Posted 10 months, 24 days ago in 
Loading ...
I have read that in World War II, the Nazis would kill five innocents for every German killed by the freedom fighters. The world condemned them, rightly. This week, Israel has killed over 20 Palestinian children, not to mention innocent men and women, to get at Hamas. Fair?
The Nazi’s drove the Jews out of Germany so they could have a pure Aryan state? Israel has elected to do the same with the Palestinians, not allowing many who fled the wars and have lived there for over a 1,000 years to return to their homeland? Fair?
The Palestinians have suffered terribly so the displaced Jews could have a “pure Jewish state.” Fair?
When I mention this I always hear “What about the holocaust?” or that I am antisemitic? The Palestinians did not cause the Holocaust and I am not antisemitic.
I do feel for the many families who now are condemned to live in refugee camps so the displaced European Jews can have a homeland?
I have read that President Truman voted to give Palestine to the displaced Jews because, “I have millions of Jewish voters and no Arab voters.” Fair?
I do not claim the Israeli’s are as bad as the Nazi’s but only that there are similarities.
I do resent the fact that my tax dollars are going to pay for the bombs and tanks used to kill innocent people. I wonder where the American sense of fairness has gone? I do understand some of the Muslim outrage over our biased policies.
Israel has pursued this policy of massive retribution for over 60 years now to what end? The fighting has escalated and thousands have died. Maybe it is time to look at a more just end for all involved.
BOB UHL
Grand Junction
56 Responses to “Are Israel’s actions fair?”
Posted January 2nd, 2009 at 4:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You hit almost every misconception about Israel possible. It is amazing how you forget what caused this latest round of attacks by Israel, namely hundreds of Palestinian rocket attacks into Israel by Hamas. Of course Israel is supposed to ignore these.
Perhaps if you remembered that the Israeli state and the Palestinian state were created side by side by the United Nations following World War Two. The Arabs and Palestinians did not like the idea of the creation of Israel, and invaded the Republic the instant UN Forces pulled out. They were defeated. The Arab World tried 3 more times to destroy Israel, and each time were defeated. The Palestinians soon realized that the defeat of Israel and its destruction (which is their only goal not co-existence) was not possible by force of arms directly, and so turned to terrorism to attempt to achieve their goals. Since the late 1960’s Palestinian terrorists have blown up thousands of Israelis, yet it is always Israel’s fault for the attacks.
Now we expect Israel not to defend themselves against Hamas, as they lob rockets into Israel daily, but to generously stand aside and turn the other cheek?
Over the past 60 years, Israel has always been willing to negotiate to live in peace. They have given back land they had acquired by the defeat of the Arabs in armed conflict. They have allowed a seperate Palestinian state to come into being. The reward for being willing to live in peace? Constant Arab and Palestinian harrassment and attacks. It is not Israel’s stance that the Palestinians should be wiped off the face of the Earth, but that is the Palestinian stance on Israel.
Perhaps the more just end Mr. Uhl wishes is for Israel to completely capitulate and allow their own destruction.
Posted January 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I pretty much agree with everything you said, Bruce.
Mr. Uhl pretty much takes the Hamas line which is that Israel has no right to exist. Therefore, a 2 state solution is unacceptable to Hamas and only the destruction of Israel and Israeli Jews will lead to peace.
Unfortunately, it is those who think like Mr. Uhl that keeps Hamas in business. This is an organization with no regard for human life. So they position their rockets in residential neighborhoods hoping that Israel will bomb those neighborhoods producing civilian casualties that can be photographed by an eager media.
I don’t beleive that all Palestinians agree with Hamas. Unfurtunately, anyone caught expressing a desire for coexistance with Israel will suffer a quick death at the hand of these terrorists.
The only hope I see is that countries like Egypt, Jordan, and others are beginning to realize that Hamas is an arm of Iran which seeks total control over the Middle East. Only when we see the Arab world truly desire peace in the Middle East, and come to recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel, will we see peace in that part of the world.
Posted January 2nd, 2009 at 7:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So who has the moral high-ground in the situation? What ever happened to ‘an eye for an eye’? the zionists are taking 100 eyes for an eye–its like calling in the SWAT team to take out some kids shooting bottle rockets at your house. Can you seriously talk yourself into justifying the wholesale slaughter of a people because they want to be free? I thought that’s what you righties live and die for–freedom. Of course, free and fair elections are only free and fair if the right people win…true here as in Palestine, where the ever bumbling Bush admin pushed for an election and then, oops–immediately tried to topple the choice of the people.
Back to moral high ground, Israel has Gaza and its people penned in like cattle, controlling electricity, fuel, food, freedom of movement, (you know, freedom) and now they are shooting them like fish in a barrel. Why do you think Hamas is mad as hell? “But they’re terrorists!” whines the right, but they are oppressed, and they have no way to fight except by shooting their pitiful rockets and strapping bombs to themselves. And why do we kill them? Because they want freedom. “But they want to destroy Israel!” Prisoners generally hate their jailers, right? Because they want freedom. Are they a people with no regard for human life? Please. They are a people with no hope, no freedom, no future. The Israeli air force drops 1 ton bombs (donated by Americans) on them every 6 months or so, but when they try to fight back with the ugliest, homemade weapons, they ‘have no regard for human life.’ Screw that. They are PEOPLE, not animals. Have they done rotten things? Damm right. Has Israel done horrible things? Damm right, tenfold.
“Only when we see the Arab world truly desire peace in the Middle East, and come to recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel, will we see peace in that part of the world.”
Read: Only when the ragheads accept that they are only beasts and submit like dogs will they stop getting beaten.
Just because Israel (and us, by proxy) drops the bombs from a fancy airplane instead of strapping it onto a willing combatant, does not make them better. Dang it you got me all worked up. Beer me.
Posted January 2nd, 2009 at 8:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The Necessity of Israel
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 02, 2009
Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons. — Associated Press, Dec. 27
WASHINGTON — Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.
Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemynoncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis — 6,464 launched from Gaza in the last three years — deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.
This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel, Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage — or, if it is really fortunate, an errant Israeli bomb — will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel.
For Hamas the only thing more prized than dead Jews are dead Palestinians. The religion of Jew-murder and self-martyrdom is ubiquitous. And deeply perverse, such as the Hamas TV children’s program in which an adorable live-action Palestinian Mickey Mouse is beaten to death by an Israeli (then replaced by his more militant cousin, Nahoul the Bee, who vows=2 0to continue on Mickey’s path to martyrdom).
At war today in Gaza, one combatant is committed to causing the most civilian pain and suffering on both sides. The other combatant is committed to saving as many lives as possible — also on both sides. It’s a recurring theme. Israel gave similar warnings to Southern Lebanese villagers before attacking Hezbollah in the Lebanon war of 2006. The Israelis did this knowing it would lose for them the element of surprise and cost the lives of their own soldiers.
That is the asymmetry of means between Hamas and Israel. But there is equal clarity regarding the asymmetry of ends. Israel has but a single objective in Gaza — peace: the calm, open, normal relations it offered Gaza when it withdrew in 2005. Doing something never done by the Turkish, British, Egyptian and Jordanian rulers of Palestine, the Israelis gave the Palestinians their first sovereign territory ever in Gaza.
What ensued? This is not ancient history. Did the Palestinians begin build ing the state that is supposedly their great national aim? No. No roads, no industry, no courts, no civil society at all. The flourishing greenhouses that Israel left behind for the Palestinians were destroyed and abandoned. Instead, Gaza’s Iranian-sponsored rulers have devoted all their resources to turning it into a terror base — importing weapons, training terrorists, building tunnels with which to kidnap Israelis on the other side. And of course firing rockets unceasingly.
The grievance? It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers. They were all removed in September 2005. There’s only one grievance and Hamas is open about it. Israel’s very existence.
Nor does Hamas conceal its strategy. Provoke conflict. Wait for the inevitable civilian casualties. Bring down the world’s opprobrium on Israel. Force it into an untenable cease-fire — exactly as happened in Lebanon. Then, as in Lebanon, rearm, rebuild and mobilize for the next round. Perpetual war. Since its raison d’etre is the eradication of Israel, there are only two possible outcomes: the defeat of Hamas or the extinction of Israel.
Israel’s only response is to try to do what it failed to do after the Gaza withdrawal. The unpardonable strategic error of its architect, Ariel Sharon, was not the withdrawal itself but the failure to immediately establish a deterrence regime under which no violence would be tolerated after the removal of any and all Israeli presence — the ostensible justification for previous Palestinian attacks. Instead, Israel allowed unceasing rocket fire, implicitly acquiescing to a state of active war and indiscriminate terror.
Hamas’ rejection of an extension of its often-violated six-month cease-fire (during which the rockets never stopped, just were less frequent) gave Israel a rare opportunity to establish the norm it should have insisted upon three years ago: no rockets, no mortar fire, no kidnapping, no acts of war. As the U.S. government has officially stated: a sustainable and enduring cease-fire.
If this fighting ends with anything less than that, Israel will have lost again. It can ill afford to lose any more wars.
Posted January 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just like I said, When they submit like dogs to their masters, the beatings will stop.
Posted January 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There is something to be said about all the points raised above. This is truly a “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” situation. Who was on the land occupied by Israel first? The biblical children of Israel? Arabs before that? Were the children of Israel actually Arabs, but with a different religion? This is yet another problem from colonial days. British leadership, who controlled the area, believed that the Jews should return to a homeland as prophesized in the Bible. Did the Bible take into account the feelings of non-Jews and non-Christians? I guess if you believe in the Bible as the word of God you’d say the Israelis have an absolute claim to the land. But how about those who believe the Bible is just a self-serving collection of essays meant to favor Jews and Christians at the expense of all others? You may recall that there were Jewish terrorists preying on Arabs in the area prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel whose atrocities equalled anything going on now. Yes, there were wars started by Arabs and the Israelis won and took over and occupied land previously given to Arabs. The international community, who established the state of Israel, said that 18th century type claims on land taken in wars should not prevail and Israel should return the occupied lands. Instead, Israel persisted in occupying permanent settlers on the disputed land to the extent that there are now some 250,000 Israeli citizens on the land. Aditionally, Jerusalem was part of the land originally given to the Arabs. Now, Israel is occupying at least two thirds of the city and controlling it all and has no intention of ever leaving. Israel still claims the land as spoils of a war they didn’t start. The United Nations says they have no standing.
So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Who has the high ground here? It can only be solved by extraordinary statesmen on both sides. But to date, there is no such thing on either side. They are absolutists. Israel will have to give up most of the territory they occupied after the ‘67 war. They refuse. The Arabs will have to agree to recognizing Israels right to exist. They won’t. Having a Palestinian state separated as Gaza and the West Bank is currently makes no sense. Trying to have a democratic state of Israel encompassing areas that include many Arabs, as does the occupation of the West Bank, is currently the death knell of Israel as a Jewish state because the demographics will have them vastly outnumbered by Arabs.
In light of all of the above, I’m afraid there is little we can do, or should do, until they both tire of killing each other and finally work it out. I don’t think there are any good guys or bad guys in this scenario. If there were somehow a written book of prophesy from a native America Indian tribe that said their tribe should return to their native land–as they saw it– and somebody in Europe said they were entitled to it and decreed that the land was now theirs and thy were fee to re-occupy it, what would we do? Who is right? Who are the interlopers? Who was there first and when did the counting begin?
Posted January 2nd, 2009 at 10:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The letter writer speaks of “fairness” in his composition. Perhaps he may wish to explain to us what it is to be “fair”. Is it “fairness” as I see it, or as HE sees it? Do we really need to go as far as the Middle East to see “unfairness”? Some of us don’t believe so. We have enough instances, even locally.
The question that every leader must ask him/herself, if he/she wants to be a leader and not merely hold a leadership position is: “Why am I doing this? Am I doing it for myself, or for all of those who I am sworn to serve? Is the priority the people, me and my “friends”, or those who have bought me?”
One of the things some of us do,and constantly, is ask those questions? How many even bother to do so, provided of course that they even realize that it is an obligation to do so? Most people don’t, because they believe that they assume that they already have. Most have not. They just assume that they have.
Every honest individual who has ever headed any organization, constantly struggles with that question. It is time that they begin asking themselves that question. And it is not only those that are in positions of authority and power that need to do so. Every individual needs to to do it.
Are Hamas officials serving the Palestinian people in Gaza by shooting rockets into Israel, or are they serving themselves, and merely posturing that they care for “the people”? Or, maybe they have just convinced themselves that they are.
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Israel is not going to allow a second holocaust to take place without a fight to the end. Hamas shoots rockets into Israel aimed at civilian populations. They want the Gaza border with Isarael to be opened so they can send in suicide bombers to kill civilians. If Hamas had more powerful weapons than the Kazam rockets (which are relatively small in power, yet deadly), they would use them.
Israel seeks peace. They are willing to give the Palestinians almost everything they want in exchange for a lasting peace. When Arafat was in power, Clinton tried to negotiate an agreement that included giving back a portion of Jerusalem. The Israeli settlers who moved to Egypt after Israel occupied the Sinai were removed by the Israeli government, by force, in order to make peace with Egypt and gain its recognition. The Israeli settlers who lived in Gaza were removed by the Israeli government, by force, in order to try to make peace with the Palestinians. I have no doubt that settlers now on the West Bank would be removed as well. Settlers on the Golans Heights would also be removed to make peace with Syria. This despite the fact that Israel has beaten back the Arabs time and time again and was forced to take posession of these areas in order to protect itself.
Those who want to continuously argue the question of whether or not Israel deserves to exist, are folks who encourage Hamas, Hezbolla, and their ilk to continue a fight that will only further harm the Palestinians.
The Palestinians deserve a leadership that will make peace and agree to live in peace alongside the state of Israel. They will not get that when their leadership’s goal is Israel’s destruction.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate peace with a group that has no regard for human life, including the life of their own people.
Hamas shoots its rockets into Israel in the hope that Israel will retaliate. Well, Israel must defend its population and a time will come when Hamas will gain access to much larger weapons. When that happens the destruction that will take place will pale compared to what we see now.
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, apparently you believe that Israel will have to kill off every Arab terrorist until some kind of settlement is made. You may be right unless some kind of rational leadership is developed among the Palestinians. But you make it sound like the Israelis are willing to do far more than I think they are to achieve peace. They are about to elect Netanyahu as prime minister. He’s about as hard right as you can get and has always said there will be no “giveaway” of any land currently occupied by Israelis. He seems to be of the opinion that they can, in fact, kill off people as long as necessary to get HIS objective, which may not be what most Israelis have in mind. As mentioned in a previous post, BOTH Israel and the Palestinians are going to have to have reasonable leadership, SIMULTANEOUSLY, if anything positive can happen. They don’t currently and therefore they’ll just have to go on killing each other and we can’t do much about it. They both have their legitimate points in THEIR minds so they’ll just continue fighting claiming they have no choice but to protect their people’s interests.
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, Israel has no desire to kill anyone. All it wants to is be left in peace. It was the Arabs who did not accept the UN partition. Except for Egypt and Jordan, they have not yet accepted that partition.
You can never kill all the terrorists. What you can do is try to arrive at a situation where new terrorists stop being created. In order for that to happen we need a situation where terrorism is not being supported.
We need a situation where the Arab world comes to the decision that it is in its best interest to accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel and to push for a two state solution where Palestine and Israel live side by side in peace.
The Israeli people have the same right as all other people to not be subjected to the threat of rockets constantly falling on their heads or school buses being blown up.
Israel cannot negotiate with an enemy whose bottom line is Israel’s destruction. If that enemy persists on terrorizing Israel in order to achieve that bottom line, Israel has no choice but to fight back.
Israel has been very patient with the Palestinians. They have the power to wipe out Gaza at any time. Imagine, John, what would have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine Hamas having control of the land of Israel and jews terrorizing them from Gaza. Then imagine Hamas having the military power Israel now has. How many jews do you think would still be alive in Gaza?
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, I don’t doubt at all that Israel would rather not kill anyone and just be left in peace to go about their business. They will, however, defend themselves and try to keep “collateral damage” to a minimum. In the current atmosphere that’s not possible. With Arabs, the hatred of and widespread belief that Israel is an illegitimate interloper in what they consider to be their Muslim lands is deep seated. It goes beyond Hamas attitudes and objectives. Israel’s belief in their historic right to be there is just as deep seated. Neither side will allow for a “settlement” through force. Only a great leader, on BOTH sides, might bring about some kind of accomodation in the minds of their respective publics to allow for a peaceful settlement. The Krauthammer piece you offered is biased because he has shown over the years that he is very biased toward Israel’s position. Being Jewish might have something to do with it. There is a glimpse of what his, and the neo-cons, solution is in his article. He is for force used to bring Iran to it’s knees so that their support of Hamas and Hezbollah will be brought to an end, among other desirable outcomes. Both he and the neo-cons think that anything less, like extensive diplomacy, is naive and useless. The problem is, when has domination by force and humiliation of a people resulted in a lasting peace and peaceful co-existence with it’s neighbors without continuing occupation and subjugation of the population? My reading of history suggests it just breeds resentment and hatred which will flare up at some point. Arab attitudes are undeniably influenced by western meddling–and Iran/Persia, too, by the way– in their business in the past. We can dominate Iran by force and stop the support for Hamas and Hezbollah but the Arab attitudes will remain and we’ll then have established a situation in Iran that will not be of people in the steets cheering our presence. Strong leadership in Israel and the Arab countries can at least create a level of tolerance between Arabs and Israelis and keep a lid on those who are always present who have to have someone to hate. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are cases in point. They may hold their noses when it comes to Israel but, by and large, they have stayed out of support for Palestinian terrorists in recent years. People will folow the attitudes of strong leaders. There are none in sight in the Middle East right now so the killing will continue. Each side will only be retaliating— in their minds.
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
excellent thread-very thought provoking and informative. One comment-John, you include Saudi Arabia as staying out of the conflict. Yet, as we found out in the wake of 9/11, Saudi Arabia is one of the primary breeding grounds for Islamic terrorist. I have always been confused as to why the get a “pass” on this. thoughts?
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, what sort of leader do you believe it takes to make peace with a party whose objective is your destruction?
Maybe you believe that Hamas and their ilk do not seek Israel’s destruction? If you do, you must know something I don’t.
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skypilot, you are right but I’m not aware of those terrorist operating in Palestine. As far as I know the terrorists being nurtured and supported by Saudi Arabia are Sunnis. Hamas, the prime problem in Palestine, is Shia as far as I know, because of their relationship to Shia Iran. I don’t doubt that Sunni terrorists generate hatred for Israel throughout the area because it’s convenient and useful but I don’t think they have been operating in a way that directly affects the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. From a governmental standpoint, Saudi Arbia, has stayed out of it as opposed to others like Syria. There are no totally clean actors in the Mid East.
Bullish, I acknowledge what you say but it seems off the point. I have said that it takes GREAT LEADERS ON BOTH sides to rally their people behind them in accepting accomodation. Your #13 post seems nothing but argumentative. As long as Hamas, or anybody else, wants the destruction of Israel,and acts on it, the killing will continue. Both will “retaliate” and consider that is the only course open to them. I don’t understand your post as I think it is very clear what I think. What is your point that is in conflict with what I have written? As for an example of a Arab leader who I think might have fit the bill, it would be Anwar Sadat. What happend to him is a cautionary tale to others who might try.
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, maybe I misunderstood your point. When you spoke of the potential election of Netenyahu, and then wrote that both sides require great leaders, I thought you implied that somehow Israel shared the blame here because they have not provided strong leadership amenable to peace.
The point I am making is that as far as Israel is concerned, no Israeli leader, no matter how strong and how willing, will ever be able to negotiate with a party whose stated objective is the destruction of Israel. That happens to be the Hamas stated objective.
Arafat, the previous leader, spoke of peace but was nothing but a thief and a liar. He didn’t want peace either. He was offered a peace at Camp David, that gave him nearly everything he demanded. And what did Israel get in response? The Intifada.
A leader like Anwar Sadat would be wonderful. Only problem is that if someone like him showed up in Gaza, Hamas would kill him. It was his peacemaking with Israel that got him killed.
I don’t see this problem as one where blame is equally shared. I see this problem as one side willing to give up a lot for peace and the other not willing to accept any terms short of anihilation of their enemy.
If there is ever going to be a solution to this problem it will be when the Arab world decides it is in their best interest to stop supporting terrorists, stop calling for the destruction of Israel, and support, instead, a two state solution.
The Saudis are involved in financing these terrorists. They do it because the King has to pay protection money to help him keep his own people in line.
Hamas, by the way, is a Sunni organization. When it comes to killing Jews, Iran is willing to support Sunnis.
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, my mistake on Hamas being a Shia organization. I had Hezbollah on my mind and made the mistake. You are right, Iran is willing to support Iraeli killing even though Hamas is a Sunni organization. I’m not sure that Iran really cares about Israel, one way or the other, though. I think Iran is interested in middle east unrest and being the big player in the area by filling the vacuum. If somehow there would be accomodation between Israel and Palestine and Syria I think Iran would leave them alone as long as they were the undisputed power in the area and could use that power when they chose.
As I stated before , there would have to be strong leaders, SIMULTANEOUSLY, to pull it off. Netanyahu on the Israeli side is not that guy because he seems to be an all-or-nothing kind of guy and if he could find a way to drive every last Arab out of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank he would try. Just as many Palestinians think all of Israel should belong to them Netanyahu is one of the hard liners who think all of the West Bank and Gaza should be part of Israel, minus any Arabs. I disagree as to blame. There’s plenty on both sides. The hard liners in Israel are just as rabid as those in the disputed territories. The difference is that, thus far, they have been kept in check with the fact that they felt reasonably secure with Israels overwhelming military superiority. Ariel Sharon seemed to have a change of heart and became more flexible in dealing with the situation. Netanyahu has shown few signs that he will be flexible at all and he seems to be more than willing for all out war to “settle things, once and for all”. My guess is that would inflame the entire middle east and turn the relatively neutral parties such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia against Israel, and depending on how much influence we have with Itaq, they might even join against Israel. Needless to say, my view of Netanyahu is that he is a very dangerous man and could never be the peacemaker on the Israeli side.
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, Israeli citizens come in all sort of political flavors. And when it comes on how to deal with the Arabs, it is no different. They have right wing extremists, left wing extremists, and everything in between.
In times of relative calm, Israelis tend to elect leaders that appear to be more moderate in dealing with the Arabs. In times where the situation is inflamed, as it is now, they tend to elect tougher leaders.
But, irrespective of who they elect, the objective is peace. Israel has already agreed to a two state solution where the Palestinians get Gaza and the West Bank. This remains the objective as long as there is some assurance that the Palestinians will recognize Israel and provide some evidence that they will not continue to fire on Israel. Obviously
Hamas has no such intentions.
Why is Hamas firing rockets into Israel? What is their goal? Did they not expect Israel to retaliate? Did they not expect that by launching their rockets from residential areas the retaliatory strikes, no matter how accurate, would still result in civilian casualties?
Why is it John that you do not condemn Hamas for what they are doing?
Posted January 3rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, what, exactly, are you trying to get from me? I’ve said that there is plenty of blame to go around. I’ve said that you can’t discount the long history going back to where the Arabs felt that land had been taken from them without any concurrence from them. Of course Hamas rockets are wrong. But what was the objective of 250,000 “settlers” in the West Bank? Have you ever been to Israel? I have. I’ve watched the humiliating process the Arabs go through at the unending checkpoints. I’m sure that the Israelis felt they were necessary for their security, and they’re probably right. Nevertheless, the hatred is palpable watching the process. Hamas is doing what they are doing for who knows what they want to accomplish. But I’m neither an Israeli nor a Palestinian and I can’t put myself in the shoes of either. In the minds of both of them there seems to be a retaliation mindset and I’ve stated what I think the only answer is, and it is not currently forthcoming. If you are bound and determined to take sides, so be it. I’m not. There are no easy answers because this didn’t happen over night and merely “moving on” or “letting bygones be bygones” may not be as easy in some cultures as others. Have you ever investigated how native Americans feel about we Anglos? If they were more numerous we might have some of the same problems. But we killed them off and hamstrung them from being a threat. I don’t think the Israelis will be able to do that with the Arabs causing them problems nor do I think the international community will let them go that far. The Arabs are expressing their frustration in the only way they seem to have available to them, terrorism. You may feel they are unjustified. They don’t, so until they have a different mindset, there’ll be trouble. They are fellow human beings with a grudge that can be eased with good leadership. But it ain’t going to happen until the Israelis have similar leadership, SIMULTANEOUS with that of the Arabs. What more can I say? I may be wrong but that’s what I think. You have yet to lay out what you think has to happen, and why. Spell it out.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 9:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Fascinating reading. I would like to ask a question that has bothered me for a long time. Why is the US taking sides in this? It definitely makes it more difficult for us in dealing with the middle east by suppling Israel with weapons. this conflict goes back to the old testament and I can’t see a way out until both sides have inflicted such damage to each other that there is no fight left in either one. From my very limited understanding, both sides have been unreasonable at times, esp re: Jerusalem. By taking sides, it feeds into the perceived US anti-Arab position which in turn forces us into positions that are not in our best interest. Is our dog in this fight the sentiments that lead to the Crusades? IF so, wow. We need to get over it. (and out of it)
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 9:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think it has to do with the aftermath of WWII. The modern state of Israel was created partly in reparation for the Holocaust, and to withdraw support would have the appearance of turning our backs on the Jewish people. I don’t see any politician doing that any time soon.
Plus there the whole “Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy” angle, which is a very powerful influence for a large voting block in this country.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 9:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Bullish, what, exactly, are you trying to get from me?”
1. “I’ve said that you can’t discount the long history going back to where the Arabs felt that land had been taken from them without any concurrence from them.”
Israel accepted the UN partition in 1948 which divided the territory of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state. Prior to that, there had never been a Palestinian state. The territory was occupied by both Arabs and Jews prior to the partition. The Arabs did not accept the UN partition. They tried to destroy Israel. They could not.
Rather than accepting their own state, the “Palestinian” Arabs lived in other Arab states, and were kept in camps, under terrible living conditions, by their Arab hosts.
Israel was continuously attacked from Gaza (occupied by Egypt), the West Bank (occupied by Jordan), and the Golan Heights (occupied by Syria, until 1967. After winning the 1967 war Israel decided that it had had enough and, for its protection, occupied these three areas as well as the Sinai Peninsula.
Israel has no desire to keep these lands other than for what it requires for self defense. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt after a peace treaty was signed and Egypt recognized the state of Israel. Israel would return the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for a guarantee of peace and recognition by Syria.
The Gaza strip and the West Bank will be returned to the Arabs also in exchange for a permanent peace.
2. “Of course Hamas rockets are wrong”
First, the rockets being launched by Hamas into Israel, from Gaza, is, as you state, wrong. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Their charter calls for the destruction of Israel. They were elected in a democratic election to be the government of the Palestinians. So, let me be clear. The Palestinians, in a democratic election, elected for their government a group that is intent, not in making peace with Israel, not in setting up a Palestinian state to live in peace next to Israel, but a government intent in Israel’s destruction. That, John, is not a formula for peace.
If the Palestinians in Gaza, which has been unoccupied by a single Israeli soldier or Israeli settler, for 2 years, is going to shoot rockets into Israel, they will get hit back. No country will accept having its citizens terrorized indefinitely. Since 2003, 9,400+ rockets and mortars have been fired into Israel from Gaza. 3,200+ rockets and mortars have been fired in 2008 alone including 543 during this “cease fire”.
Anyone who truly wants peace in the region should be condemning Hamas for their rocket and mortar fire on Israeli civilians. They should be condemning Hamas for the suffering of their own people. Israel would not have retaliated if Hamas had not been terrorizing Israel for the last two years. The blood of Palestinian civilians is on the hands of Hamas.
If Hamas stops terrorizing Israel, the Gaza strip will be in peace. If Hamas shows that opening the gates from Gaza into Israel does not lead to suicide bombers killing Israeli civilians, the gates will be opened and will remain open. If the Palestinians show a true desire to live in peace alongside Israel, they will have their own country.
If, however, every time a peace deal gets underway, terrorists who oppose Israel’s existence blow up Israeli civilians, as they have in the past, there will never be peace and the Palestinians will continue to live under terrible conditions.
This is a matter of leadership, but not leadership on the Israeli side. The Israelis want peace. It is leadership on the Arab/Palestinian side who has yet to agree to Israel’s right to exist.
3. “Have you ever been to Israel?”
Yes, and I am eagerly awaiting my next visit. I wish I could have visited the West Bank but it was too dangerous to go there.
4 “Hamas is doing what they are doing for who knows what they want to accomplish.”
They want to have the Israelis attack Gaza, kill their women and children, and then have the media show the pictures to the world. They have no regard for human life. Neither that of their enemies nor their own. They want the world’s sympathy even though it is they who provoke the retaliatory attacks.
5. “If you are bound and determined to take sides, so be it. I’m not.”
I am for peace in the Middle East and for a 2 state solution. There is zero chance of that until the Arabs recognize the state of Israel. So I take sides with those on the side of peace.
6. “Have you ever investigated how Native Americans feel about we Anglos? If they were more numerous we might have some of the same problems.”
Good example. Maybe all of those who immigrated here, or whose families immigrated here, should go back to their countries of origin.
7. “The Arabs are expressing their frustration in the only way they seem to have available to them, terrorism.”
There I must strongly disagree. Terrorism is not the only way they have. Agreeing to recognize Israel will lead to a free Palestine alongside Israel. That requires leadership on the Arab side willing to convince the Palestinian people that this is the only way for them to have their own country.
It requires the world’s strong condemnation of Hamas and other terrorist organizations who stand in the way of peace. It requires a cessation of support of terrorists.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 9:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skypilot: “Why is the US taking sides in this?”
The United States takes sides in all regions of the world. It has allies in all regions of the world. Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East and is the U.S. strongest ally in the region.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 10:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here is a little piece that is worth seeing:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Xl68kP4wo
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 10:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
skypilot, in my opinion we’re involved for a variety of reasons. I think the biggest reason is that there is a very strong Jewish Israel lobby in this country. It would probably be stereotyping a group but I think it is a fact that there are a lot of very wealthy, prominent and influential people who are Jewish and are boosters of the idea of a Jewish homeland. I also think there was a lot of sympathy for the Jewish people and their struggles against bigotry throughout history, capped by their experience with the holocaust. Finally, there are those who say we ought to support any democracy, anywhere, anytime, but particularly in an area like the middle east with its history of undemocratic, despotic and theocratic rule. This last plays up to our patriotic impulses and our desire for an image of being righteous and the advocate of individuals against repression. I think the first reason is overwhelmingly the primary reason but the last cited is the one usually used along with the reason that it is critical, somewhow, to our national defense that this island of democracy be maintained at all costs in this hostile and dangerous part of the world. I question this rationale. I think it is long since time that Israel should be allowed to go its own way without our huge financial support. The Israelis need to settle their problems with their neighbors themselves. Our support, in my opinion, is now hurting us more than any possible benefits we may gain. They are a very advanced country and if they can’t survive as a democracy in the area without being propped up at the barrels of guns, maybe there is something very wrong with our support for a country that shouldn’t have been established where it was under the circumstances that existed. Telling the Arab inhabitants of the land “get over it” isn’t working and might never work. The Israel lobby wants a Jewish homeland but maybe they’re stuck with a situation that will be analogous to South Africa. They’ll have to share the land and be a minority in a democracy dominated by the Arab majority. There are many who say that Arabs, and Islam, are incapable of democracy. I don’t know if that is true or not. Ataturk made it happen in Turkey but they are not Arabs and the army kept a tight reign on making sure the democracy was not threatened. There are signs that it may become a creeping theocracy. As I have previously suggested, It would be nice if both factions, Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, could simultaneously come up with superior leadership and some kind of settlement be worked out acceptable to the people of both sides–not perfect, but workable and acceptable. I’m not at all optimistict that will happen. Considering the history, I think putting Israel, the Jewish homeland, where it is was a big mistake that cannot be sustained by force. If we continue to support it as we have in the past I think it will be a perpetual cancer and threat to world peace, not to mention a big thorn in our side and drag on the US taxpayer..
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 10:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Considering the history, I think putting Israel, the Jewish homeland, where it is was a big mistake that cannot be sustained by force.”
Perhaps a little review of history is necessary here, (particularly for those who think jews have no business having their own country in the Middle East.)
Judaism existed way, way, before, islam was invented. Jews have lived in the land of Israel for many thousands of years. Most Jews were expelled from Israel by force, first by the Babylonians and then the Romans. That is how they ended up in Europe.
“If we continue to support it as we have in the past I think it will be a perpetual cancer and threat to world peace, not to mention a big thorn in our side and drag on the US taxpayer.”
So, Israel ia a threat to world peace? And, if you had it your way, you would end all support of Israel and then you would expect Israel (and its inhabitants) to be wiped out so that the cancer can be contained?
Am I understanding your views correctly?
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 11:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, everything you say in #21 and 22 is true but you still haven’t said what the answer is except ” the world’s strong condemnation of Hamas….”. That will do it? The Palestinians will have to get a strong leader? How do we, or anybody, make that happen? Are you suggesting that I’m not for a two state solution and peace in the area? I’m in total agrement with that. I’ve explained why I’m not optimistic and why. You’ve outlined some of the history and the nature of the problem. There are probably hundreds of books written about the situation. But nobody has come up with the magic wand to make it go away. I say the problem won’t be solved without superior leadership on BOTH sides to convince their respective peoples that specific compromises have to be made. There are also those on the Israel side absolutely opposed to giving up any land currently occupied by Israelis. Otherwise the problem will continue and absolutely can’t be solved with arms and killing. Do you agree with that? If not, what is your solution? Find Hamas and exterminate every single member? Bomb Iran and subjugate them and force cessation of support for Hamas and Hezbollah?
The tone of your posts seem to indicate a moral position that you want to claim as the “proper” position and others that may think otherwise are somehow flawed. You describe the problem and an attitude that should be supported but nothing you have said leads to what the solution might be and how to get there. I think the situation is hopeless without strong, effective leadership from the protagonists. It can’t be forced on anybody and it can’t come from outside parties. Again, what is your solution, not just a summation of “facts”.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 11:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I again beg patience for my ignorance, but no one on this thread has addressed the Jerusalem issue. It is my understanding that both religions see the city as the ultimate holy site and I don’t see how the 2 state solution will resolve their apparent inability to share the city. If fact, isn’t Jerusalem the crux of the issue? I also tend to agree with John that it is political pressure from the Jewish contingent in this country that drives our involvement. I also have a hard time accepting a state as democratic when it’s goal is to be homogenous both culturally and religiously. BF-I agree we are involved in various parts of the world, the question that begs to be answered is should we be and what are our motives in being involved. Some of our past “involvements” have come back to bite us of late. I’m not so sure this won’t be one of them in the future. I really don’t see this as our fight. There are a lot of serious wrongs in this world (the Democratic Republic of Congo for instance), we can not fix them all by picking sides.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, your #25, I don’t need a history lesson. Are you suggesting that, in itself, is reason enough for the re-establishment of Israel? People all over the world have been displaced from their “homelands”, usually by force. Your rationale suggests that re-establishing them is perfectly OK and desirable. If native Americans wanted that, is it OK with you? At this late date, it would have to be by force, would it not? And we’ve got the power to put it down. That’s what is happening in Israel. Who has the force in this case? Israel will be “wiped out”? Only if the entire Arab/Muslim world joins in. In which case we need to stand up, with whatever allies we can get, and fight it out? You are understanding my views correctlty so you are now free to do what you have been working up to throughout this entire discussion;”what can you expect from a naive, un-patriotic liberal”. Isn’t that where you have been trying to direct this conversation? My question remains, what is your solution beyond merely re-stating the problem? Is the situation hopeless? If not, that must indicate you have some idea in mind how to get things going and who should be the players and what kind of force might be necesary. This has been a long thread and you have still left it hanging except for trying to build a case for “me right, you wrong”. Step up. Let’s hear what the right-wing, conservative, correct position–and solution–is.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 12:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
skypilot, you are absolutely correct that Jerusalem is a huge stumbling block to any solutions. Thus far it seems that the Israelis feel it is absolutely non-negotiable. They always resented it being “given” to the Arabs at the establishment of Israel and they jumped at the chance to grab it after the ‘67 war. In my mind that is the biggest sticking point in coming to an agreement however a strong, persuasive Arab leader might be able to persuade his people to give up their claim, but based on the city never being the center of Islam whereas, with the Jews, it was. Good luck! The more I think about it the more I think that there will be bloodshed into infinity unless somebody comes up with a Soth Africa solution wherein the Jews remain on the land but there will be a unification and the Jews will lose their exclusive homeland, the Arabs will be in the majority and the Jews will try to work closely with Arab politicians in maintaining a democracy. Other than that, I see endless confict, always with the possibility that others will be dragged in. Is that in the intrests of our country?
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 12:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My points exactly. It’s my understanding that at one time, Muslims turned toward Jerusalem to pray and that only relatively recently did it change to Mecca. Isn’t it also true that their main mosque is located in Jerusalem? The irony (or sadness) of all of this is they believe in the same God. Isn’t also true that they both claim to be descendent of Abraham? So much loss, so much death, for what?
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 12:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, the reason I asked you if I understood you correctly is because you have spent a lot of time talking about how you don’t want to take sides and of the need for strong leadership on both sides, as thought that will solve the problem.
But then in your post 24 you write: “If we continue to support it as we have in the past I think it will be a perpetual cancer and threat to world peace, not to mention a big thorn in our side and drag on the US taxpayer.”
So after all your writing and attempt to appear unbiased, the truth is you have, indeed, taken sides, you believe Israel is a cancer and a threat to world peace.
So one would assume that, as with all cancers, the objective is to eliminate it. And you appear to believe that if US support is withdrawn, the Arabs will succeed in eliminating Israel and killing all the Jews. And then the threat to peace will be eliminated and the cancer will disappear.
And then you start throwing in the words liberal and conservative to cap it all off.
Israel has the power to defend itself even if the US withdraws its monetary support. Israel will not allow a second holocaust without a fight. Those nuclear bombs they have will only be used in case of mortal threat. But be assured that they will be used if there is no other option.
Ending the problem there will not happen as long as governments continue to support Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Ending the problem will not happen as long as governments, and folks like you, continue to question the legitimacy of the state of Israel. I should amend that, Israel is a small country and if a nuclear power decides to nuke them, and accept that a lot of nukes will rain on them in return, Israel will disappear. That is one solution.
If Hamas stops receiving support, the Palestinians may very well decide to follow the path to peace.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 12:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
skypilot, I don’t know about the direction in which Muslims prayed in the past but my understanding is that the mosque, built on previous houses of worship–I’m not sure if it was churches or temples, or both–was,or is, an important mosque, but not the most important. Islams roots are on the Arabian penninsula, but there are important mosques all over the area which was essentially what became the Ottoman Empire. Islam is an Abrahamic religion and all Jews, Christians and Muslims supposedly worship the same god and are brothers but, somehow, historically it doesn’t seem to work out that way, does it?
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 12:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The irony (or sadness) of all of this is they believe in the same God. Isn’t also true that they both claim to be descendent of Abraham? So much loss, so much death, for what?”
Yes, they are the decendents of brothers, both sons of Abraham. Hard to believe this all started as a sibling rivalry. But, let us not forget what became of Cain, all because of envy.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skypilot, Jerusalem is one of the issues. But as far as Hamas is concerned, the ONLY issue is the existence of Israel.
Jerusalem was re-unified during the 1967 war. As part of a comprehensive peace proposal, that was negotiated during the Clinton administration, Israel offered to give Arafat almost everything he demanded, including a portion of Jerusalem. Arafat refused the agreement.
“I also have a hard time accepting a state as democratic when it’s goal is to be homogenous both culturally and religiously.”
Israel was created as a homeland for the Jews. A place where they could be safe from persecution. Most Israelis are secular, not religious. There is a large population of Israeli Arabs. There are mosques as well as churches in Israel. There is freedom of religion in Israel. That, by the way, is something you will not find in Arab countries. They do not allow churches or synagogies in Arab countries. The reason Israel limits the inflow of non-Jews into the country is because it would be overwhelmed and, envetually, Jews would lose their majority.
“It’s my understanding that at one time, Muslims turned toward Jerusalem to pray and that only relatively recently did it change to Mecca.”
That is not the case. The ones who pray facing Jerusalem are the Jews. The muslims always pray facing Mecca.
“ Isn’t it also true that their main mosque is located in Jerusalem?”
They have a very important mosque in Jerusalem. It sits on top of the ruins of the second temple which was built by the Jews, and destroyed by the Romans, in 70 CE. The mosqe was completed over 600 years FOLLOWING the destruction of the second temple. Does that give you a clue as to who was there first?
The wailing wall, located in Jerusalem, is the one remaing wall from that second temple. It is the most important religious shrine of the Jews. It was in Arab hands until 1967. Jews had no access to it until then. Arabs, on the other hand, have never stopped having access to their mosqe following Israel’s occupation. Detect any difference there?
“The irony (or sadness) of all of this is they believe in the same God. Isn’t also true that they both claim to be descendent of Abraham? So much loss, so much death, for what?”
The difference you have is that Jews have no problem living in peace alongside the muslims. But the muslims have a big problem living alongside the Jews.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-I agree-Israel has the ability to defend itself, so let’s let them do that, without US backing or support in terms of dollars or weapons. let the US become neutral in this matter. I also agree other nations need to stop their support of Hamas. any nation’s involvement in this is only perpetuating the issue. The cancer is the conflict, not one side or the other. By being neutral, maybe we can truly become part of the peace process. As it stands, how could any Arab trust our participation in any peace process knowing our support of the Israel cause?
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
“The difference you have is that Jews have no problem living in peace alongside the muslims. But the muslims have a big problem living alongside the Jews.”
Do you think this has mostly to do with the relative attitudes both sides have regarding “infidels”? The way I understand it, Jews pity non-believers and Muslims want to kill them. Is that right?
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, congratulations! You brought it to a head and even brought in “people like you”. Did it ever occur to you that stating my views on Israel is neither support or lack of support for the position of either side? Is your aim to demand unqualified support for Israel as being the first step necessary for solution of the problem? If you choose to claim I’ve taken sides, so be it. I’ve stated that I don’t think it is in the interest of the US to maintain financial support for Israel. You seem to be seeking certainty in putting me into a moral box with a label on it. I think there are elements of morality and immorality in the positions of both sides. I’m neutral on that. If your goal was to demand some kind of pledge of support and loyalty for Israel from me and “folks like me” you have achieved your goal. I stand with neither side except that I don’t think it is in the interest of this country to any longer support Israel financially. But you still left unanswered what your solution is beyond the necessity to first take the pledge. Tell us why we need to stand unconditionally beside Israel and how they–and we–can get out of the mess. How do we get people to stop supporting terrorists? Saying that’s what should happen is not a solution. Is there a solution? If you are suggesting there is, let’s hear it. Or maybe the solution is merely getting rid of “people like me”?
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skypilot, we live in a dangerous world. The Al Quaeda group, and those who believe like they do, like Hamas, believe that anyone who does not believe in islam is an infidel and does not deserve to live. A muslim, who converts to another religion, is marked for death.
The radical muslims have long term plans for all of us.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Did it ever occur to you that stating my views on Israel is neither support or lack of support for the position of either side?”
Your view that Israel is a cancer and a threat to world peace is not neutrality. It is a one sided position. I don’t know how anyone can interpret your position any other way.
I assume honest when I enter a discussion. That includes putting our cards on the table. It took a while, but you eventually showed where you really stood.
I did not bring up the issue of monetary support from the US to Israel. The US provides weapons and monetary support to Arab countries too. Should that support be withheld from Israel only?
I have stated my path toward peace more than once. Step one is withdrawing world support of Hamas. That will take away their power and allow a more moderate Palestinian government to reemerge.
The Israelis were negotiating a peace agreement with Abbas, leader of Fattah. If Fattah can resume its leadership of the Palestinians, there is a much better chance for peace. Hamas is now in the process of killing members of Hamas, who are still in Gaza, in order to reduce their opposition. That’s how opposition is handled in places run by terrorists.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“anyone who does not believe in islam is an infidel and does not deserve to live.”
That was the point of my previous question. I have met Muslims who do not feel this way and I recall that some Christians have dealt very harshly with ” pagans and heathen “. Colonel Chivington of the U.S.Army comes to mind.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, the entire quate was: “The Al Quaeda group, and those who believe like they do, like Hamas, believe that anyone who does not believe in islam is an infidel and does not deserve to live.”
I am not saying all Muslims think like that.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Last paregraph of 39 said: “Hamas is now in the process of killing members of Hamas”
That should have read: “Hamas is now in the process of killing members of Fattah”
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-and what is/was our role in the creation of that “dangerous world”? War will gain nothing for anyone. The Muslim world does not want the destruction of anyone not Muslim any more than Americans want the destruction of anyone not Christian/Jewish. Are there factions on each side with these goals, yes. Are they the majority, no. the “average” person on all sides needs to start taking control and demanding that their perspective governments quit using them as fodder. If the people on all sides refused to fight and made those making the dumba.. decisions fight, I suspect it would stop rather quickly. I don’t know what the solution is. I do know I want America out of it.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
Well, I must say that the discourse between you and John has been very engaging and enlightening. I thank you both for a rousing ,but respectful, discussion.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The Muslim world does not want the destruction of anyone not Muslim any more than Americans want the destruction of anyone not Christian/Jewish.”
The Muslim world is a lot of folks. Within the Muslim world you have Al Quaeda. They absolutely want the destruction of anyone who is not muslim.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 2:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, if,in your mind, you have achieved what you have set out to achieve , again, congratulations. It seems that subtlety and complexity are not your forte. This thread seemed to be about the terrible conflict going on between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs. Discussion covered a lot of the background which, in most minds, would indicate that it was clear it is hard to paint it purely in black and white terms. You seem to persist in making it purely a “Palestinians, bad; Israelis, good” sitution. That is your perogative which is clearly understood. You have made your point that others who are not so sure it’s that simple are in error or maybe even a threat to the “right” solution. I continue to ask, considering that the clear good and bad, virtue vs evil question has been answered, what might the solution be? You have said you have conclusively answered that question. Stating that” Step one is withdrawing world support of Hamas. That will take away their power and allow a more moderate Palestinian government to reemerge” is a precondition, not a road map to a solution. I grant you that, but how? And then what? Why are you reluctant to answer this most basic of questions? My answer is only by strong leadership of the protagonists. Beyond that, I think it is a hopeless situation and there will be endless blood-shedding. Is that your answer as well? That’s pretty inconclusive, as I freely admit. If you have something better and specific that might improve on that, please tell us and stop insinuating that the obvious preconditons are the solution itself. Are there any other players beyond Israel and the Palestinian Arabs required to get things off the dime? If so, are they purely a moralor diplomatic force or is outside miliary force part of the equation? How do we, or somebody, eradicate or emasculate Hamas? Is Iran involved in the plan? Voluntarily or under some kind of pressure? Diplomatic or militarily?
You’ve discovered the outside negative elements. How do they fit into the solution or hinder it and how can they be eliminated so the attitudinaly correct solution can be engineered? You’ve go the history down, now tell us how to correct things, regardless of the historical background and impediments. Please, no more dodging and weaving. If you don’t know what should be done, if anything, say so.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel has been going on for many years. We have been discussing the issues. You have taken the side against Israel (even though you claim you have not) by calling IT a cancer and a threat to world peace). You have not called Hamas, or the Arabs, or anyone else a cancer or a threat to world peace. When someone calls Israel a cancer and a threat to world peace the implication is that that cancer and that threat has to be eliminated.
I have clearly shown that I side with Israel. To me, Hamas is the cancer and the threat to world peace.
I believe that clearly explains where you and I stand. Your facade of neutrality is nothing but a sham.
Now you want me to give you a 150 step plan for solving the problem. That, of course, is nonsense.
I don’t claim to be able to do what others who are wiser and more familiar with the conflict have been unable to accomplish.
This thread stems from the current incursion by Israel into Gaza and the issues that have led to this incursion.
I have clearly stated that step one in resolving the conflict is for the world for condemn Hamas, for the world to stop supporting Hamas to the point that Hamas loses control over the Palestinians so that Fattah, a more moderate group, can regain its power.
Fattah was in the process of developing a peace plan with Israel that would lead to a two state solution.
I suspect that the plan Israel and Fattah would conclude would not be much different from what was proposed and rejected during the Clinton administration.
Can all this happen? Will the Arab world support it? Will Iran, somehow, stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah? I don’t know. Nobody knows.
All I know right now is that Hamas must be defeated.
One step at a time.
Posted January 4th, 2009 at 6:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, when I called “IT” a cancer I was speaking of the situation that we were in the middle of because of our countries financial and moral support for Israel. I’m sorry you read it differently. I thought, in the context of our discussion, it might be clear that the situation, not Israel solely, was a cancer and a threat to world peace. I view both parties to the problem as contributors with merits and demerits to both their positions to take into account. Morally, I don’t support either one and I thought our financial support puts us in the middle of a situation that can only be solved by the protagonists. You can try to aspire whatever motives you choose, and make assumptions –accusations?–about me all you want, but you seem to tend to belive what you want to believe. Yes, Hamas is the immediate problem and something has to done about them except that they were freely–and enthusiasticaly, by the Bush administration–elected. Getting rid of Hamas, however , won’t solve the continuing problem and you haven’t suggested how that might take place. I certainly don’t how. Hamas position on pushing Israel into the sea is held by many other Arabs, both inside and outside of Palestine. Getting rid of Hamas, somehow, is only the beginning. My opinion on what has to happen, is just that, my opinion. You were hung up on Hamas but I assumed you had an overall opinion on how things could be settled. If I am incorrect in that assumption I’m sorry. But I do take great offense to your suggesting my position of neutrality is a sham. That’s the equivalent of dishonesty, in my book. Read everything I’ve written and read it without preconcieved ideas this time. Being concerned about our financial support of Israel neither supports or doesn’t whether Israel’s position is right or wrong and justifying supoort or not. If you choose to take that avenue, have at it but it is not my position, it is just putting words in my mouth that aren’t there. I think it was pretty plain we were talking about the entire situation, not just the immediate problem of Hamas’s rockets. That’s been a continuing situation and is old business , except for the increased activity lately.
Posted January 5th, 2009 at 8:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John: “You can try to aspire whatever motives you choose, and make assumptions –accusations?–about me all you want, but you seem to tend to belive what you want to believe.”
OK, let’s look at what you wrote.
Post #24:
“Considering the history, I think putting Israel, the Jewish homeland, where it is was a big mistake that cannot be sustained by force. If we continue to support it as we have in the past I think it will be a perpetual cancer and threat to world peace, not to mention a big thorn in our side and drag on the US taxpayer.”
“If we continue to support IT as we have in the past I think IT will be a perpetual cancer and a threat to world peace”
WHO IS IT????????????????????????
Are you trying to play games with me Sir? There is no question that the IT to which you refer is Israel.
But, to make sure that is what you meant, I asked you the question in post #25:
“If we continue to support it as we have in the past I think it will be a perpetual cancer and threat to world peace, not to mention a big thorn in our side and drag on the US taxpayer.” So, I asked, Israel ia a threat to world peace? And, if you had it your way, you would end all support of Israel and then you would expect Israel (and its inhabitants) to be wiped out so that the cancer can be contained? Am I understanding your views correctly?”
Your response in post #28: “You are understanding my views correctlty so you are now free to do what you have been working up to throughout this entire discussion”
I think, Mr. Borgen, that we understand each other’s position on this issue and, at this point, I see no reason to pursue this discussion any further.
Have a good day.
Posted January 5th, 2009 at 9:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, good idea. You interpret it however you choose. The situation is the problem, not Israel, per se. They exist, they are there and I think they should deal with peace with their neighbors without our financial assistance. Whatever we add to their resources won’t have an influence on the outcome. It won’t be solved by more munitions subsidized by us. Our standing in the middle east is harmed by our financial support for Israel and it will do nothing for the continued existence of Israel other than postponing, maybe, the date that they have to find agreement on a diplomatic solution to the problem, which won’t be easy. Lack of financial support doesn’t mean we wish Israel harm. This is somewhat analagous to claiming that opposition to the Iraq war automatically means you don’t support the troops. They are there and we don’t wish them harm but we hate the reason they are there and don’t support having gone there in the first place. I wish Israel well, but not with our continuing financial support, which does nothing for a solution for an acommodation in a viable and lasting peace with their neighbors. Their nation is 60 years old and they are the powerhouse in the area. They are perfectly capable of defending themselves until they can deal with their neighbors diplomatically, not at the point of a gun.
Posted January 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is unfortunate that so many people, including Mr. Bob Uhl are so uninformed on the history of Israel.
In December of 1917 General Edmund Allenby (Britain) flew over Jerusalem and shortly thereafter defeated the Ottomans and captured Jerusalem. Out of respect for the Holy City he dismounted and entered the city on foot. Shortly thereafter a proclamation written by Lord Balfour (Britain) was introduced and was included in the Mandate of the League of Nations and gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home. On May 15, 1948 Israel became an independent state. Jordan controlled Jerusalem form 1948 until 1967. In 1967 Syria, Jordan, and Egypt began hinting at going to war with Israel. Instead of waiting, Israel attacked Egypt and in an unbelievable 6 days Israel completely decimated three Arab states and wiped out their entire air force. Israel’s total losses were less than 800 men. Combined, the Arab states lost 20,000 men, and around 45,000 wounded. Unfortunately after the war, Moise Dayan decided that the Temple Mount (Dome of the Rock location and possibly where the first Temple was built) should be given to the Muslims (Jordan). To this day, Jews cannot enter the Temple Mount. As a side note since the Gaza Strip has been so prominent lately it is interesting to note that it is not now nor has it ever been a part of Israel, so when they (Israel) gave it back to the Palestinians, they actually gave up nothing as far as giving up a part of Israel.
Perhaps Mr. Uhl can explain to the readers exactly what a “Palestinian” is or where their homeland is. Also maybe he could expound on when it was that the 4 million so called Palestinians were driven from their homes.
There has NEVER been a civilization or nation called Palestine nor has there ever been a Palestinian state governed by Arab Palestinians. There has never been a Palestinian language or culture. As a side note, Yassar Arafat, the “leader” of the “Palestinians”, was Egyptian.
Israel first became a nation in 1312 B.C. They have maintained a continuous presence in the Land of Israel for over 3,000 years. They built two Temples there and have rebuilt their nation (and Jerusalem) several times. During those 3,000 years, several peoples ruled that land including the Arabs; however, none of them established a nation there except for the Jews.
The State of Israel was established in May of 1948. The next day it was invaded by Seven Arab nations. Arab leaders convinced their people to leave assuring them that they would rid the world once and for all of the Jews. No one threw them out. They left of their own accord. For 19 years the Arabs were in control of Gaza, West Bank, and Jerusalem. No effort was ever made by them to create a Palestinian state. Only after Israel regained this territory in the 1967 war, started by the Arabs, did Arafat amazingly find his/their ancient “Palestinian” identity. After the 48-49 war and the 67 war the Arabs cried about being refugees. The truth is they became refugees both times by their own actions and not because the Jews drove them out. In fact the Arabs were allowed to stay in Gaza and the West Bank after the 67 war courtesy of Moshe Dayan. Israel has been paying for it ever since. When Israel pulled completely out of Gaza within weeks it was once again being attacked by Arabs. Five major wars have been fought between the Arabs and the Jews. Note that I didn’t say Palestinians and Jews. It never has been about Palestinians and Jews but about/between Arabs and Jews and all five of these wars were started (and lost) by the Arabs. The only thing “unfair” about this whole scenario is that there are a multitude of people who like Mr., Uhl are so eager to side with the Arab world and blame everything on the Jews/Israel.
Posted January 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
jaketinback, that was a good discussion of why, in your mind and that of many others, Israel’s position is correct, righteous and they have been continually “unfairly” been attacked. Palestine has never been a country, as you pointed out, but only the name of a geographical area. It would be correct to call anybody living in the area, Palestinians, which would include the Jews living there. But that is all beside the point. The Arabs are not buying the historical rationale offered! They are human beings just like the Israelis and they both bleed identically. All the historical, political and humanistic concerns from outsiders about the situation won’t solve it. Munitions, on either or both sides, won’t solve it unless one side or the other is made to suffer horrendous ethnic cleansing, in effect, and made to “surrender”. Then what? Is that the solution those who are being urged to take sides desire? Should finding true statesmen on both sides to rally the people for an acceptable settlement be left to somebody or organization outside the citizenry of the protagonists? Or must, somehow, it be necessary that a true nation-building figure arise from the native populations of both sides?
I guess my point is that urging personally uninvolved people to take sides in a dogmatic way does absolutely nothing for solving a human problem that is unlikely to be solved by anybody but those involved, personally, every day of their lives If they don’t buy it, the killing will continue until it becomes too much to bear. It has been proven conclusively for 60 years that world opinion has had no effect whatever on bringing about a solution. Cheering your team on from the sidelines in this situation is wasted effort. Hands-on intrusion by Iran with their agents, Hamas, will never solve it and current levels of US involvement, or more, will not bring about a solution, either.
Israel has to go its own way and find accomodation with its neighbors.
Posted January 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, I believe that the Jews would take exception with your statement that anyone living in the “area” could be called a Palestinian including the Jews. Exactly what area are you referring to? If you subscribe to the notion that Palestine is a geographical area then you also have to concede that that “area” only consists of Gaza (of which the Jews never owned or claimed until after the 67 war), and the other being the West Bank (which was under Jordanian rule from 1948-1967. It was captured by Israel during the 67 war and they only annexed the eastern part of Jerusalem). No Jews live in either of those geographical areas. I do agree that no amount of world opinion is going to effect change or bring about a solution. I also believe that you have seen the last of any type of accomodation on Israels part. They have tried several times as I have stated previously but to no avail. The Arab’s have a penchant for self destruction based on their rabid hate for the Jews and the Jewish state. Solution??? Israel will do what it has to do including complete eradication of Hamas and/or any other faction that is constantly trying to erase it from the face of the earth. Final equation… World War.
Posted January 5th, 2009 at 3:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m no biblical scholar but where is the area in the bible referred to as Palestine, or if it isn’t in the bible where were the Crusaders going when they said Palestine? I’m not trying to be argumenative, here, I just don’t know. My assunption has always been the area between Lebanon and Egypt and the Mediteranean and the Jordan River and Dead Sea. Is that correct? If it is I’d say anybody living in the area could loosley be called a Palestinian. Not that it matters in this discussion. I’m afraid you are correct. Israel will do what it feels they have to do and it could very well lead to a world war. I can’t imagine, at the moment, how anybody could dissuade or prevent them from doing what they felt was necessary in the face of provocation.
Posted January 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If anybody cares, this is what Wilipedia has to say about Palestine and where it is. Looks like the eastern end of the Med, depending on who and when people talked about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Name_and_boundaries
Posted January 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, a radical group of Mexican believe that the southwest portion of the United States is actually theirs and they believe in the extermination of Americans. Most of the southwestern United States was historically part of Mexico. They start launching missiles into Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. People crossing the border are sometimes homicide bombers and blow themselves up in Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas, and Albuquerque. The Mexican elected government is powerless to stop them. What do you think our nation would do?
The Palestininans have no desire to live at peace with the Israelis. All they want is to see all Jews dead. Since when does a nation not have the right to protect itself? The United States is being hypocritical in seeking a cease fire.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.