we go back far enough, before Judaism, then ... But that's silly.

EDIT: I just notice that you said "Israelites" not 'Israelis', so of course they go back thousands of years. Anyway, the population of interest is the inhabitants just prior to the influx of Zionist Jews to the area, and it seems to have been largely what we call Palestinians, not European Jews.

 

[OmCheeto]

Go back in time, the Israelites where there first.

Tell me if I've told this story B4:

My mom's parent's house, which was in the eastern part of Germany, back before there was an east and west Germany, now sits inside the western border of Poland.

The question is, should I call up Barack, and ask him to invade Borek's country, because my grandparents house is now in the wrong country, and is rightfully mine?

And while I'm at it, on my dad's side, my great great grandparent's owned a farm outside of Odessa in the Ukraine. They all died during the Holodomor. I want that farm back too. There actually might have been multiple farms. My mom translated a whole bunch of letters from a whole bunch of different relatives. All dead. But I'll take the farms back now, thank you very much.

Barack! We got some invading to do!



Sorry...

As I recall, Tel Aviv, Israel's second largest city, sprung out of uninhabited desert. That is about all I know about Israel. I will leave now.

(Thank god great grandma made it out alive, or, well, you know, I'd not be.)