Latter Days Guy
-
Posts
723 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Latter Days Guy
-
-
-
As the little animation I posted earlier states, you only create more problems when you give one group of refugees the land of another people which then makes them refugees. I believe that now the Palestinians want only peace and the right to live in a state of their own. With so much tragedy through the past 60 plus years they are willing to compromise and give up most of the claims on the land and accept the best offer they are going to get is a state based upon the West bank and Gaza. I firmly believe that if that became a reality, then the Arab League would honour its statement of offering a peace treaty and normalisation of relations between its member states and recognition to the state of Israel and its right to exist.
The only problem being that I don't think Israel wants peace and gains more from being in conflict with its neighbours and the Palestinians. My prayers and hopes are with both sides seeing sense, and soon.
-
The Israeli media--unlike the media in other sectors of the Middle East--is not a monolithic bloc of government apologists. Some naive, gullible, or just plain oikophobic Israeli individuals and media outlets do think as you do; and--mirabile dictu!--they, unlike citizens of most other nations in the region, are free to express their concerns without fear of imprisonment or death.
And, did you actually read the article you cited?
You would NEVER give someone a pass for writing that way about Muslims. In fact, the way things are going in much of the West, the author of such a statement about Muslims might well find himself facing prosecution.
But, Jews? Open season, even on British soil, as recently as last night.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that is exactly what the majority if Israelis believe about the land of Israel. And there are far worse things said about Muslims in the press in the UK, on social media and the net and not much is done about it, not even a hint of prosecution.
As for the video, one event hardly means its open season on Jews in Britain and the Rabbi has said it wasn't an anti-Semitic attack, but then there attacks on Masjid's in the UK are a regular occurrence. Both are wrong.
-
Even the Israeli media are saying that Israel doesn't want peace:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601112
-
So, you admit that they weren't trying to kill civilians; they were trying to neutralize the launchers.
No, they targeted the area, and what the heck if there were non combatants in the area, after all there just arabs nobody cares about them!
Source? (Not just "google", but source). And, how was this possible since Iron Dome wasn't online yet?
Yes it was.
First you tell me that Palestinian Right of Return doesn't apply to the Israeli-allocated territories, next you're telling me that it whether it does or doesn't--it should.
What exactly are you going on about? Do you not know that there are actually non Jews with Israeli citizenship?
If the Palestinians have been that squishy, then no wonder there's not a lasting peace settlement.
Not a loaded term at all. :)
The Daily Telegraph says Israel offered land swaps in 2010. And again, the Arab League was insisting on right of return; which Wikipedia (and the UN resolutions, as they've been interpreted by the Palestinians) defines as the right to return to wherever they came from--not just the Palestinian-allocated territories.
And, I reiterate: Right of return, within the borders of Israel, just ain't gonna happen.
Nope, the land swap was first brought to the table in 2002 as part of the Arab League peace proposal.
Then Israel isn't violating any treaties with the Palestinians, since treaties can only be signed by state actors--right?
Actually they are as Israel recognised the Palestinian right to self determination when it signed the Oslo accords.
More seriously: I have difficulty sympathizing with these semantical games, which basically seem to grow out of a rather stupendous apathy for the plight of Palestinian civilians in conjunction with a determination to make excuses for the Israelis--no matter how heinous their atrocities--and a subtle suggestion that the Palestinians deserve whatever horrors the Israelis are capable of visiting upon them.
There you go I fixed it for you.
And you really can't understand why the Israelis won't sign a treaty with people who think like you?
I know exactly why the Israelis don't want to sign, they aren't interest in peace only in having total control over the occupied territories, making it a homeland for the pure Jewish race with none of those nasty little Arabs polluting the purity of that holy land.
OK, but that's not what Wikipedia says; and even you--in your unguarded moments--betray a belief that the right of Palestinian return should apply everywhere; as I've noted above.
Nope, I believe that they should have a right to return to the occupied territories that would be the basis of a Palestinian state as defined by the various treaties and accords sign by both Israel and the PA since 1993 when both sides acknowledged the right for each side to exist.
The 1948 scheme seems to be shown in the third of the five maps in your graphic; the Gaza/West Bank is shown in the 5th. Just eyeballing it, it is clear that--while it's certainly not what was promised--it's far more than 22%; more like 60-70%.
Hardly.
By contrast: Wikipedia gives the area for the old British Mandate of Palestine as 26,184 square kilometers. It has Gaza's area at 360 square kilometers and the West Bank at 5640 square kilometers--so together, Gaza and the West Bank constitute 22.914 percent of Mandate-era Palestine.
So, when Abbas says that Palestinian lands under his proposal were 22% of what they should be--what he's saying is that the Palestinians should have all of it, and the Jews should just go away.
Nope.
Two thousand, five hundred rockets launched from PA-controlled territory in three years.
And the PA had nothing--nothing!!!!--to do with it! They didn't know nuthin' about nuthin'--but they still think they can run a viable, stable and secure state; and Israel should go ahead and make a deal with them.
Yes, that would be correct. And the Rockets were not fired from PA controlled territory, they were fired from Hamas controlled territory in response to the Israeli aggression towards Gaza.
-
I was informed of the "AK47's" and "M16's" being held and used by kids by a Palestinian himself that I attended an educational institution with. (Who is very anti Israel and basically hates Jews, and celebrates when they have problems...deaths..., just like the Israelis sitting and celebrating bombings. Other than that he seems to be a good guy) While these images may be used as propaganda in some circumstances it is very much a reality. It is also true that most kids do throw rocks rather than shoot at Israeli forces (same guy as source). Which rock throwing is also used as propaganda.
That is very true, there are those on both sides who no doubt hate each other and celebrate when the other side suffers. But that doesn't mean that all Israelis and Palestinians hold these feelings and it would be wrong to label them so.
-
Because these were also the sites of rocket launchers, or because Israelis just get their kicks out of killing civvies?
And - source?
The only problem with that is the Israelis admitted they couldn't for sure of the exact place the launchers were so hit the general area. As for source, take a look on google.
But apparently not to Israel's satisfaction. Do you have numbers on launch rates for the period?
The figure I remember reading was 1 or two a month got through but were shot down by Israel after launch.
Subject to this right of return to the ostensibly-Jewish territories. Existing the right of a Jewish State to exist, but subject to a proviso that it will no longer be able to maintain its identity as a Jewish State, is no compromise at all.
Which Pre 1947 were not ostensibly Jewish territories but Arab territories. So if Israel is a purely Jewish nation what happens to all the Christians and Muslims who are citizens of Israel, are they to be stripped of citizenship for their non-Jewishness?
Democracy, cultural identity, and open borders--you can have any two of the three. The Arab states' terms seem to be a calculated plan to deny Israel its cultural identity over the long haul.
Not at all, peace is what they want but a just peace for the Palestinians.
I don't quite follow you--can you flesh this out?
Thanks for the clarification. But from what I can gather, weren't land swaps proposed by Israel around 2010-ish and rejected by the Palestinians?
Nope, they have always been a part of the Arab Leagues peace plan which has repeatedly been rejected by Israel.
So, anything goes, as long as the attacker can't be plausibly linked back to a nation state--and again, the victim just has to sit there and take it?
Not at all, as the attackers don't have a nation, they are stateless. The only victim here is the Palestinians who have been given a raw deal since 1948 when they were expelled from their land for no good reason other than the collective guilt of western nations of the Holocaust.
I strongly disagree.
Which is your right.
OK, I agree with you here; but my understanding of the Arab proposal was that right of return applied to ALL of Mandate-era Palestine.
No the land that was taken during the 1967 war which is referred to as the occupied territories.
Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, lacks the 22% figure. The Jerusalem Post article cites Abbas as saying the proposed state is 22% of "what it should be"--not 22% under the 1948 plan. Indeed, just looking at the map you offer shows that the current Palestinian territories--while less than what was promised--are certainly more than 22%.
No, the 22% is the land consisting of the West Bank and Gaza strip, which is considerably less than the land they originally had been given by the UN in 1948. The map shows the reality of the encroaching spread of Israel into what is at the end of the day occupied territory, showing how what had once been Palestinian land has been lost to illegal settlements and the expansion policy of the Israeli government over time.
But Abbas' statement just gives another reason not to trust the Palestinians--that continuing "all for me, none for you; and any compromise is just a baby step towards our ultimate goal" mentality.
The ultimate goal of the PA is to get a real settlement for the Palestinians. That the land that they have asked for has slowely shrunk until its current 22% shows that they are willing to give up more than Israel is to get peace. The PA has given up the armed struggle for the negotiation table, in return they have been stalled and ignored for over 20 years.
-
I'm all for treating children--and any captives--humanely; and if there are issues with the way these kids are being interrogated, housed, fed, etc--those should, naturally, be dealt with.
However, I was interested to skim that UNICEF report you cited; because it cites principles of juvenile law that I see in operation myself (I currently practice child welfare law in juvenile court in the US)--especially, the idea that you keep offenders in detention for as little as possible.
Now, this principle works in your standard, stable society where juvenile offenders are most likely to be in the system because of drugs, or sexual acting out, or unusual aggression--nearly all of which can be addressed by counseling and increased family support. But in war zones where the detained child is in fact an enemy combatant (or seriously and sincerely suspected of being such), this principle really breaks down.
If the UN really thinks that the best way to deal with--say--Joseph Kony's Ugandan child soldiers, or rock-throwing would-be warriors in the Gaza Strip, is to send 'em home and require them to see a therapist once a week; then I think the UN needs to do some soul-searching of its own.
When you address the reasons why they are throwing stones, then maybe those kids wouldn't be throwing stones in the first place. But then I don't believe that locking kids up in military prison and subjecting them to the things mentioned in the report for throwing stones is in any way justifiable in the first place.
-
Was it indiscriminate carpet-bombing, or was it the elimination of specific, defined targets who happened to be hiding out among civilians?
It was the deliberate targeting of civilian homes, hospitals, schools.
I don't think Israel is under the delusion that they can get all of Gaza and the West Bank and just make the Palestinians disappear. Sizeable constituencies of their own voting population, don't want it. This source claims that as of 2012, sixty percent of settlers live in five settlements which are quite close to the 1967 border; and all Israeli settlements comprise only 1.7% of the West Bank. Moreover, Israel does have a history of closing its own settlements--as it did in Gaza, for instance. (The graphic you present at the bottom of your post is interesting; but its suggestion that there was no Jewish landholding presence in the Holy Land as of 1917 is just plain silly--there were 94,000 Jews there as of 1914, per Wikipedia.)
Which is where the land swaps would come into play.
Now, Israel obviously does want whatever government runs the region, not wind up becoming a base for future attacks on Israel itself; and to that end they've repeatedly told the Palestinians: "You want to show us you're serious about maintaining security, fine--make the rockets stop, and we'll talk."
And that was the case with both the PA and Hamas both agreeing to stop the missiles though some of the smaller splinter groups did continue to fire them in a sporadic manner but were often stopped by Hamas and the PA. Even then most of the attacks were in response to Israeli air strikes.
Then you need to assure the Israelis--through concrete actions--that you will consider the pullout a (pardon the loaded connotation here) "final solution" contingent to a lasting peace, rather than "a good start" preparatory to the annihilation of the Jewish State.
When you have all the neighbouring Arab States offering to sign peace treaties and recognising the state of Israel's right to exist, what more could they possibly want?
I don't quite follow you--can you flesh this out?
The land swaps where where large Jewish settlements built in the occupied territories close to the proposed border would be incorporated into Israel in exchange for other pieces of land on the Israeli side of the border which have no settlements on them.
OK; but that strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
War can only be defined as war if it is between two nation states, since no nation states have been at war with Israel since 1973 there has been no war.
Wait--what? There's a right to return to all of the Holy Land, but there will be no Palestinians living in the heartland of Israel?
No, there should be a right for all to return to the proposed Palestinian state.
Or do you interpret "right of return" as being only to the Palestinian state?
Yes, but even that is opposed by Israel.
Also, I think your 22% figure may be off a bit--from what I can find online the offer was to live on 22% of all of "Palestine" as defined under the British Mandate, not the Palestinian-allocated territories under the UN partition plan.
The offer that was tabled by the Arab league in support of the US backed peace initiative in 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Arab_League_summit
-
Really? The majority of European countries are very much pro Israel, they are even included in the Eurovision Song Contest and they aren't even in Europe. The EU is very much pro Israel and falls over itself to defend any and all things Israeli.
I admit that my perception is the U.S. and Israel are often very lonely in the U.N., and that our EU friends seem to keep distant. Apparently I'm not alone though: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100043460/why-does-europe-hate-israel/
Israel is without doubt the military superpower of the region, having the 4th largest military in the world, a nuclear power that could annihilate every other neighbour with a flick of a switch. Hardly the small powerless nation you seem to be implying in your David vs Goliath analogy. That you condone the way Israel treats child detainees speaks volumes about the moral decay prevalent in US society today, that children should be subjected to the abuse they receive in Israeli prisons should cause outrage against Israel not support for it.
Israel is the size of New Jersey, and is surrounded by nations that want it gone. The country has enemies within its borders, and is regularly pressured by the world community to be ever less-cautious with them. It has enemy adolescent "soldiers" who carry military grade material against them, and then Israel gets hammered by propagandists for treating them as what they are--enemy combatants indeed!
Nobody wants to see teens put in isolation, or treated to American penitentiary-style incarceration. That's what's done to prisoners of war. Oh...but yeah...they kinda are, aren't they? And, who made them that way?
It may sound overwhelming to say that Israel is a nuke power--Goliath-like, even. Except that Israel is not bent on genocide. Shame on those who force the hand of the Jews, requiring them to arm at as a super power, just to survive. Shame on them for sending children to kill, and then having the nerve to blame those who must defend against the children, for daring to protect their own lives.
Yes Israel is a small nation, a small nation with a massive war machine! One thing we do see is that Israel doesn't give in to pressure from any direction, even from the US. Those adolescent soldiers you comment on are armed with stones and slings and more often than not are taken into custody in the middle of the night from their beds, or on the streets playing football. Yes we can find images of kids from Palestinian villages holding AK47's, just like we can find pictures of kids in the US holding M16's. Doesn't mean they are out shooting up people with them, propaganda comes in many forms.
Yes nobody wants to see teens locked away, and they cannot be classed as enemy combatants as that would contravene the Geneva convention.
Who made them that way? Israel with the harsh and degrading treatment of the Palestinians for 60 plus years.
Is Israel committing genocide?:
http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/committing-genocide-palestinians.html
Israel has had many opportunites to come to the peace table, the terms are far more favourable to the Israeli's than to the Palestinians but it would seem the Palestinians are willing to give up more to end the conflict and the Israelis just want their cake and eat it.
-
Left Behind
Was that the new one with Nicholas Cage or the original one? Liked the original better, just don't get how they could make a movie from what was essentially the first couple of chapters of the first Left Behind book when what it covered could have been done in about 15 minutes.
-
This is pretty much how I'm feeling:
This looks like she's saying "Meow!" :)
-
All this boils down to "Israelis should just lie back, think of England, take their lumps, and accept daily rocket attacks as normal".
I reject that mentality; and I daresay you would too if it were the Welsh, rather than the Israelis, facing three random detonations on their territory per day at the hands of a known foe who admitted they were trying to kill/maim noncombatants.
Not at all, but that doesn't mean they should go and lob tons of ordinance onto civilians in response. There has been a peace deal on the table for a long time which would solve all the problems. The creation of a homeland for the Palestinians, recognition of and peace treaties with all the Arab nations with Israel. Why are they so adamant that they won't come to the table to discuss it? Because they want all the land for themselves and have seen over the last 60 plus years that at the end of the day nothing will be done if they decide not to engage in peace talks.
Hmm. Most of the sites I could see on imprisoned Palestinian children attributed these arrests to at least the pretext of attacks on Israeli police/IDF forces. If that's not why Israel is detaining Palestinian children, what's the reason?
And, if IDF forces aren't supposed to detain these little punks; and aren't supposed to use nonlethal force against them--what, pray tell, are they supposed to do? Smile at them and hand them daisies?
Morsi's statements about Israel were all over the map. Before his election Morsi was on record calling for the treaty's nullification; and while he moderated his tone post-election many of his fellow partymembers retained that position.
International law isn't a joke, but it's not a suicide pact either.
As for withdrawal as a cure-all: Hasn't Israel withdrawn from Sinai--and forcibly expel their own citizens who had settled there, at gunpoint? Haven't they withdrawn time and again from Gaza and the West Bank and Lebanon, only to see those regions used again for attacks against their heartland?
Your assurance that if Israel just leaves Gaza and the West Bank alone, this time things will be different, smacks of one of Lucy Van Pelt's perennially broken promises to Charlie Brown about yanking the football as he's about to kick a field goal. Only in this case, it's Israeli lives on the line.
Oh, well, as long as you believe it . . .
If a two state solution is going to work, there has to be a withdrawal of Israel forces from Palestinian lands. You cannot have peace when your occupying the land of those you are seeking peace with.
Israel acted far more aggressively to punish the Israelis responsible for that action, than Brigham Young did to punish the perpetrators of Mountain Meadows. There was a substantial popular movement within Israel itself that the perpetrators should be punished (contrast this with the silence, or even celebration on Palestinian streets, with the death of every Israeli).
As for the Israeli resettlement programs, though, consider this article from the Christian Science Monitor:
In the early 1970s, Israel initiated what it called the "build your own home" program. A half a dunam of land outside the camps (equal to about an eighth of an acre) was given to Palestinians who then financed the purchase of building materials and, usually with friends, erected a home. Israel provided the infrastructure: sewers, schools, etc. More than 11,000 camp dwellers were resettled into 10 different neighborhoods before the PLO, using intimidation tactics, ended the program.
I agree that the settlements aren't helpful; but you're showing an absolutely fascinating mindset here: The UN-designated territory for the Jewish state isn't solely "Jewish land"--there's a right to return for Palestinians--but the UN-designated territory for the Palestinian state is solely Palestinian land, and never mind about how many Jews lived there in Solomonic, Roman, Ottoman, or even Mandate times.
This is where the land swaps come into play.
You realize that that video was put together by a satirist, right? Start having a friendly conversation with any kid at a military equipment show, ask him "how many of the enemy will you kill?", and you can get him to say pretty much anything.
Yes.
Oh, no. Rocket attacks? Sure. Property damage? Yup. Kidnapping? Yeah. Death? Of course.
My comment was about attacks from the surrounding Arab nations, there has been no wars between Arab states and Israel since the end of the 1973 war.
But none of that's destruction. Nothing to get worked up about.
And, yeah. The Arab nations gave up on open warfare--for now--because every time they tried it, they got squashed. That doesn't mean they are willing to coexist--if it did, they'd have extended formal recognition. It just means they try to get third parties to do their bidding.
Pretty despicable, although the politician's response may be worth reading.
A response after she removed the FB page and all its awful comments from view.
At any rate: I'm not advocating taking people who think like this and putting them on Palestinian land (remember, I've already agreed with you that the settlements are a bad idea). You, however, are bound and determined to put people of similar sentiments--but directed against Jews--directly in the Jewish heartland.
Not at all as the Jewish settlements are in the occupied territories and are illegal. There would be no Palestinian settlements within the heartland of Israel. On the whole I think Israel comes out of the two state solution with the best deal, the Palestinians having offered to live in only 22% of the land that was originally partitioned to them in 1948.
As a matter of practical reality, Israel will agree to that only slightly before you agree to allow the National Rifle Association set up a "George W. Bush Memorial Ammo Shop & Shootin' Gallery" in your backyard.
Which of course would never happen due to our strict gun laws in the UK.
-
The issue of media bias is not primary to this discussion. However, those of us in the U.S. who are more conservative, and who are rigorous about our spirituality, would more often than not describe our "mainstream media" (NYT, Wa. Post, CNN, etc.) to be center-left, and neutral-to-hostile towards faith.
Concerning Israel, the majority of the world's nations, and therefore media, seem hostile towards its existence. It is a problem. The Arab nations do not like it, and they are oil-rich. The Palestinians can play the poor victims of Israel's military might (often playing on America's unspoken racial guilt).
So, no, I'm not that trusting. The United Nations (including UNICEF) seems to have treated Israel as the Goliath against the Palestinians, whereas I see Israel as the David against the Arab-Muslim Goliath. So, when it badgers a nation that has been on a war footing, bunkered down now for 6 decades plus, I'm skeptical. Sure, it would be sweet if Israel's prisons were more like Norway's. However, Norway is not surrounded by anti-Norwegian genocidists, nor does it have cute 11-year old Swedish kids walking into their civilian crowds with military grade munitions.
Really? The majority of European countries are very much pro Israel, they are even included in the Eurovision Song Contest and they aren't even in Europe. The EU is very much pro Israel and falls over itself to defend any and all things Israeli.
Israel is without doubt the military superpower of the region, having the 4th largest military in the world, a nuclear power that could annihilate every other neighbour with a flick of a switch. Hardly the small powerless nation you seem to be implying in your David vs Goliath analogy. That you condone the way Israel treats child detainees speaks volumes about the moral decay prevalent in US society today, that children should be subjected to the abuse they receive in Israeli prisons should cause outrage against Israel not support for it.
-
Finally, on the overall problem of Israel and the Palestinians, I found this five-minute lecture to be profoundly clear and accurate: http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Middle-East-Problem.html?gclid=CjwKEAjwrbSoBRDok47Sv6Ci80wSJABFUszTjgtcRE5wS0TtHfT0Dz_4Bza7CCcApQwtcCFE-hc4RxoC8rjw_wcB#.VQ3-wrl0xhE
Interesting video, with some glaring inaccuracies, this article seems very balanced and historically accurate:
-
I checked Latter Day Guy's Independent, and found that it is a relatively young publication, described as "center-left," very anti-US Middle Eastern intervention. Even one Labor leader described as more of a "viewspaper." So, not to say that its information might have some validity--but there certainly is an agenda to its reporting.
On the treatment of child-detainees--yes, there are groups that find Israel's policies harsh. Most of them are either pro-Palestinian, or they are ignorant of what it is for a nation to be on permanent war footing.
Finally, on the overall problem of Israel and the Palestinians, I found this five-minute lecture to be profoundly clear and accurate: http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Middle-East-Problem.html?gclid=CjwKEAjwrbSoBRDok47Sv6Ci80wSJABFUszTjgtcRE5wS0TtHfT0Dz_4Bza7CCcApQwtcCFE-hc4RxoC8rjw_wcB#.VQ3-wrl0xhE
The Independent is a highly regarded and respected newspaper that has no political affiliation, hence the name of the newspaper.
This is what UNICEF has to say about child detainees
A short video explaining the Isreal/Palestine situation
-
LDG, I am surprised by the vehemence of your opinion and your utter unwillingness to consider that you may be wrong, and that you may be unduly influenced by the bias of the UK media. I suppose I should not be surprised by that; you are only human, after all. But in any case, you should seriously consider the possibility that the opinions expressed on e.g. the BBC are not divine words of TRVTH, and that your view of Israel might be seriously warped by the European political climate in which you live.
The UK media on the whole are very pro Israel, even with the BBC you will be hard pressed to find many who are openly pro Palestinian. I used to be very pro Israel, now I am pro peace. I honestly believe that Israel has a right to exist but also that same right should be made for a Palestinian state. The evidence clearly shows that Israel or rather the certain sections of Israel want nothing but the utter destruction of all things Palestinian. They want a pure Jewish State in what they call greater Israel. As for my views being warped, I could say the same for you, that your views are warped by the US political climate in which you live.
-
If my best friend was gay and was getting married, he/she would know what my understanding of marriage is, he/she would not put me in such a compromising situation where I would have to choose to be part of something I do not support. I would personally attend as he/she is my best friend but I would not take an active part in any ceremony, which being the best man would do.
-
Hi LDG -
--I agree with "proportionality" in the sense that it should be calculated to stop the threat rather than just hitting them because we can. On the the other hand: No, I don't believe Israel has an obligation to just let 2-3 rockets per day land somewhere in their borders, pray they don't actually kill anyone, accept whatever casualties do come, and otherwise continue on with life as usual. I rather suspect Europe will come to a similar point of view if/when ISIS crosses the Mediterranean.
Pity that was the case with the recent attacks on Gaza, the "lets just hit them because we can" attitude. And it must have been so dangerous for the Israeli's with all of those home made rockets falling on them, they probably didn't come out of their bomb shelters... No wait, they drew up their chairs and have parties whilst watching from a nearby hillside while the bombs and missiles rained destruction on the civilians of Gaza. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing
--When it comes to Israelis being "arrested" by the Palestinians--I was, of course, using "arrested" as a euphemism for "kidnapped".
How many Israeli's have been abducted? How many Palestinians been abducted? Thing is, for Palestinians its often a daily occurrence, yet in last year there were I believe 3 Israelis abducted.
--Israel routinely bulldozes Israeli settler homes that it considers to have been built without the proper authorizations. Granted, they wouldn't agree with you as to what constitutes "proper authorization". That's unfortunate, but it's hardly a "war crime".
I think you will find they routinely bulldoze Palestinian houses to make way for more illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.
--Teach your kids to throw rocks at police, and those kids are going to get arrested.
There are no Israeli police in the occupied territories but there are lots of soldiers, and generally its a rubber coated metal bullet to the head and not arrest as the standard Israeli response to a bit of rock throwing.
--It's interesting to me that you rely on how Morsi got to power, but ignore what he started doing with power once he got it (constitutional tinkering, granting himself extended powers, etc). But at any rate: US aid to Egypt is predicated not on keeping the Gaza border closed, but on keeping Egypt and Israel at peace generally--something that Morsi was looking like he'd undermine.
As a matter of fact Morsi strove to strenghten the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. The so called tinkering you refer to was to remove the substantial powers the ruling military generals had and return them to civilian control, a move which in the end showed where the military's loyalty lay, and it wasn't with the ordinary Egyptians but with themselves.
--I am not aware of any statement where Hamas said they would recognize pre-1967 Israeli borders. What they have said is that they would recognize pre-1967 Palestinian borders--with a right to gobble up more out of the Israeli core, if they can get the international community to go along. See, e.g., here.
--"International law" is a fun phrase to use. Under "international law", what right does your British Museum have to retain he spoils it stole from across the globe during the days of the Empire? Bottom line: Nations will act according to their own interest; and it is simply not in Israel's interest to give rise to a new terrorist state on its borders.
--My labeling of Lebanon and Syria as Iranian puppets doesn't come from Fox News. It comes from, among other things, post-graduate studies with a former candidate for the Presidency of Lebanon, who recalled how candidates critical of Iran had a curious habit of winding up dead. The fact that Egypt and Iran don't like each other, doesn't mean that Egypt can't or won't become a cesspool if someone so much as sneezes in the wrong direction. You're welcome to keep up your "all is well in the middle east, ISIS isn't a problem, Assad's not a problem, Hezbollah's not a problem, Iran's not a problem, and none of this has anything to do with Israel" for as long as you wish--Europe has certainly turned a blind eye to obvious security threats in the past--but it's the Israelis who have skin in this game; and it's not a war crime to choose to go down in history as a Churchill rather than a Chamberlain.
Well it would seem International law is a joke to you but it is what the governments of the world work by in their relations between themselves. I never said it was a bed of roses in the middle east, but most of Israel's problems would disappear if they stood bye the commitments to the various treaties they have signed in the past. That Israel continues to reject all attempts at a peace deal says a lot about what it thinks of the peace process. ISIS is a problem, but it is a problem that is being strongly dealt with by the Arab nations who have taken a strong stance against them.
--Do you support the right of Cuban emigres in Florida to return to Cuba and claim the property Castro stole from their grandparents? No? The only difference between them and the Palestinians is that the US welcomed these immigrants, assimilated them, and allowed them to prosper; whereas the Arab states deliberately refused the Palestinians citizenship, herded them into camps, and followed a deliberate policy of keeping them homeless and bitter. That's tragic, to be sure; but at this point it's not solely the Israelis' fault. (When the Israelis took over the administration of refugee camps within the territories they took in the Six Day War, they offered to resettle those refugees and assist them with constructions of homes, schools, and infrastructure; until the UN put the kibosh on it.) Compensation might be an option. Right of return? It's just not realistic, and I repeat: It's just a backdoor to another ethnic cleansing, in the other direction.
Yes they have a right to return but that doesn't mean they will get back their lost property. The Palestinians also have a right to return, obviously they will return to the land that is designated to be the state of Palestine under the various accords reached since Oslo. But I believe that is acceptable to the Palestinian people. When Israel takes over refugee camps there is generally only one outcome as was witnessed in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps where Israeli aliies were allowed to massacre Palestinians in their thousands whilst the Israeli army watched on. Year on year as more Israeli settlements are built illegally on Palestinian land, as more and more Palestinians are driven off, as there resources are taken away from them, soon there won't be any land left to make a viable Palestinian homeland. If that isn't ethnic cleansing then I don't know what is!
--Is this transcript of extracts of a Palestinian children's show, accurate? Is this photo doctored? If they're both accurate, I don't think these people can live together until there is a fundamental shift in Palestinian society.
--The comparison to the Nazi holocaust would make more sense if the Jews of the 1940s had spent the past 70 years in a state of open warfare against the Germans, and taught their children that everything good the Germans had built over the last seventy years should and at some point would be turned over to them. Bottom line: The Israelis are doing exactly what any nation whose very existence was under threat, would do. Western Europe hasn't had to face that dillemma for a couple of generations; hence, the Israeli predicament is unfathomable to Europeans.
Israel is not and has not been under any threat of destruction since 1973. That was when the last time another nation attacked Israel. Since then no Arab nation has attacked Israel, however Israel has on many occasions attacked its neighbours. The genocide against the Palestinians shares many similarities with the holocaust.
-
Yes Israel has a right to defend itself, but that right has to be proportional to the threat. A threat which is almost negligible when you consider the actual launch to hit ratio of the rockets fired at them.
You focus quite strongly on the fact that the anti-Semites have not been successful. Perhaps, rather than turning Israel's effective defense protocols back on them (why so harsh against a weak enemy?), we ought to learn from them?
Anti-Semites? That effective defence strategy which breaches the Geneva convention with its use of white phosphors and fletchlet munitions on civilian areas? That deliberately targets for destruction civilian infrastructure like hospitals and sanitation plants, schools etc in direct violation of the Geneva convention.
There's nothing wrong with detaining people who are suspected of being terrorists but then the majority of those detained by Israel are children I suspect a far more nefarious purpose.
Wait, what??? Are you suggesting that anti-Semitic terrorists won't use children to kill? Also, you're going to have to spell out this "nefarious purpose." What do you think they really want to do with these detained children?
When Israeli forces routinely round up children and imprison them without charge, why do they do that? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uk-ready-to-take-on-israel-over-fate-of-children-clapped-in-irons-7888914.html
Since the military coup overthrew the legitimately and democratically elected Egyptian government its gone back to the bad old days of Mubarak style rule, that is supported by American dollars and military aid which is given in return for the Egyptian support to the oppression of the Palestinians on its borders in Gaza.
This coup...it just happened? The military just woke up after the election and suddenly decided, "Hey, we'd rather be in charge. The people are too happy and well cared for. Let's ruin it by returning to military rule." Perhaps there was a bit more to this...just maybe?
No the coup didn't just happen, it happened when the government began to strip away some of the powers the military had gained under Mubarak, which of course they didn't like, which led to the coup.
The peace deal was real and was being honoured by the Palestinian Unity government that Israel has set its heart on destroying. Hamas and the PA already acknowelge Israel's right to exist within the context of the borders that existed before the 1967 war. Israel needs to submit to international law and withdraw from the occupied territories, its needs to dismantle the illegal settlements and remove the illegal settlers back within Israel.
You ignore the fact that the war was started by those seeking to destroy Israel. Against great odds, they lost. Israel, now fearing a repeat, took some of the spoils of war, as a way of improving their defense posture. Keep in mind that Israel is surrounded by physical enemies, they have enemies living within their borders.
So its ok for Jews to have a free reign on anyone and their dog to return to Israel but not ok for Palestinians to return to their native land? Why is that?
I'm confused by this. You do not believe Israel has the right to extend citizenship to the diaspora??? Why wouldn't a sovereign nation control who it welcomes into its citizenry? As for the Palestinians, what is their native land? Do they have a nation? Or, are they trying to destroy Israel, and take their land?
No I believe that that the Palestinians should have the same rights to return as is extended to any jew, which of course Israel opposes. As for where there land is, it is the land that is presently under occupation by the state of Israel, the land that has been clearly identified through various accords since the Oslo accord in 1993 where both Israel and the Palestinian Authorities declared that they both had a legal right to exist and that a Palestinian state based in the occupied territories should be created.
And who says that all of them have been taught to hate Jews? The Palestinians I know certainly don't hate jews, they do however hate how they have been treated as a people over the years of their exile. Funny how you raised the holocaust, as from what I've seen that is exactly what is happening to Palestinians now, they are getting walled into their own ghetto's, treated as second class citizens, denied basic human rights by an occupying force. The Israeli's are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazi's did to the Jews in the 1930's and 1940's, and like then the world is standing idly by watching from the sidelines as history repeats itself.
You seriously compare Israel's self-defense against enemies without and within to the Holocaust? 6 million Jews were butchered simply because they were Jews!
So Israelis have a right to self defence but the Palestinians don't? How many Palestinians have died since 1948? Conservative estimates are close to 5 million. Next I will be called anti-semitic because I don't toe the pro Israeli line, where the Holocaust mantra is trotted out as a kind of trump card to quell all who disagree with what the state of Israel is doing to the Palestinians. You should read The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein, his family was murdered in the Holocaust but then he has a lot to say about how that tragic event is exploited.
-
Would that be the Fox news that had some idiot saying Birmingham is a totally moozlum (why do they pronounce Muslim like that?) city?.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html
-
Monsters Dark Continent. 2/5
Saw this the other night and quite liked it! I like how the actual monsters are the backdrop to the human story, just like the first one.
-
Hmmm...Apparently I didn't make myself clear the first time, so allow me to take another shot at it.I am not, along with millions of other Americans, the least bit interested in gaining trust and support from Marxist/Communist/Socialist tyrants. If you wish to call that "arrogant" , so be it.But America is a country which was established by God Himself to be a land of freedom and liberty, and His base of operations in the latter days. And if America is on a road which leads to gaining "trust and “support" from tyrants who despise freedom and liberty, then that is a road I will ever pray we veer off from.I don't agree with Netanyahu on all of his political stances, but I would still trade our current POTUS for him without the slightest flinch.Much like I would, if I were hungry, trade a rancid piece of meat for a wrinkly apple.
Whom are these Marxist/Communist/Socialist states you evidently have nightmares about? I hadn't realised that the US had gone back to to the good ole days of McCarthyism and the reds under the bed mentality! The US is hardly a bastion of freedom and liberty though is it and the only nation that has ever been founded by God was ancient Israel and that hasn't existed as an independent nation since the times of the Maccabees.
-
A couple of passing observations in response:
--If someone tries to kill you, I don't believe you have a moral obligation to defend yourself with one arm tied behind your back just because your attacker is terrible at physical combat. I support Israel's right to conduct as many military operations as it takes to make the rocket attacks stop.
--Palestinians are arrested/imprisoned by Israelis as an attempt to identify potential terrorists, who are then imprisoned. Israelis are arrested/imprisoned by Palestinians as an attempt to identify . . . well, Israelis, basically; who are then imprisoned or killed at the whim of the authorities there. Neither practice is great; but let's not pretend they're equivalent.
--I think there's more to the Egyptian blockade of Gaza's southern border than just the fact that those rascally Jews and those cowboy Americans put them up to it. Egypt, having committed the cardinal sin of making peace with Israel, actually has to make efforts to prevent its territory from being used to mount a proxy war against Israel; as well as the other things grown-up states do like maintaining a stable border that is not a mecca for smuggling and arms trafficking. Moreover, Egypt would like to avoid becoming an Iranian puppet. These are burdens that many states in the Middle East simply don't have to bear.
--I'll need a source for the notion that Israeli leaflets deliberately encouraged Palestinian civilians to gather into what became "kill zones". Everything I read during the period was the opposite--leaflets would tell civilians to evacuate an area, but the civilians who tried found themselves coming under fire from their own peacekeeping forces and ordered to return to their homes.
--I don't find Hamas' claims to have wanted peace, particularly persuasive. (A cease-fire? Sure; those can be quite useful tactically. Peace? Doubtful, given their ideology. Acknowledging the state of Israel's right to exist in its current form would go an awfully long way; and it's telling that they won't do it.)
--I think a two-state solution is the best long-term goal and I think new settlements in the West Bank are a horrible idea. That said: With Iran turning Syria and Lebanon into puppet states, and Arab governments all over the Middle East caving to ISIS; I think it would be remarkably naive for Israel to go ahead and implement the two-state solution unless a multinational force agrees to maintain security there for the foreseeable future.
--The Arab Leage proposal, as I understand it, made Right of Return for 1948 refugees and their descendants a prerequisite. That's just a nonstarter. You don't take five million people who have grown up being taught to hate Jews, and place them smack in the middle of eight million Jews; unless you're trying to backdoor another Holocaust.
Yes Israel has a right to defend itself, but that right has to be proportional to the threat. A threat which is almost negligible when you consider the actual launch to hit ratio of the rockets fired at them.
There's nothing wrong with detaining people who are suspected of being terrorists but then the majority of those detained by Israel are children I suspect a far more nefarious purpose. As for Israelis being arrested by the PA, cannot find any evidence of such happening, though I did find substantial evidence of the PA arresting and detaining suspected Palestinian terrorists, which doesn't seem to happen with regards to the atrocities carried out by those in the illegal settlements built on Palestinian land.
Since the military coup overthrew the legitimately and democratically elected Egyptian government its gone back to the bad old days of Mubarak style rule, that is supported by American dollars and military aid which is given in return for the Egyptian support to the oppression of the Palestinians on its borders in Gaza.
The peace deal was real and was being honoured by the Palestinian Unity government that Israel has set its heart on destroying. Hamas and the PA already acknowelge Israel's right to exist within the context of the borders that existed before the 1967 war. Israel needs to submit to international law and withdraw from the occupied territories, its needs to dismantle the illegal settlements and remove the illegal settlers back within Israel.
I guess you've been watching fox news with your with Iran turning Syria and Lebanon into puppet states, and Arab governments all over the middle east caving to ISIS" comment. Which Arab governments are caving into ISIS? None. The only people in Syria being supported by Iran is Assad and he's not doing too well in that fight, and Hezbollah isn't being the lapdog to Iran that it was in the past either. As for Egypt joining Iran, that would never happen, the vast majority of Egyptians are Sunni and want nothing to do with Shia Iranians.
So its ok for Jews to have a free reign on anyone and their dog to return to Israel but not ok for Palestinians to return to their native land? Why is that? And who says that all of them have been taught to hate Jews? The Palestinians I know certainly don't hate jews, they do however hate how they have been treated as a people over the years of their exile. Funny how you raised the holocaust, as from what I've seen that is exactly what is happening to Palestinians now, they are getting walled into their own ghetto's, treated as second class citizens, denied basic human rights by an occupying force. The Israeli's are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazi's did to the Jews in the 1930's and 1940's, and like then the world is standing idly by watching from the sidelines as history repeats itself.
My gay best friend wants me to attend his wedding
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
How does this effect the gay marriage debate?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/d-todd-christofferson-gay-marriage_n_6887730.html