Revelations - Middle east

[Izzy]

I can see where you are coming from Admiral, but I can't say that I totally agree with you. When a people settles a land that was considered worthless, develops it, and turns it into something good...and only THEN do a people try to get back in I think it's bunk what the palestinians are arguing. That land lay barren for YEARS with no one wanting it...it is out of pure hatred that now the battle rages. The Israelis deserve that land, and have fought and died to protect it, just like any other country should.

What else did Israel have left to do to have a peace? They offered everything that the Palestinians wanted and even was willing to split Jerusalem...the holiest of places to them. It was spit back in their face and now bombers come into SYNAGOGES and blow themselves up during the holiest of holidays. Imagine the international outrage if a mosque was attacked during services or a muslim holiday...I shudder to even think.

 

[Izzy]

....funny he uses received instead of taken

We can argue the semantics of any piece of writing on a subject like this, fact is that every piece is written through the eyes of the person writing it, and as long as the facts are correct each side is entitled to write it how they can best express it

rightfully? certainly open to debate
the fact stands that as long as Israel occupies land it will not have peace. Even the UN has recognized that land for peace is the just solution.

Blatant lies.

What is a lie about it? Israel DID offer land, the Palestinians rejected it and continue their suicide attacks. Peace agreements were made with President Clinton and those were broken...their flag has a picture of Palestine engulfing the whole of Israel with no Israeli state in existence...palestinians are taught that Israel must be destroyed and that by blowing yourself up and killing some of them you have a great place in heaven. Where have you seen that they believe Israel has a right to exist as a state?

So if I have an opinion that differs from his I am wrong?OK, let's give all the land owned by the USA back to the native American Indians.

Here I do agree with your thoughts somewhat. However, the American Indians were not organized under a recognized central body, they were collections of tribes and didn't have any set boundries or territories...I don't know how this would even be brought about considering that Also, American Indians are now citizens of the United States and coexist peacefully in a land where they have full freedoms and aren't persecuted or murdered.

Look, his garbage goes on and on. I would rather discuss a more intelligently written piece on the subject, instead of picking apart propaganda.

Please show me the intelligent pieces you are talking about...I'm interested in reading as much as I can on the subject. If this is "garbage" I wanna read the "real deal".

If you don't believe that Palestinians have a right to a homeland as much as the Israelis, then there is no point in discussing this. As long as the Israelis keep displacing Palestinians from their land, keep manufacturing weapons of mass destruction with no supervision (nuclear bombs), defy all international laws by assassinating political opponents, run a racist government that parallels apartheid South Africa, etc., etc. they will not have my moral support.

I do believe that the Palestinians have a right to a homeland...one that they have already been offered and they rejected. Please show me where you got this information about weapons of mass distruction, the government assinations of political enemies, racist govt, etc. This is the first I've heard of that and I'd like to read about it.

 

[Izzy]

I will be reading what you've linked to here...gimmie some time to process it all and formulate a reply

 

[RacerX]

by testuser
...funny he uses received instead of taken.

Funny that you seem to have missed the fact that they won that area after a number of Arab states tried to invade and destroy Israel. Israel didn't start that war, but they did win it.

Blatant lies.

Not true, many (including Arafat at different times) believe that Israel has no rights in the region. I think this has more to do with you being ill informed.

If you don't believe that Palestinians have a right to a homeland as much as the Israelis, then there is no point in discussing this. As long as the Israelis keep displacing Palestinians from their land, keep manufacturing weapons of mass destruction with no supervision (nuclear bombs), defy all international laws by assassinating political opponents, run a racist government that parallels apartheid South Africa, etc., etc. they will not have my moral support.

First, the Palestinians do have a right to a homeland, it is just that a majority of what used to be the Palestinians homeland is now Jordan. Isn't it funny that you never see the Palestinians bombing Jordanian civilians to get back a large area of what used to be their homeland? Do some research, this has less to do with a Palestinians homeland and more with a general hatred of Israel. As for Israel being a nuclear power, why is this news to you? Are you saying you didn't know about this? And considering how small Israel is, do you think they would use it on the Palestinians? And what political opponents has the government ever assassinated? And as for the racist government, they took in the refugees from the neighboring Arab states right after the 1967 war, and made homes for them (something which none of the Arab states would do). To most people in Israel, they have held out their hand to have it bitten to many times at this point. Considering that, I think I could over look their feeling of mistrust without labeling them racist.

In fact, it appears that the only country in the UN that steadfastly supports Israel, even when it commits atrocities in the name of national security, is the USA.

What atrocities do you speak of? Name a real atrocity committed by Israel.

If you want to find a balanced piece of writing to discuss, this will be fine, but I refuse to debate the merits of Israeli propaganda.

The only way you could tell that something is propaganda is by being informed, which you appear not to be.

Israel does have a nuclear weapons program. This is a well known fact. Here is just one of many links on this topic:

Again, have you been living under a rock, why does this seem like such a surprise to you?

As far as my sources of information: I read the Washington Post, New York Times... (and on and on)

What is sad is that you seem to be missing a few facts even though I know that many of your sources have made them very clear. You seem to have made up your mind and then started reading (interesting idea, but it appears to have left you lacking on the subject).

Look the Palestinians are not angels, but the Israelis do not have the moral high ground either. You cannot attribute the criminal actions of some Palestinians to all of them, just as you cannot attribute the criminal actions of some Israelis to all of them. There are good Jews and Muslims who do want peace, and who do have a vision of co-existence. It is depressing to see that extremists (on both sides) have started a blood feud, and have stolen the voice and support from moderates.

Actually, Israelis do have the moral high ground. They had a plan for a Palestinian state that would be both self governing and have the support of Israel, and Arafat walked away from it. I have never agreed with the settlements and thought that it was a bad idea, but I also know that the refugee camps when they were part of Egyptian and Jordanian territory were much worse than after they became part of Israel (because before losing these territories, the Arabs could care less about what was happening to the Palestinians).

 

[RacerX]

by testuser
Please read the posts before you mistakenly criticize me. I was not at all surprised that Israel has a nuclear arsenal; it was Izzy who was unaware of this. He asked me for my sources of information, and I provided one well written link.

I did read your post (a number of times) before posting, and I actually write my responses into a copy of your original posts so that I don't miss anything. Given that, your statement about Israel being a nuclear power was pointless unless you thought it was going to be new information (as if it had been a secret or something).

I find your Rush Limbaugh style of pulling a few of my words and then criticizing me to be comical.

Quite cutting, but also a poor excuse for a rebuttal. Lets read on to see if you can do any better (though I really don't hold out any hope ).

You and I agree that the word should be "taken" and not "received"... I was just pointing out that I could tell Inhofe's prejudice from the moment he used that word.

Yes, we agree on the definition, but the statement you were making made it sound like Israel started the war to take the land, when they actually pushed the invaders back past the areas which they had been using to stage their assault.

Well, I will give you one of many such examples: General Sharon ordering his troops to bury Palestinian militants alive in the refugee camps using bulldozers during the first Intifada of the late '80s. Go back and read my last post if you you want more examples.

We can all rewrite history to make any one sound bad. Your reference here and other references are quite distorted, but then again, you seem unaware of the history of the region anyway so I am not surprised.

But I must ask you why you want to deny that both sides have blood on their hands?

I deny that Israel has started any of these actions (with the exception of the settlements which was noted in my first post). I want to know why the Palestinians do not feel the need to fight for their home land in Jordan (something which you seem to have missed completely in your response), where a majority of it actually is? Why have you not addressed that? Fighting in a war is bad enough, but when you have terrorist who target women and children and then hide behind women and children, that is where I can draw distinct lines between Israelis and Palestinian.

Well, the Palestinian Authority ratified its charter to specifically state that it acknowledges that the state of Israel has a right to exist. Therefore Inhoe's statement to the contrary is a lie!

We have a treaty with Russia on the use of missile defense, Bush is pushing to start a program that goes against that treaty. When someone says that the US is for missile defense are you going to point to that treaty and say it is a lie? The Palestinian Authority also said that they would not use terrorism, I guess all these reports of terrorist bombings must also be lies, right testuser?

It seems like you are less informed than I about recent events! Either that or you are a Zionist who hates to see anything negative about Israel in print.

No one could possibly be less informed then you are, testuser. But if you want my position on this I supported 100% the Palestinians right to a free and self governing state (just like I said in my first post, who must not be reading post completely before they respond now, testy?). I support the Camp David proposal that Clinton put forward and Arafat walked away from. I think that any gains achieved via terroristic acts is just going to encourage more terrorism, and thus Israel (or the US or any other country) should respond to terrorism with the strongest possible force. When the terrorism has finally stopped completely, I would love to see us go back to where we were two years ago. Currently, the bombers are heroes to Palestinians. That means that they believe that the bombing of women and children is justified. Israel has targeted terrorist or terrorist organizations in most of there attacks, but when almost anyone in the occupied territories could be a terrorist, it becomes very hard to act without the possibility of hurting innocent people.

I am neither an Israeli, nor Palestinian, nor Jew, nor Muslim. I see distrust and suspicion from both groups:

Nor are you informed or able to read other people's post completely. Why do you feel the need to point this out? Oh, that's right, you were trying to make it sound like I was siding only with the Israelis. I would side with any group who after trying to give a group of people something that no other states in that region have (though they should have), have had civilians killed for no good reason.

Israeli suspicion that good-will will be interpreted as weakness, and will trigger an attack by the Arabs.
Conversely, Palestinians suspicion that they will forever be denied a legitimate state, and that they will forever live under Jewish oppression.

Again, the Palestinians were more oppressed by the Egyptians and Jordanians than they were by the Israelis, and the Jordanians really are the ones who should have been providing a Palestinian state (find a map of what used to be Palestine).

I foresee a solution that involves negotiation of a Palestinian state, good-will between the leadership of both sides, and cooperation between the two states...

Does this mean that terrorist attacks will cease in my vision of future compromise?
Immediately - no. Eventually - yes. The point is that both sides will be working together to break apart terrorist organizations, and punish those who are accountable for such acts against humanity. All Palestinians are not terrorists, just as all Israelis are not brutal colonialists.

Interesting, I don't think all Palestinians are terrorists, I do think that many of them consider the bomber to be heroes... which is a form of support... which means they are not ready to talk.

But this is not just about terrorism. It is about developing trade, tourism, and friendly bi-lateral relations between the two states. With an end to Palestinian-Israeli animosity, it will be much easier to normalize relations with other Arab nations, and end decades of regional strife and instability.

You missed the 90's, didn't you? They were there... it was about to happen. Why don't you try telling us how this all started up again. I would be interested in hearing what you think caused all of this.

You may argue for a different route (the one currently under way). Military suppression of the Palestinian people.

I argue for not giving anything to reward terrorism. Anywhere... anytime! This has less to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and more with the general use of terrorism anywhere in the world. If it works in Israel, then we are going to see it being used more everywhere else. If breaking the Palestinians is the only way to get them to stop using terrorism and getting them back to the point where they have their own state, then that is how it should be. This didn't need to happen, they had Israel agreeing to the Palestinian state. If they stopped using terrorism, the world community would be able to push Israel back to the point were Clinton had them.

But this is not a long term solution; it just creates an environment for future strife and bloodshed. And who wants to risk this in a future where a terrorist might carry nuclear weapons in a briefcase?

Your solution would have us all at risk for terrorism because you would show that it works. When something works, others are going to use it.

And testy, try asking harder questions. I am really disappointed that you didn't even address some of the more interesting points of my first post.

 

[rinse]

// donning flame retardant grear

and what would happen if fossil fuels were no longer necessary? no one would give two mouse clicks about the situation there.

 

[RacerX]

// pulling out the heavy-duty flame thrower (just kidding )


I would. The Palestinians should not have been miss treated by the Jordanians to begin with (forcing them into the refugee camps long before Israel was in control of those areas). Arabs don't even like each other, and the only thing they seem to have in comon is a deep hatred for Israel (which got the land it originally had the same way most of the countries in that area did, from the British and French who were in control of that area).

Here is a nice map of the Palestinian's homeland... can you pick out were Israel is on that map?

 

[chemistry_geek]

Getting back to the original question asked by the Admin, I think the middle east situation is going to get much worse before it gets better. There is too much hatred and bias taught to the younger generation. Humans have such a short attention span and memory and they always justify their reasoning with "this is a different situation than before which warrents violence". I think that given the recent events in Israel and Palestine that it is destined for an all out war. Yasser Arafat really isn't in control of the Palestinians, he's more a less a figure head now. Whatever leadership cabinet/group was set up over there is making teh decisions and carrying out actions. I predeict he terrorist attacks (suicide bombings) will get worse, Israel will respond with very severe counter attacks on Palestine leadership, killing Arafat. Some neighboring arab nations will come to the defense of the Palestinians, which when combined will inflict serious damamge on Israel. The U.S., already over there in the region, will respond to help Israel. I'm assuming that somehow Iraq will be one of teh attacking forces on Israel which will be justification enough for the U.S. to starting lobbing bombs at Iraq. The Rusians, who are still friendly with the Iraqis will reluctantly get involved. None of this could happen, all of it could happen, or perhaps something similar. THE ENTIRE REGION IS UNSTABLE - THE BREAK UP OF THE SOVIET UNION, THE SOVIENT STATES BREAKING RANKS WITH RUSSIA, THE TALIBAN, AL QAEDA, OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS, ETC... ETC... ETC... A war will likely happen that will create enough pain and bloodshed that might suggest to people "Is all this bickering really worth dying for?"

 

[RacerX]

the last post by testy
Re: Jordanian vs Israeli Palestinian populations:
Could it be that the Jordanians have done a better job of integrating the Palestinian refugee population than Israel? Obviously Palestinians are more happy in Jordan, otherwise there would be more strife there.

Yeah, I can see were Jordan moving them to the refugee camps which are now part of Israel was great integration. And the Jordanians are sooo happy with the Palestinians being there, that exporting them to Israel must just be their way of sharing the joy.

* You asked me for an example of an Israeli atrocity. I provided one. You now accuse me of trying to distort history.

I never accused you of distortion. You need a grasp of the facts in order to distort them. I only point out that you are ill informed and naive (and a ton of fun to play with).

* You have stated that I am not "informed" at least half a dozen times in your two posts... I can only surmise that you would also accuse the "Peace Now" activists who live in Israel to be less informed than you.

And almost as many times as I have pointed out the obvious short comings of your grasp of the facts of this situation, I have also said that I support the Palestinians. I believe that the Israelis who believe they can reach peace with people who hate them by other means can have their opinions. But as I said (and again, something else which you did not address, this has more to do with terrorism and less with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). I would like a peaceful solution that does not reward terrorism. We held other states that produced actual atrocities (not acts of defense, but actual atrocities... there is a deference) accountable for them, and the Palestinians (a majority of whom support the bombing campaign) should be held accountable (just like not every German supported the acts of Germany in WW I & II, the fact that not every Palestinians supports terrorism makes little difference here).

* Inhofe's statement that Arafat does not recognize the right of Israel to exist is a lie. Please don't convolute the argument by attacking me for being "uninformed" or by comparing it to the completely unrelated topic of missile defense and the 1974 ABM Treaty.

* Palestinians are not all terrorists.
I don't know how many times I need to stress this. The Palestinian Authority is not a terrorist organization. Groups like Hezbollah and Hammas are. After the Oslo agreements the Palestinian Authority's security service worked hand in hand with the Israeli security services to capture suspected terrorists.

So what you are saying is that the Palestinian Authority did not release many of the people who are now organizing the bombings within the last 18 months? It has been quite clear the Palestinian Authority has been at odds with the Oslo agreements almost from the start of this latest round of violence. It was only after sustained military pressure was applied that the Palestinian Authority started to take some of these people back into custody. That is exactly what I mean by saying you're ill informed, you point to the Oslo agreements and say that the Palestinian Authority (which has provided support and condoned many of the bombings) could not possibly be involved. You say the charter recognizes Israel's rights, but a majority of the people active in the Palestinian Authority do not.

Lets try a test, you said: "Last response to RacerX", it has been written, are you going to live up to that?

There needs to be a political process toward Palestinian statehood and more cooperation in this regard in the future...

Again, this is a another perfect example of your lack of information on the subject. There was, it was there, and Arafat walked away from it. Again, how do you think all this was started? If you don't know, then you can't possibly speak intelligibly about how to bring it to an end (as I have pointed out almost a dozen times now ).

And one last point, you claim that every time Israel extends its hand in good-will, it gets bitten. I suppose you include the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan in this assessment?

Boy, you really are weak at debate... lol. I said to many times and you quote me as saying every time. You are even poor at reading posts that are right in front of you. You read into them what you want to see, and exclude other parts. This is not unexpected, but disappointing.

Go ahead, call me ignorant another six times to make it an even dozen. You are supporting a racist system, while making personal attacks against someone who points out that the current situation is morally unjust because of actions taken by both sides.

I think I have gotten to the dozen mark by now (thanks to your help). This is not a personal attack, this is a fact... you need to read more carefully what you are reading. That has to do with articles and posts. You seem to only get out what you are looking for and dismiss the rest. Sadly, you are more guilty of a Rush Limbaugh style of debate than I am. You continually ignore points and misquote me to try to support your arguments, you have this Limbaugh thing down pat.

I promise to pick apart any of your future posts on this subject. I would hope that you would address issues and not misquote me in the future. As I said before, lets see if you can do better (though I really don't hold out any hope ).

 

[RacerX]

Funny, I thought Kissinger pointed out the flaws of Brzezinski's assessment quite well.