Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis week, Newsweek ran an article titled "Obama: Good for the Jews?" which reported on the efforts of operatives within Hillary Clinton's campaign to tarnish her rival's "pro-Israel credentials." At no point did the article bother to question what being "good for the Jews" or, for that matter, being "pro-Israel" means.
Does it mean unwavering support for whatever Israel does? That is the view of many neo-conservative Jewish pundits and of organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It is not the view of most American Jews, nearly two-thirds of whom support a freeze of Jewish settlement activity in the occupied territories, according to a survey conducted last year by Americans for Peace Now. The same survey found strong levels of support for reviving the 2002 Arab League peace plan (which calls for normalizing relations in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from land conquered in the 1967 Six-Day war) and for engaging in diplomacy with Iran.
To the extent Obama or any American politician favors talking to Iran or, say, withholding US aid from Israel if it refuses to freeze settlement activity a step taken by George H.W. Bush he or she would not be causing the majority of American Jews to lose sleep, in other words. Nor would he or she be perturbing all Israelis. The question "What's good for the Jews?" should give way to the rarely-asked follow-up question, "For Which Jews?" argues the Haaretz correspondent Akiva Eldar in an excellent article published recently in Israel's leading daily newspaper.
As Eldar points out, not all Israelis consider their allies to be people like the evangelist Gary Bauer, who was invited to speak at one of AIPAC's annual conferences, where he declared, "God granted the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and there is an absolute ban on giving it away to another people." While such statements thrill leaders of the settlement project and some right-wing Israeli politicians, they alarm those who favor a two-state settlement with the Palestinians which, as it happens, is most Israelis. In the narrow view of the American Jewish establishment, Eldar caustically notes, "a 'friend of Israel' is an American who allows Israelis and Arabs to spill their blood on the way to a solution of one state or apartheid rule."
It is the refusal to acknowledge what will happen in the absence of an agreement to divide the land that is truly dangerous, Eldar contends. He is not alone in this view. If no settlement is reached, "Israel is finished," one prominent politician commented recently. This stark assessment was put forward not by Barack Obama but by Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister. ***
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
It's simple: if you don't wholeheartedly endorse giving Israel everything it wants and support everything it does, you're an anti-semite, and probably an Islamo-fascist too!
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/26/2008 @ 1:11pm
Okay, now, anybody guess what this article and....
Roy Schneider dumping fish guts off the side of an Amity Island fishing boat have in common?
(heheh....Rese The Shark comes bursting out of the water any second now! Plus a couple dozen posts about AIPAC, Zionists, and maybe even a few overt non-code words too!)
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 1:28pm
To the extent Obama or any American politician favors talking to Iran or, say, withholding US aid from Israel if it refuses to freeze settlement activity a step taken by George H.W. Bush he or she would not be causing the majority of American Jews to lose sleep, in other words. Nor would he or she be perturbing all Israelis.
You hit the nail on the head!
Pro-Israel has been reduced to pro-AIPAC, which means supporting "everything" AIPAC wants! In an election year, I do not know how much clarity we will get from Obama on this, but I suspect he supports the two-state solution and a freeze and reversal of the illegal settlements.
Hillary is trying to smoke this out, not because Obama is any different than the two-thirds majority of the Jews you describe in your article, but because he may not be with the neocons and AIPAC 100% of the time like Hillary and Lieberman.
I think this strategy could backfire on Hillary. Hillary is gambling that AIPAC Jews will lean on their friends in the mainstream media if it were widely known that Obama does not support the illegal settlements for example. It also could have adverse consequences for Obama in fundraising as AIPAC still is the largest contributor to Democrats. While this may be true, the VAST majority of Jewish Americans AND Americans do NOT support the illegal settlements and really want to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. If anything, this may expose Hillary as the AIPAC booster that she is, which will not help her get more VOTES, and votes are what she needs right now, not a fundraising advantage or AIPAC Jews in the mainstream media trying to derail an Obama candidacy (I think it is too late for that).
AIPAC is just like any other political lobby, and should face the music for their corruption of the political process. Obama has promised to show ALL lobbyists the door and usher in a new citizen-based democratic process. This is a healthy change, a change we should be celebrating as Americans. It is too bad that Hillary is opposed to such change and wants to continue the rule of Washington lobbyists like AIPAC.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/26/2008 @ 1:29pm
"Obama: Good for the Israelis?"
well, he is NOW.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 1:31pm
"Does it mean unwavering support for whatever Israel does? "
all right,
let's torture.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 1:32pm
It is not the view of most American Jews, nearly two-thirds of whom support a freeze of Jewish settlement activity in the occupied territories, according to a survey conducted last year by Americans for Peace Now.
anti-semites.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 1:33pm
The same survey found strong levels of support for reviving the 2002 Arab League peace plan (which calls for normalizing relations in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from land conquered in the 1967 Six-Day war) and for engaging in diplomacy with Iran.
send these america haters back where they came from.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 1:33pm
"God granted the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and there is an absolute ban on giving it away to another people."
hey god,
can i at least have a piece of the south carolina low country?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 1:35pm
"Israel is finished," one prominent politician commented recently. This stark assessment was put forward not by Barack Obama but by Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister. ***
anti-semite.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 1:36pm
heheh....Rese The Shark comes bursting out of the water any second now! Plus a couple dozen posts about AIPAC, Zionists, and maybe even a few overt non-code words too!)
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 1:28pm
aipac and the israeli government are horrid.
separation of temple and state's a great idea.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 1:38pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/26/2008 @ 1:38pm
Wait, FROSTY.....so far all we've gotten is METTE's delusion that Obama will somehow "show AIPAC the door" (along with "all the lobbyists"....anybody figured out EXACTLY how Obama's going to do that?!??!?!)
Wait....the Mossad conspiracy guys, the "AIPAC gave my sister the clap" guys, the "Zionists are hiding under my bed" guys....will all be here in the next 24 hours.
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 2:12pm
Very few places have really reported this, but I think it is pretty despicable that the Clinton campaign is trying to paint Obama as some kind of anti-Semite behind the scenes in order to take him down. I enjoy this analysis of the same story:
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27246179
Posted by bridoc at 02/26/2008 @ 2:25pm
Worthwhile read:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/26/obamas_ohio_grilling .html
Posted by Lil at 02/26/2008 @ 2:43pm
It makes you wonder how far anyone can really get in politics without AIPAC.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/26/2008 @ 2:49pm
if obama is good for america (and he is) he's good for american jews. if he questions and challenges israel once in a while...HE'S GOOD FOR ISRAEL...
sometimes friends need a friendly reminder..or even a polite "no". considering all the MONEY WE SEND ISRAEL EVERY YEAR - A POLITE NO IS BEING VERY NICE INDEED!
aipac and rabid aipaccers are the biggest ennabler of anti-semitism in this country - nazis? an ugly joke...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 3:00pm
Here is a question perhaps the commenters can help me with. Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be annihilated, calling it a dirty microbe, a black virus, evil, that the countdown to the end of Israel has begun, while crowds chant 'death to Israel, death to U.S.' What if Iran were invited to talks by Obama, and refused to attend? What would/should Obama do then?
Posted by He'ev at 02/26/2008 @ 3:07pm
Posted by HE'EV 02/26/2008 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person
bomb them back to the stone age for israel? continue to displace muslim hatred for israel onto us AND send buzillions of $ a year to israel AND still not be pro-israel enough for some aipacers?
what if...? lets cross that bridge if we get there...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 3:18pm
Posted by HE'EV 02/26/2008 @ 3:07pm
What if Iran were invited to talks by Obama, and refused to attend? What would/should Obama do then?
Obviously, he should O-bomb them--using coordinates & target lists faxed to him by the Iraeli Defense Ministry. Hell, what good is a lapdog if you can't sick 'im on those who displease you and say mean, hateful, nasty things about you?
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 3:21pm
After all, this is the model for diplomacy & negotiating with adversaries as prescribed & practiced by the contemporary powers-that-be.
Their will be done. Amen.
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 3:24pm
What would/should Obama do then?
Posted by HE'EV 02/26/2008 @ 3:07pm
Use the dipolmatic leverage that that rebuke gives him, to go to the UN, the Europeans, Russians, etc. and push for more and tighter sanctions.
Now...the Iranians know that....and unlike bloggers who apparently never read Machiavelli or even "Dune"....would they do that?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 3:29pm
The land of Israel belongs to Israel and not to Arab migrants. God will bring devastation upon the US if we abandon what America has faithfully carried out in support of Israel.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/26/2008 @ 3:31pm
"It is not the view of most American Jews, nearly two-thirds of whom support a freeze of Jewish settlement activity in the occupied territories, according to a survey conducted last year by Americans for Peace Now."
Clearly, self-hatred. They need their meds adjusted.
The Bush family has long believed,, well, since '92 anyway, that they lost that election because of The Lobby, i.e. AIPAC. They swore they would never lose because of AIPAC again: give AIPAC what it wants as long as we get what we want.
Billary any different? Or Obama? Tail wags dog. And wags & wags.
AIPAC doesn't want impeachment hearings, much less impeachment. Hence, off the table. Too many Pandora boxes might be opened.
Most of our reps are terrified of AIPAC. It's an enviable position of power, much of which is more perception than anything substantive. But appearances seem to be far more than enough.
Posted by sloper at 02/26/2008 @ 3:32pm
Where's LVLIBERTY when he's actually needed? Shouldn't he comment on the Iraeli forces' preemptive attack on the USS Liberty, the Iraeli govt.'s failure to acknowledge this as a sustained & ordered attack, and the Israeli govt.'s refusal to offer so much as a formal apology, much less reparations to the crew & slain personnel's families & estates?
Is THAT the 'Liberty' that LVLIBERTY loves, or is it some kind or Ronald Reagan wetdream version he gets when he watches items in his John Wayne movie collection for the 1000th time?
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 3:35pm
Oh, excuse me. Not a Ronald Reagan wetdream this time. It's a Ralph Reed/Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson apocalyptic wetdream he gets from watching Jim Caviezel for the umpteenth time. Right, should've known.
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 3:40pm
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 3:29pm
Thank you for your response. I am trying to get a handle on what Obama's foreign policy would be like. I do not see how you can get someone to the table to talk. Sadly, the Iranian people would suffer from sanctions and more international isolation. I worry about the women in Iran who are stoned to death or whipped, the students and professors who are in prison, the gay youth who are hung from cranes. It is a terrible situation, and they are the victims. Maybe they will overthrow their government?
Posted by He'ev at 02/26/2008 @ 3:46pm
The land of Israel belongs to Israel and not to Arab migrants. God will bring devastation upon the US if we abandon what America has faithfully carried out in support of Israel.---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 3:31pm
And what are the exact borders of "the land of Israel" according to your sources?
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 4:02pm
Posted by HE'EV 02/26/2008 @ 3:46pm |
Trick is to start thinking 4 or 5 moves ahead in the game...and not a "what if" of move #1 or #2.
The Iranians don't just "say no" to a talk with the President of the United States. They may push agenda items and we push ours, and if both sides are truly serious, you work out a "summit"...same as we did in the Cold War days (Nixon and Brezhnev, Carter and Brezhnev, Reagan and Gorbachev....)
And well before the hint of a story of a meeting between the POTUS and Ahmadinejad or ANY Iranian leader leaks out...it's already been worked out and planned.
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 4:05pm
Also, the Israeli people are afraid of Iran. They hear what he says and remember that Hitler said the same things, that they were a 'germ,' and look what happened to them then. It is like if the KKK had a state, they would kill the black people. So they are worried. If Iran could beat a man for walking a dog, or beat a woman for being raped, they figure worse will happen to them.
Posted by He'ev at 02/26/2008 @ 4:06pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/26/2008 @ 3:35pm | ignore this person
Jeez, I mean Moishe. damn that was over 40 years ago.
the US shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, you don't keep harping on that do you.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 4:20pm
Also, the Israeli people are afraid of Iran. They hear what he says and remember that Hitler said the same things, that they were a 'germ,' and look what happened to them then. It is like if the KKK had a state, they would kill the black people.
I usually like to give the Israeli population more credit for being informed than this, given some of the excellent newspapers they have. Of course Ahmadinejad has said some crazy evil stuff, but anyone who knows anything about the Iranian state knows he has zero power over the military, and anyone who knows anything about the current Iranian political scene knows his influence on domestic affairs has been undercut by the religious leaders. The closest they get to attacking Israel is supplying Hezbollah with rockets, guns and tech support. I can see being afraid of Iran as part of being afraid of Hezbollah, but does anyone seriously think that Iran is going to make any overt moves against Israel?
As for the Newsweek article, does anyone really take Newsweek seriously anymore? I sometimes lose track of what counts as top quality mainstream news sources because I don't use them anymore, but do we expect more from Newsweek than this?
And does Clinton really think that there is a groundswell of support in Texas and Ohio for settlements in the West Bank? The states where there is a heavy enough Jewish population for a part of that demographic to effectively mobilize against Obama have already voted. This is awfully close to attacking for the sake of attacking and needlessly weakening the likely nominee in the generals, where hawks on the Israel issue could be important.
Posted by dentedpat at 02/26/2008 @ 4:22pm
Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by US missiles on Sunday July 3, 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, towards the end of the Iran Iraq War. Operated by Iran Air from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, the aircraft flying as IR655 was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 aboard, ranking it seventh among the deadliest airliner fatalities.[1] Both IR655 and the Vincennes were inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the attack. According to the US government, an inexperienced crew mistakenly identified the Iranian airbus as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. However, the Iranian government maintained that the Vincennes knowingly shot down a civilian aircraft. The event generated a great deal of controversy and criticism of the US, particularly among Arab nations sympathetic to Iran's Islamic government. Some analysts have blamed US military commanders and the captain of the Vincennes for reckless and aggressive behavior in a tense and dangerous environment.[2][3] In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[4] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay $61.8 million in compensation for the Iranians killed. The United States did not admit responsibility or apologize to the Iranian government.[5]
from Wiki. in context: mistaken an airbus for a fighter? sure. we were supporting whom during that war? Saddam, Saddam. you connect the dots.
incidentally, the jumbo jet blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, was in "retaliation" for the Iranian plane, though carried out by Libyan agents. see how it all hangs together?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by HE'EV 02/26/2008 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person
oh yes, they are right to be scared, they have nukes, and plenty of them, while Iran has none. makes sense to you.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 4:29pm
But, just like always its Hate Bush and Hate the Republicans!-----Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/26/2008 @ 4:12pm
You really, REALLY don't see it, do you? The hypocrisy, I mean?
You complain about how terribly telling it is that liberals "are always about hating Republicans"...and do practically nothing but tell us how YOU hate "Demoncrats"?!?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 4:36pm
Posted by HE'EV 02/26/2008 @ 4:06pm
oh - i agree that the iranian regime is a despicable farce front for a despicable medievalist fundamentalist interpretation of islam.
but, like many despicable, bloody, fanatical bigots, the iranians are afflicted by pride and the same insecurity we all share. uppin' the ante and imperiously dictating, as doubleplusgood bellyfeelgood as it is in the short term, seems to have had the opposite effect from that we most desire (weakening of the current iranian regime and hopefully the iranian people overcoming the worst of their religious self oppression.
so sad, that iran, once the home of one of the most enlightened and decent civilizations in history, zoroastrian, acheamenid persia, should today represent the worst of violent religious intolerence.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 4:37pm
TR said "speak softly and carry a big stick"
the neocons run about blabbering and screaching like a scalded ape, flailing about, insultingly dictating and leaving no way for opponants to quietly back down without being rudely and tastelessly humiliated...
thats not "diplomacy"...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 4:48pm
Here is what Obama says on his website. It doesn't sounds like a big stick to me. It sounds like Neville Chamberlain:
Iran The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq. Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress including Kyl-Lieberman gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran. Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Posted by He'ev at 02/26/2008 @ 5:06pm
forget about Iran. make a comprehensive settlement with the west bank and Syria. that will go a long way in the region. neither the US nor Israel have to fear Iran. isolating Iran is a bad policy too. it supports the hard liners.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 5:16pm
And what are the exact borders of "the land of Israel" according to your sources?
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 4:02pm
The current borders including Gaza and the West Bank.
The so-called Palestinians have a much bigger piece of the area now known as Jordan.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/26/2008 @ 5:26pm
The land of Israel belongs to Israel and not to Arab migrants. God will bring devastation upon the US if we abandon what America has faithfully carried out in support of Israel.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 3:31pm |
like...GIVING ISRAEL BUZILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF OUR TAX MONEY A YEAR AND BEING EXPECTED TO DO MORE?
like...invading muslim enemies of israel thereby giving them US to hate and distracting them from israel???
i disagree. and so do more and more americans, including jewish americans, every day.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 5:31pm
Posted by HE'EV 02/26/2008 @ 5:06pm
words have nothing to do with having "the big stick". we have the big stick and need utter not a single word. its obvious to everyone...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 5:38pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/26/2008
Mssr. Dubois,
9/11, sir, 9/11. You apparently did not get the memo: all of history was cancelled by 9/11. Ergo, the deep complicity between US military & foreign policy and Isreali national interests is of no pertinence, except to confirm this as the necessary strategic prolegomenon to any plan of action. So we forget about the Liberty cover up (yes, under LBJ, no great favorite among progressives who have some recollection of the Vietnam era) and about active spying by Mossad assets on US defense secrets that was accepted & tacitly approved during successive Republican administrations. The list goes on and on. All we need to know is, thank God (quite literally) for Israel & all the billions in US military aid to Israel, the one bulwhark of democratic values and free civilization in a Middle East swarming with mobs of cutthroat degenerates, dedicates to heathen beliefs that fester in the guts and brains of these roiling, noisome masses.
This is the post 9/11 & pre-apocalyptic view of Middle East politics that the Bushies & their confederates have been promoting in lieu of real attempts to negotiate & find ways to achieve even small victories for peace in that region.
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 5:40pm
israel has a pretty big stick itself, both conventionally and in the form of a not so secret nuclear arsenal.
i don't see us pressuring israel to give up ITS ALREADY POSSESED NUKES...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 5:40pm
ERRATUM: I meant to say "roiling, noisome, subhuman masses" (i.e. arabs). I wouldn't want to misrepresent or truncate the actual positions of the Republican right on these important matters.
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 5:44pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 3:31pm
"The land of Israel belongs to Israel"
Yeah, I think we've heard this argument before-- for about the last 60 years. It goes something like this:
"The land of Israel belongs to Israel."
"No, the land of Palestine belongs to the Palestinians."
And repeat about 100,000 times with increasing polarization, hatred, and inflexibility.
To paraphrase T.S. Eliot, "This is the way the world ends, / Not with a whimper / But a big o' kickass thermonuclear bang."
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 6:00pm
According to Amy Goodman in Democracy Now, first Obama sympatized with the Palestinians and then he changed his mind and sympatized with the Israeli cause when he decided to run. This proves Nader right; Obama is the STATUS QUO. He is likely to be part of a right wing conspiracy to remove Clinton in order to continue George Bush's Foreign policy.
Posted by nursevic at 02/26/2008 @ 6:17pm
He is likely to be part of a right wing conspiracy to remove Clinton in order to continue George Bush's Foreign policy.
Posted by NURSEVIC 02/26/2008 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person
obama wants to be president and nader...wants to do whatever he's doing.
i'm "pro israel" too, but neither "anti-palestinian" nor an aipac rubber stamper...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 6:25pm
This is the post 9/11 & pre-apocalyptic view of Middle East politics that the Bushies & their confederates have been promoting in lieu of real attempts to negotiate & find ways to achieve even small victories for peace in that region.
Posted by GOYADAD 02/26/2008 @ 5:40pm
And it begs the question: Why?
Yet people actually beleive that they've done all they've done "because they thought/think it's the right thing to do."
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/26/2008 @ 6:25pm
The Israeli agenda will not change just because an angelic faced black man becomes president. Time will prove Obama is a wolf in lamb's clothing.
Posted by nursevic at 02/26/2008 @ 6:36pm
Posted by NURSEVIC 02/26/2008 @ 6:36pm
naderite?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 6:38pm
How about this idea? Let's make the real estate south of Lebanon, west of Jordan & Syria, and north of Egypt (someone else can think of a name to call it, since the usual names make people's eyes cross & their brains drain down their spines) a United Nations protectorate. We will make it a de-militarized & disarmed international zone where all persons of all ethnicities and religious inclinations can live in peace as long as their words and actions are peaceable. We will provide fair representation for all of the residents and no legislation can be passed except by consent of each of the represented populations and their delegates to the legislature.
Is that an okay idea? Or will it violate unacceptably the apocalyptic fantasies of the fanaticists who thus far seem to be driving the key policy decisions in this region?
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 6:40pm
a United Nations protectorate.
that's how the region came to be what it is now. you cannot go back, history does not work that way.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 6:54pm
Time will prove Obama is a wolf in lamb's clothing.
Posted by NURSEVIC 02/26/2008 @ 6:36pm | ignore this person
and you base this on ...what?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 6:55pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/26/2008 @ 6:54pm
Naturellement, mon cher monsieur. Because, as we know, the status quo is so-- how you say?-- tres magnifique!
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 7:05pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/26/2008 @ 6:25pm
Yet people actually beleive that they've done all they've done "because they thought/think it's the right thing to do."
[sung to the tune of the well known Sunday school song]
"'Kuz the Bible tol' them so."
Or the Qur'an. Or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Or Chapter 11 of Dianetics, or what have you.
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 7:11pm
The current borders including Gaza and the West Bank.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 5:26pm
And by what mandate do those areas belong to Israel?
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 7:16pm
And by what mandate do those areas belong to Israel?
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 7:16pm
God's
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/26/2008 @ 7:19pm
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 7:16pm
"And by what mandate do those areas belong to Israel?"
MASKIE,
I'm suprised at you--you're not reading the thread:
[Second verse, same as the first (but vorse)]
"'Kuz the Bible tol' them so."
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 7:20pm
Damn! LVLIBs beat me to it! Same idea though. Too bad LVLIBS don't aktulee read that there Bah-bul he touts so gol durn much. He'd fawnd that the actual real estate disputed as "the land of the nation of Israel" is hardly consistent in the various OT texts.
But, hay, thems' faks. Don't never need ta bother with them when yuh gots reeligun.
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 7:25pm
And by what mandate do those areas belong to Israel?
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 7:16pm
God's
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 7:19pm
And so we base our foreign policy on religion....hmmm?
Seems I read a guy back when Romney was running that told me that he didn't want our government run by ANYBODY's religious beliefs?!??!?!
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 7:25pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/26/2008 @ 7:25pm
You jump the gun, as so many do with LVLIB. Seriously, slowly and steadily let HIM do the talking to basic questions. He builds the case FOR you.
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 7:27pm
and Mask,
International Law
International law has recognized Jewish rights to sovereignty over the Land of Israel and to settlement throughout the land. In April 1920, at the San Remo Conference (part of the post-World War I peace negotiations), the Principal Allied Powers, acting on behalf of the international community, recognized all the land between the Jordan and the sea, including Jerusalem, as part of the Jewish National Home, based on the Jewish people's historic rights. On the same grounds, the Golan1 and Transjordan too were within the National Home (albeit the eastern border of the National Home, though clearly east of the Jordan, was not yet fixed).
To measure the extent of American commitment to the National Home at the beginning, we may quote from the terminology of the time: "RES. 52: Expressing satisfaction at the re-creation of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish race" (House Committee on Foreign Affairs). "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." (1922).
Because the legal issue is once again very much alive, a brief survey of the matter is useful, with particular reference to Jerusalem.3 By the time the League of Nations was replaced by the UN in 1945, Britain had tried to change the legal status of the country as the Jewish National Home. This attempt was embodied in the Palestine White Paper of 1939, on the eve of the Holocaust, and in various subsequent ordinances enacted by the British mandatory government, which made it very difficult for Jewish refugees to enter the country or {for Jews} to buy real estate there. Nevertheless, this British attempt to change the country's status was rejected as illegal by the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission in June 1939.
When the UN was founded in 1945, it reaffirmed through its Charter the existing territorial rights of peoples as they had been before the war (Article 80). However, many or most people today are either not aware that the whole country constituted the Jewish National Home, or believe that the UN had somehow eliminated this status and, in any case, had fixed legal boundaries for Israel through the 1947 Partition Resolution. Yet the 1947 resolution was passed by the General Assembly. Now all General Assembly resolutions on political issues are merely recommendations.
http://www.netanyahu.org/inlawreglano.html
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/26/2008 @ 7:37pm
More Facts that the anti-Israel crowd ignores
A Crash Course in the Real Facts. Mayer Gniwisch (2 Apr 2001)
1. Nationhood and Jerusalem Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the Modern State of Israel.
3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.
4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more than 22 years.
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.
11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.
12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.
13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict; The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.
http://netanyahu.org/crascourinre.html
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/26/2008 @ 7:38pm
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 7:27pm
You're right of course. I still like needling his kind. It's like a 3 Stooges routine I once saw where a stick with a boot was rigged up behind and everytime the guy stepped back and turned around to see who was kicking him, he triggered the boot-kick.
MORAL: They never do learn. Just like yapping rat dogs.
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 7:40pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 7:37pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 7:38pm
http://netanyahu.org/crascourinre.html
Well, as long as it's an un-biased source.
BTW, notice you stop at the ACTUAL FOUNDING of Israel by the UN in 1947 for your determination of how the West Bank and Gaza are "by international law" part of Israel.
Why didn't Israel CLAIM them earlier than 1967?...just being nice?
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 7:47pm
What if Israel pulled out of the West Bank?
The suggestion that peace would come if Israel withdrew to the 1967 lines leaves us with the question as to why the Arabs tried to destroy Israel in 1967 while Israel was within those lines. It also leaves us with the question as to why the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded in 1964 before the "occupation". It is instructive to read the Palestine National Charter of 1964. Here are some excerpts:
Article 16: ...the people of Palestine, desiring to befriend all nations which love freedom, justice, and peace, look forward to their support in restoring the legitimate situation to Palestine, ... and [in] enabling its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, [or] on the Gaza Strip
The founding document of the PLO says that they are not entitled to the West Bank or Gaza! Yet now much of the West believes that the cause of the conflict is the Israeli presence in parts of the West Bank! When the PLO wrote their charter Jordan was in control of the West Bank and they wanted Jordanian support. Their goal was to annihilate Israel not a state in the West Bank. Zuheir Mohsein, a member of the supreme council of the PLO said, in an interview with the Dutch Daily Trouw (3/31/1977):
There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity.
The wars in the Middle East are about fighting Zionism, the right of the Jews to Israel, not about creating a terrorist Palestinian State.
http://www.afsi.org/arablies.htm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/26/2008 @ 7:48pm
Oh by the way, everybody....
LVLIB is one of those types who puts more trust in FOREIGNERS than in good, honest Americans....
"1. I trust Israeli intelligence more than our own and they disagree with the NIE"----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 6:40pm
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 7:48pm
Seems I read a guy back when Romney was running that told me that he didn't want our government run by ANYBODY's religious beliefs?!??!?!
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 7:25pm
And the last I looked, Israel was a sovereign nation and not one of our 50 states.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/26/2008 @ 7:49pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 7:49pm
You said we MUST support Israel...does that not mean we MUST support "God's" mandate that Israel have Gaza and the West Bank?
If so, then are we not supporting a RELIGIOUS view as part of governmental policy....something you DECRIED when there was a shot at a "Temple Mormon" becoming President!
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 7:50pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/26/2008 @ 7:25pm
You seem to be suffering from some kind of speech impediment which carries over to your writing. Perhaps you should seek medical help.
Or maybe it's just a disease that afflicts liberals.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/26/2008 @ 7:51pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 7:49pm | ignore this person
thats a great point - go with it! so i guess they don't need my tax money...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 7:52pm
You said we MUST support Israel...does that not mean we MUST support "God's" mandate that Israel have Gaza and the West Bank?
If so, then are we not supporting a RELIGIOUS view as part of governmental policy....something you DECRIED when there was a shot at a "Temple Mormon" becoming President!
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 7:50pm
Certainly we are free as a nation to operate outside of that command from God. But, it has been the policy of every president since Truman and most of Congress who have been Christians that kept this command in mind when deciding support for Israel.
Is it a conflict? Maybe...but it seems as I said that no president nor the majority of congress felt strongly enough to go against it.
Got to run, office needs to close...will take up again I'm sure.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/26/2008 @ 8:02pm
thats a great point - go with it! so i guess they don't need my tax money...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/26/2008 @ 7:52pm
Do you think any Democrat will propose as president to abandon their great treaty accord negotiated and signed under Carter? Not going to happen.
Not Barack or any other Dem.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/26/2008 @ 8:07pm
it has been the policy of every president since Truman and most of Congress who have been Christians that kept this command in mind when deciding support for Israel.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 8:02pm
What about the MAJORITY in the Middle East that read the Quran instead of the Bible? Are you suggesting that you FORCE your idea of God from the Christian Bible on people that follow a different religion?
So much for freedom of religion! The Founders must be turning in their graves!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/26/2008 @ 8:13pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 8:02pm
And what about Replacement theology? Isn't it the orthodox Christian view now that "the Covenant" is no longer with Israel and the Jews but with the Christian church? Didn't the Jews fall out of favor with God according to Christian orthodoxy?
Posted by Metteyya at 02/26/2008 @ 8:17pm
Got to run, office needs to close...will take up again I'm sure.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 8:02p
Yeah, kind of figured THAT was coming.
See, LVLIB has a bad habit of FORGETTING what he believes in.
During Romney's run, he tried to insulate himself from charges of being anti-Mormon, by saying he didn't want ANY religious group to influence Governmental policy.
But of course he DOES....HIS type of religion. Which means considering letting Israel pretty much do whatever it wants, and us paying for it, because it's "God's command" that we do.
And as I noted to GOYADAD, is not to get mad, not to call names...but let LVLIB talk. He pays out enough rope...eventually he hangs himself on HIS OWN WORDS, guys!
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 8:25pm
How about, is he good Palestinians? Unfortunately, the answer is, NO.
Posted by neaguy at 02/26/2008 @ 9:00pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/26/2008 @ 7:05pm | ignore this person
no, it's not. it is however better than it was. four wars in the region then, no wars now, though the Lebanon thing recently came close.
good suggestions need a reality component. what you suggested did not.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 9:18pm
two very good books on the mid east:
L. Carl Brown, "International politics and the middle East. old rules, dangerous game."
Charles C. Smith:"Palestine and the arab israeli conflict."
oh and yes, read Juan Cole.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 9:33pm
The land of Israel belongs to Israel and not to Arab migrants. God will bring devastation upon the US if we abandon what America has faithfully carried out in support of Israel.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 3:31pm
it's full of europeans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:17pm
Where's LVLIBERTY when he's actually needed? Shouldn't he comment on the Iraeli forces' preemptive attack on the USS Liberty, the Iraeli govt.'s failure to acknowledge this as a sustained & ordered attack, and the Israeli govt.'s refusal to offer so much as a formal apology, much less reparations to the crew & slain personnel's families & estates?
Is THAT the 'Liberty' that LVLIBERTY loves, or is it some kind or Ronald Reagan wetdream version he gets when he watches items in his John Wayne movie collection for the 1000th time?
Posted by GOYADAD 02/26/2008 @ 3:35pm
israel is the perfect market for the horrific cluster bombs he makes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:19pm
And what are the exact borders of "the land of Israel" according to your sources?
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 4:02pm
those of 1967
before christ.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:22pm
Wrong President! See I try to keep telling you guys it is DEMONCRATS like LBJ (Term of Office: November 22, 1963 - January 20, 1969) that are the REAL danger! But, just like always its Hate Bush and Hate the Republicans!
Rather than conspiracy theory tin foil hat politics you should try reading ALL the offical intelligence, navy, and other military accounts that confirm it was a grevious MISTAKE! Otherwise you must admit it was a Demoncrat coverup!!!!!!!!!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/26/2008 @ 4:12pm
spoken like a true independent.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:23pm
should today represent the worst of violent religious intolerence.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/26/2008 @ 4:37pm
well my friend ibrahim who lost his home and orchards because of israeli greed says the same of the govenment in tel aviv.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:26pm
forget about Iran. make a comprehensive settlement with the west bank and Syria. that will go a long way in the region. neither the US nor Israel have to fear Iran. isolating Iran is a bad policy too. it supports the hard liners.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/26/2008 @ 5:16pm
of course.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:27pm
i'm "pro israel" too, but neither "anti-palestinian" nor an aipac rubber stamper...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/26/2008 @ 6:25pm
people seem to forget that a sizable chunk of palestinians are christians, not just muslims.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:29pm
And by what mandate do those areas belong to Israel?
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 7:16pm
God's
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 7:19pm |
pure drivel.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:31pm
http://netanyahu.org/crascourinre.html
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 7:38pm
drivel.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:34pm
oh and yes, read Juan Cole.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/26/2008 @ 9:33pm
of course.
i wonder if god hates him ;+]
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:35pm
Certainly we are free as a nation to operate outside of that command from God. But, it has been the policy of every president since Truman and most of Congress who have been Christians that kept this command in mind when deciding support for Israel.
Is it a conflict? Maybe...but it seems as I said that no president nor the majority of congress felt strongly enough to go against it.
Got to run, office needs to close...will take up again I'm sure.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 8:02pm
SQUISH THE CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!!!
Christians also battle for Palestinian side
By Sherri Muzher
The questioner's tone is usually incredulous: "You mean there are Palestinian Christians?"
I understand the confusion. Many view the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as purely Muslims vs. Jews. And aren't Arabs all Muslims and Muslims all Arabs?
The reality is that some 15% of the world's Palestinians are Christians, a vibrant community that has experienced as much suffering as Palestinian Muslims. In the latest uprising for freedom, Palestinian Christians have been among those killed or maimed for life by Israeli bullets. Christians also have been among the Palestinians who have been unable to leave their towns, go to their jobs, seek medical care and attend schools.
Unfortunately, some are exploiting the general lack of knowledge about Palestinian Christians, either for political gain or for religions reasons -- or both. Many evangelical Christians believe the Bible promised the Jews the entire Holy Land, including the occupied territory. And some evangelicals also believe the second coming of Christ is contingent upon the full return of Jews to Jerusalem.
Last month, conservative Christian activist Gary Bauer spearheaded a letter, signed by other evangelical leaders, that warned President Bush that "it would be morally reprehensible for the United States to be 'evenhanded' between democratic Israel, a reliable friend and ally that shares our values, and the terrorist-infested Palestinian infrastructure." This week, the Jerusalem Post reported, the Rev. Pat Robertson, speaking on the Christian Broadcasting Network, said Bush's proposed road map to peace imperiled Israel and went "against the clear mandate of the Bible."
But the fact that Palestinian Christians are united with Palestinian Muslims in the goal of liberation shows that their struggle isn't so much religious as it is nationalistic and human.
I can understand, however, the public-relations value for Israelis in ignoring Palestinian Christians. After all, given the unfair vilification of Islam after 9/11, why let your Western supporters know that you are also battling Christians?
The evangelical leaders who warned Bush not to be "evenhanded" in peace negotiations may believe that they are speeding up Jesus' return, but it was Christ who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."
Which is it?
Sherri Muzher, a Palestinian-American Christian, lives in Mason, Mich
hmmm? i wonder why she lives there?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:41pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/26/2008 @ 10:41pm
hmmm........
seems palestinian christians are getting it from all sides.
guess the israelis want there land and the muslims being fenced in their little cages are lashing out at the "next best thing".
humans are so stupid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 11:50pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/26/2008 @ 10:26pm | ignore this person
yeah that really sux, but israel has nukes, 60+ years of holding what they got and it ain't changing.
furthermore i find a lot of the arab/islamic countries opposed to israel have been less than charitable to the palestinians who left/were booted from there.
but whats done is done and not getting undone.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 11:52pm
but whats done is done and not getting undone.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/26/2008 @ 11:52pm
i only hope that israel goes back to 1967.
ultimately, they can become an economic motor for the whole middle east.
but that friggin' wall and the swiss cheese land they are creating..............
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 12:48am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/27/2008 @ 12:48am |
i didn't say it wasnt a mess.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/27/2008 @ 12:57am
israel has a pretty big stick itself, both conventionally and in the form of a not so secret nuclear arsenal.
i don't see us pressuring israel to give up ITS ALREADY POSSESED NUKES...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/26/2008 @ 5:40pm
The reason for that should be self-evident. Israel has never offered to pre-emptively annihilate any state.
ie. We see them as responsible guardians of their nuclear deterrent.
Posted by harvey 79 at 02/27/2008 @ 04:16am
Nowadays less than 3% of Palestine's Arabs are Christians.
fewer than...
you're just not that smart, are you?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 08:29am
Israel has never offered to pre-emptively annihilate any state.
ie. We see them as responsible guardians of their nuclear deterrent.
Posted by HARVEY 79 02/27/2008 @ 04:16am
responsible guardians..................
In 1922 the population of Palestine consisted of approximately 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews, 71,500 Christians and 7,600 others (1922 census [8])
However, this area gradually saw a large influx of Jewish immigrants (most of whom were fleeing the increasing persecution in Europe).
hmmmm, europe?
This immigration and accompanying call for a Jewish state in Palestine drew violent opposition from local Arabs, in part because of Zionism's stated goal of a Jewish state, which many Arabs believed would require the subjugation or removal of the existing non-Jewish population.
that wouldn't nice
In the late 1920s and early 1930s several factions of Palestinian society became impatient with the internecine divisions and ineffectiveness of the Palestinian elite and engaged in grass-roots anti-British and anti-Zionist activism organized by groups such as the Young Men's Muslim Association. There was also support for the growth in influence of the radical nationalist Independence Party (Hizb al-Istiqlal), which called for a boycott of the British in the manner of the Indian Congress Party.
i'd be pissed, too.
During the summer of that year thousands of Jewish-farmed acres and orchards were destroyed, Jews were attacked and killed and some Jewish communities, such as those in Beisan and Acre, fled to safer areas.
always the common folk who get fucked around
In the wake of the strike and the Peel Commission recommendation of partition of the country into a small Jewish state and an Arab state to be attached to Jordan, an armed uprising spread through the country.
partition? wait a second. these people are immigrants creating there own country?
During this period from 19361939, known as the Great Arab Revolt or the "Great Uprising", British forces, supported by 6,000 armed Jewish auxiliary police,[10] suppressed the widespread riots with overwhelming force. This resulted in the deaths of 5,000 Palestinian Arabs and the wounding of 10,000. In total 10 percent of the adult male population was killed, wounded, imprisoned, or exiled (see Khalidi, 2001). The Jewish population had 400 killed; the British 200.
those numbers seem very familiar......
the British confiscated 13,200 firearms from Arabs and 521 weapons from Jews.
hmmmmmm....
u.n. blah blah blah..............
In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan, the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent amongst the Arab community.
now why would they be upset? oh, yeah tens of thousands of europeans get their lands..........
Soon thereafter, violence broke out and became more and more prevalent. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came one after the other, killing dozens of victims on both sides in the process.
oh shit, here we go.........
fight fight fight..........
This situation caused the U.S. to retract their support for the Partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinians, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the partition plan. The British, on the other hand, decided on 7 February 1948 to support the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine by Transjordan.
stupid brits. how much of the world did they fuck up?
i can't go on..... the stupidity. the greed.
stupid brits. they should give wales to the palestinians and scotland to the jews.......................
stupid brits.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 09:12am
Posted by MARKCANYON 02/27/2008 @ 05:55am
i know what the current numbers are, nimrod.
what do you care? you'd fry the whole lot.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 09:15am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/27/2008 @ 09:15am
Hey, hey....that's Gruppenfόhrer nimrod, to you, pal!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 09:53am
now why would they be upset? oh, yeah tens of thousands of europeans get their lands..........
this is a very limited view. you could benefit from reading the two books I've been flogging. Brown and Smith.
the jews did not only come from Europe, but rather from the mid east. and the land was largely bought from absentee landlords. you could look it up.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 10:17am
nursevic-You are a Hillary supporter.Her votes were very much pro Bush votes.
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/27/2008 @ 11:07am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=i'm%20nobody
so, what do you suggest? Hill is almost certainly done for, so you can let that one go. she will remain senator.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 12:55pm