| Author |
Topic |
|
n/a
deleted
1567 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2009 : 21:50:38
|
Miriam I say asI always do, mans interpretation of any religious book is always to his/her benefit it is never a true representation; how many people come knock your door and give half a representation ???
case closed |
keep on smiling |
 |
|
|
BLONDIE
Barsoom
491 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 02:37:55
|
Forgive me for mentioning it, but wasn't it the American administration that decreed that the Palestinians should have a free and fair election?? And wasn't it Hamas who were voted in as the legally elected Government??
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
1567 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 09:28:20
|
| yes but the election did not go the way the Americans wanted,now perhaps with Obama in the position of power instead of warmonger Bush things will be sorted out |
keep on smiling |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 09:36:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by BLONDIE
Forgive me for mentioning it, but wasn't it the American administration that decreed that the Palestinians should have a free and fair election?? And wasn't it Hamas who were voted in as the legally elected Government??
Blondie, how on earth does this adress anything that I brought up in my post. Or is that something you would rather ignore? |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
sweeny todd
Barsoom
United Kingdom
249 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 10:48:06
|
| it doesnt seem to matter to hamas or israel what world opinion is on this terrible loss of life,the fact is that the minute israel agrees to a cease fire some religious fanatic will let loose another rocket at israel (peace)is not on the agenda for hamas they have prooved in the past! |
only borrow from a pessimist |
|
|
|
BLONDIE
Barsoom
491 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 12:45:06
|
Mim, it wasn't meant to address anything you brought up in your post. It was just a happening that everybody seems to have forgotten. As 'thedelboy' suggests, perhaps Obama will take a different view. After all it is the US administration who, at the moment, are abstaining from everything in spite of a unanimous decision by the Security Council.
Ah yes Sweeny, religion raises its ugly spectral head again. |
|
|
|
sweeny todd
Barsoom
United Kingdom
249 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 13:40:25
|
| as it always does blondie sadly, its not just about palestine and the freedom thereof to hamas its about jihad and martrdom as well which to an undoctrenated person is CRAZY! |
only borrow from a pessimist |
|
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 18:14:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by BLONDIE
Forgive me for mentioning it, but wasn't it the American administration that decreed that the Palestinians should have a free and fair election?? And wasn't it Hamas who were voted in as the legally elected Government??
Yes, BLONDIE, you are bang on to raise these key points, issues that seem to largely disappear in the MB lengthy contribution preceding it. You are quite right! Three years ago, there were elections for the whole of the Palestinian territory; according to independent observers, they were legitimate and fair. Hamas won – a result displeasing the Palestinian Authority (PA). Of course, in a world where oil is such an integral determining factor influencing national policies, and a world where Britain is not the only power to bow before American pressure, it was to be expected many of the corrupt Arab states would line up with the USA/Israel bloc in preference to supporting the rights of the expendable Palestinians. MB has detailed the ‘official’ attitudes of most of these states – attitudes best described as ‘cowardly silence’, objectively giving support to the Israeli attack on Gaza – an attack they could halt in a single moment by an embargo on oil shipments. To return to the election aftermath: in June 2007, a planned coup to oust Hamas in Gaza was spotted and pre-empted by Hamas with a counter-coup – hence, today, there are two Palestinian territories controlled by two different governments. [People forget this recent history, hence the tendency to talk of Hamas as some sort of illegitimate power, a dictatorial regime – whatever your views of Hamas politics, this is just not true.]
From its origins, Hamas seeks the abolition of the Zionist state of Israel – and indeed it is arguable there can be no peace in the Middle East until that objective comes about. No piece of land “belongs” to an elite “race”; and a state set up where non-members of that race are deprived of basic equality and democratic rights cannot be justified. Zionism was aided and supported for years by the Nazi government; in September 1935, when the Nazi Reichstag adopted the infamous “Nuremburg Laws”, proclaiming Jews an alien minority nationality, the Zionist Judische Rundshau editorially welcomed the new measures. (Indeed, when first published, the “Law” began by a citing the approval of the world Zionist movement!) Adolf Eichmann actively worked with the Zionists, visiting Palastine, learning Hebrew --- in the years up to and including 1939, most Palestinian imports came from Germany. (The British Navy spent much of this time stopping boats from Germany, with emigrating Jews, and sending them back to Germany!)
This is not to deny the later holocaust nor the Nazi attempts to wipe out the vibrant Yiddish culture and working class movement in eastern Europe -- but don’t ignore the fact that the Zionists also hated that very same culture! Nothing was more despised by them than the galut language, Yiddish – hence Hebrew was chosen as the language of Zionist colonization. It is in this sense, that Hamas argues the state of Israel must be de-Zionized, replaced, destroyed or whatever verb the reader might choose – all these verbs carrying the same meaning. [Bear in mind there is a sharp distinction between a ‘state’ (literally a body of armed personnel, a coercive institution that sends warplanes to bomb unarmed civilians) and the people who live in that state. In wanting the ‘state’ of Israel destroyed, this is not referring to the people who inhabit that state (not even to the Zionist settlers, who together with the rank and file Palestinians, have every right except one – the right to oppress another group because they are not Jewish/ or Palestinian or whatever), of wanting to drive them into the sea or their extermination in some other way. Rather, the enemy ‘state’ per se is the Israeli Defence Force, their cluster bombs and all the other hideous creatures of war. ]
So how did the ending of ceasefire and the present ‘military actions’ come about?
Throughout the entire six-month truce, Israel did not lift its siege – it continued with the blockade, in itself an act of war. The spark that began the current conflict was an Israeli initiative, on a date carefully chosen because the world’s attention would be elsewhere – November 4th and 5th, the date of the American elections! An Israeli military unit made an incursion into Gaza; killing a group of Palestinians, justifying their action by claiming their victims were digging a tunnel to be used for attacks against Israel. Hamas had little motivation to continue with what was a very one-sided ceasefire. The Israeli authorities banked on Hamas doing the only thing it could do – that is, fire off a few dozen ‘retaliation’ rockets. In other words, Israel was preparing for this incursion some six months ago, from the very beginning of the ceasefire. The present invasion is not an ad hoc reaction to provocations – it was very carefully planned and organized for a very long time.
|
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 19:09:12
|
Anubis my dear chap, you have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker. Firstly, No citizen in Israel gets secondary treatment regardless of their ethnicity. Native born are native born regardless of whether they are Jew, Arab, Bedouin or Christian. The only difference being that native born Arabs, Bedouin and Christians are not required to do national service.
Hebrew was not chosen in favour of a 'Galut' language. Hebrew was resuscitated by Eliezer Ben Yehuda as he concluded that the revival of Hebrew in Israel could unite all Jews worldwide. When you consider that Jews the world over were used to Hebrew as a 'specific domain' language and Yiddish was the lingua franca for European Jews only the idea was not that ludicrous.
There were 5 mayor periods of 'Aliyah' (emigration to Israel by Jews):
- The 1st Aliyah: being the first modern widespread wave of Zionist aliyah was primarily by Jews from Eastern Europe and Yemen starting about 1881/82 to 1903 with an estimated 25,000–35,000 Jews immigrated to Ottoman Syria.
The first group of immigrants from Yemen came approximately seven months before most of the Eastern European Jews who arrived in Palestine.
- The 2nd Aliyah, arguably the most important and influential aliyah, took place between 1904 and 1914, during which approximately 40,000 Jews immigrated into Ottoman Palestine, mostly from Russia and Poland, some from Yemen
- During WWI the attitude of the Ottoman administration to the Jews hardened as they saw their situation in the war deteriorate and in spite of the Zionist leadership officially declaring their support to the Ottoman empire.
- The 3rd Aliyah refers to the third wave of the Jewish immigration to Israel from Europe who came inspired by Zionist motives between the years 1919 and 1923.
The causes for the 3rd Aliyah are generally held to be:
1 - The Balfour Declaration of 1917 inspired hope and opened the way to officially sanctioned colonisation in Israel.
2 - The social concussions in Europe - after World War I a national awakening began amongst the eastern European nations following the birth of nine new countries.
3 - The revolution and Russian civil war led to a wave of pogroms. An estimated 100,000 Jews were killed and 500,000 left homeless. The Bolsheviks followed Marxist thinking on the "Jewish Question" and acted against organised Jewish life including Zionist organisations.
4 - In the new countries which were formed after World War I there was the "problem of the minorities". Battles erupted between small ethnic groups which had cliquish aspirations. With riots in divided countries like Poland.
5 - The economic crisis in Europe provided an additional motivating factor for Jews leaving with the hope of starting a new life in Israel.
6 - The closing of gates of the United States for new immigrants.
7 - The relative success of the absorption of the second immigration wave to Israel and the socialist ideologies of the wave.
- The 4th Aliyah (about 80,000 immigrants)came to Israel, mainly from the countries of eastern Europe, half of the immigrants from Poland and the rest from USSR, Rumania and Lithuania. In addition to that 12% of all immigrants were from Asia, mainly Yemen and Iraq.
1 - Many of the new Jewish immigrants whom arrived during this period, came as a result of increasing Anti-Semitism throughout Europe.
2 - The restrictive immigration quotas and laws of the United States kept Jews out.
- The 5th Aliyah is the Jewish immigration to Israel from Europe and Asia between the years 1929 and 1939. The Fifth immigration wave began after the 1929 Palestine riots, and after the comeback from the economic crisis in Israel in 1927, during the period of the Fourth Aliyah. The end of this immigration wave was with the start of World War II.
As for your comments on my previous post .... As I have repeatedly on both this and the previous Argus Forums made my views regarding any preemptive action on the part of Israel well known, I do not see any reason to reiterate this.
I am well aware that I become a convenient target for those who feel the need to go in for some 'sackcloth and ashes, breast pummelling public grieving'. Were it a newbie to the forums their ignorance of my stance may well be understood. However Blondie has had ample opportunity to read my posts on this as well as other matters and I am not going to rise to his, or anyone else's need to find a whipping boy.
I abhor the actions of the Israeli government when it runs contrary to simple humanitarian principles. However I am not going to let my abhorrence blind me to facts.
Who displaced these people that are now known as Palestinian? |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 21:42:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Anubis my dear chap, you have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker. Firstly, No citizen in Israel gets secondary treatment regardless of their ethnicity.
Provided the citizen of the Third Reich abided by the guiding principles of the National Socialist Party and always behaved in such a way that, had the F#470;hrer witnessed his actions, he would have approved, that citizen was assured freedom of action and could expect to freely speak on the platforms of the Nuremberg Party Days.
Provided the citizen of the USSR abided by the guiding principles of the Soviet state and always acted and behaved as he should according to the cadre of the Communist Party, as expounded by Cde Stalin, he enjoyed absolute freedom of action and thought, with rights to stand for election to the Supreme Soviet.
Many would say the provisos make the earned 'rights' quite meaningless -- rather like the answers detailed below:
http://english.aad-online.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1361
|
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 22:24:48
|
Nope dear, provided the citizen of Israel does not throw home made bombs, enter bus-stations wearing 'suicide-vests' or plant crude home made explosives with a rudimentary timing mechanism in public places.
I lived there. I know what was happening when I lived there and while I lived there I also knew what was being said about what was happening there. The views rarely came even close to being similar.
It is the intransigent attitudes of 'leaders' as well as the rather hysterical and partisan views of bystanders and sideline hoggers that are the main forces that enable these sort of lunacies to continue.
|
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
BLONDIE
Barsoom
491 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 12:35:55
|
It is interesting to note that the reply to Anubis came less than one hour after his posting. However be that as it may nothing that has been said is new. It's all history. What is more important is the actual aim of Israel in the present conflict. As I remember just before pulling out of Syria the Israeli administration decreed that the retreat should be flooded with those nasty little scatter bombs which are still killing the unsuspecting civilian population. Now it seems they are using phospher bombs which are outlawed under the Geneva Convention................but hey, so what. When did Israel listen to anybody? They just do their own thing regardless of the bloodshed and misery they cause. Nearly THREE HUNDRED CHILDREN killed...........now that's real four star General stuff !
Spelling error. |
Edited by - BLONDIE on 11/01/2009 12:37:24 |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 12:41:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by BLONDIE
It is interesting to note that the reply to Anubis came less than one hour after his posting.
You really seem like a pathetic old man sometimes Blondie. The way you seem so intent on utterly meaningless points while ignoring the really pertinent stuff. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
BLONDIE
Barsoom
491 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 01:53:15
|
Strangely enough I would not consider my remarks to be "utterly meaningless points" as you put it. Phospher bombs, scatter bombs, nearly THREE HUNDRED CHILDREN dead and who knows how many maimed and terrified.
'UTTERLY MEANINGLESS POINTS" Mim. I think it's about time you sat down, had a good long think and came up with some some "meaningful" comments. I am aware that the so called Children of God are your countrymen and women, I am also well aware that Hamas is not without fault, but the way the Israeli Government is handling the situation is close to genocide and scorched earth policy. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 03:02:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by BLONDIE
Strangely enough I would not consider my remarks to be "utterly meaningless points" as you put it. Phospher bombs, scatter bombs, nearly THREE HUNDRED CHILDREN dead and who knows how many maimed and terrified.
'UTTERLY MEANINGLESS POINTS" Mim. I think it's about time you sat down, had a good long think and came up with some some "meaningful" comments. I am aware that the so called Children of God are your countrymen and women, I am also well aware that Hamas is not without fault, but the way the Israeli Government is handling the situation is close to genocide and scorched earth policy.
No Blondie ... what tis utterly meaningless is that yo seem intent on stacking it all on me when you have been sharing a board with me for long enough to know what I have had to say on the subject any number of times.
I've had it up to here with individuals who think that just because I happen to be Jewish and have had links with Israel that I am somehow to be personally held accountable and answerable. I am also fed up to the back teeth with individuals who somehow manage to forget everything I have said on the subject but remember the fact that I am Jewish when it suits their need to do some breast pummelling.
The deaths of children is always very emotive. The deaths of civilians a nice cudgel to swing. Had you, or anyone else who has been on the Argus forums with me bothered to remember anything they would have remembered, as Camelot did, that I have always maintained that Israel should not act preemptively and when Israel has overreacted, I have always decried it and been among the first to do so.
However I am not going to be dragged into emotional reactive denouncements purely because it may serve to assuage either you or anyone else in their specious virtual grieving.
Yes Israel is going for it hell for leather and yes, it isn't humane. But there are many more inhumanities going on world wide; which in itself is no excuse to disregard the inhumanity of this one. What is though is the fact that Hamas and their ilk have never hesitated to use children and civilians as a shield from behind which they can continue their actions against Israel. They use them as shields and then cry 'inhumanity' when their 'shields' are damaged. What is also a fact is that this has been going on for longer then I have been alive and I am no spring chicken.
Your remarks are meaningless insofar as they contribute nothing to a discussion but serve only as an emotive outlet for your vicarious bleating. As for your 'Children of God' comment, it is utterly fatuitous and says more about your prejudices, misconceptions and personal bigotry then about the reality of mainstream Judaism and certainly nothing about the reality of how most Israeli view themselves.
|
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
BLONDIE
Barsoom
491 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 11:59:14
|
Mim, you seem to forget that back in the halcyon days of Forums, I was the originator of "Israel v Palestine / Arab v Jew" which was in fact the longest running thread on Forums. Further, when I attempted to restart it under the new regime it was promptly squashed for reasons best known to the faceless ones. I am well aware of your writings in the past and as usual you have taken things entirely the wrong way. My comments are nothing personal and you make the grave mistake in thinking that they are.
If my memory serves me correctly, I pointed out on a number of occasions that hopefully those that matter would read some of the many comments made not only by me, but many others, in that perhaps a little of our writings would penetrate for the good of all.
Obviously nobody listened. |
|
|
|
camelot
Barsoom
USA
481 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 23:53:02
|
One of the most ironic news items to come out of this latest fight...more Israeli soldiers have been killed by friendly fire than by Hamas. Never seems to fail... in any war the grunts and the civilians take the brunt whilst the tin hat generals and politicians bellow on outbout glory.
|
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 13/01/2009 : 00:38:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by BLONDIE
Mim, you seem to forget that back in the halcyon days of Forums, I was the originator of "Israel v Palestine / Arab v Jew" which was in fact the longest running thread on Forums. Further, when I attempted to restart it under the new regime it was promptly squashed for reasons best known to the faceless ones. I am well aware of your writings in the past and as usual you have taken things entirely the wrong way. My comments are nothing personal and you make the grave mistake in thinking that they are.
If my memory serves me correctly, I pointed out on a number of occasions that hopefully those that matter would read some of the many comments made not only by me, but many others, in that perhaps a little of our writings would penetrate for the good of all.
Obviously nobody listened.
I have forgotten nothing and I also remember why the thread was locked. That was courtesy of Tiger. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 13/01/2009 : 00:39:59
|
| Friendly fire seems to be the way more and more soldiers are getting injured or killed in modern conflicts Camelot. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 13/01/2009 : 14:49:32
|
And some more contextualisation:
The January 8 edition of The New York Times contained a provocative op-ed article by Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi entitled "What You Don't Know About Gaza." It presumes to inform its readers of "a few essential points that seem to be missing" from the public knowledge of the recent conflicts in Gaza. Several observers have already noted that Professor Khalidi has played with the facts, even to the point of offering outright falsehoods. WWW.CAMERA.ORG has two beautiful articles refuting the good professor. However, missing from his "few essential points" are some other facts which would illuminate the publics knowledge of Gaza and what has been going on.
About the Gazans, Professor Khalidi writes that "Most of the people living in Gaza are not there by choice," that they are the descendants of those who lived outside of Gaza and were driven there "by the Israeli Army in 1948." Whether they were expelled from their homes by the Israeli Army, the fled from the fighting, or they left at the urging of Arab leaders is a question that will be debated for years to come. However, the fact that they were kept in Gaza for the past 60 years is due to the Arab regimes that have ruled Israel's neighbours since 1948.
In the wake of Israel's War of Independence, the United Nations was ready to resettle all the Palestinian refugees in other countries. This would have been similar to the exchange of Greeks and Turks after World War I or the exchange between Hindus, Moslems, and Sikhs in the wake of India's independence from Great Britain and the creation of Pakistan. Initially, Syria, was planning to resettle Palestinian refugees in its northern regions. Palestinians, whenever they have been able to leave their refugee camps, have thrived and made a positive contribution to their new places of residence. The current prosperity of the Gulf States would not have been possible without the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have gone there.
So why haven't the Palestinian refugees been resettled? Because the Arab states have insisted on their repatriation in what is now Israel. The Arab states have been the force keeping them in their camps and in their misery, so they could be used as a weapon against Israel. In 1958, former UNRWA director Ralph Galloway declared that "The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel." In 1960, King Hussein of Jordan accused the Arab countries of using the Palestinian people for selfish political purposes. Note that both these statements were made prior to Israel's occupation of Gaza in 1967. (1)
About the occupation of Gaza, Professor Khalidi writes that "The Gazans have lived under Israeli occupation since the Six Day War of 1967. Israel is still considered to be an occupying power even though it removed its troops and settlers from the strip in 2005. ... As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility under the Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip." I leave it to others to answer the professor as to what extent Israel still "occupies" Gaza. CAMERA has done so quite well, and I urge the reader to consult them. But still, given the historical context of the occupation, there is more that has to be said.
Reading Professor Khalidi, one would think that the occupation of Gaza began in 1967, but it did not. It began in 1948, when Egypt occupied lands that the UN intended for a Palestinian Arab state and in effect annexed them. When Israel took Gaza in 1967, it became a successor occupier, and it is therefore important to examine its record in comparison with the Egyptians. At the height of the first intifada, Time Magazine noted that Gaza "in 1967 was one of the most underdeveloped swatches of land in the world." (2) Israel took over a region that had an unemployment rate of 60%, an average life expectancy of 48, an infant mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births. No more than 20% of the population had electricity, 14% had running water, and per capita income was $100 per year.
In 1988, Time was able to write that "half of Gaza's residents have running water, compared with 14% two decades ago. Nearly 80% own refrigerators and television sets, up from 3%. Per capita income rose in the West Bank from $300 in 1968 to $1,400 today, and in Gaza from $100 to about $1,000." By 2002, the Israeli occupation had resulted in even more progress in both the West Bank and Gaza. Per capita income had risen to $1,715, infant mortality had decreased to 15 per 1,000 live births, life expectancy had risen to 72, and Israeli-originated vaccination programs had virtually eradicated polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles. 90% of all home had electricity, while 85% had running water. During the Israeli occupation, the first universities in Gaza were established, while the percentage of children in schools rose far out of proportion to the increase in population.(3)
One would think that Israel, far more than Egypt, complied with the responsibilities imposed under the Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. However, the Palestinians seem to think otherwise. As PLO spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi put it, "Those of us who came under Israeli occupation in 1967 have languished in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip under a unique combination of military occupation, settler colonisation, and systematic oppression. Rarely has the human mind devised such varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalisation and persecution."(4)
I'm not surprised by the Palestinian mindset. One need not have been an admirer of Meir Khan to see some truth in his comment that toilets cannot buy loyalty or gratitude. Nor do I deny the Gaza Palestinians the right to decide for themselves which occupation, Egypt's or Israel's, was more oppressive or which one more brutal.
Certainly the universal Palestinian tendency to demonize the Israelis should come to no surprise. In the pre-state era, Arab League Musa Alami said of Palestine and the Jews, "I would prefer that the country remain impoverished and barren for another hundred years, until we ourselves are able to develop it on our own." (5) However, the readers of The New York Times should be allowed to see the Israeli occupation in its entirety and judge for themselves just how oppressive it has been.
There is, however, one more thing about the Israeli occupation that The Times's readers should keep in mind, and that is that Israel never intended to occupy Gaza for all time. Immediately after the 6 Day War, Israel announced its intentions to return all occupied territories in exchange for recognition and peace negotiations. In the face of Arab intransigence, Israel held on to the West Bank and Gaza. When negotiations finally came with Egypt in 1979, Israel tried to hand back Gaza along with the Sinai, but Egypt didn't want it back. At that point the only candidate to take Gaza was the PLO, still openly dedicated to Israel's destruction. When the Oslo process finally started, Israel couldn't wait to return Gaza to Arab administration, and indeed, by 2002, 90% of its inhabitants lived under PA jurisdiction.
With regard to what Professor Khalidi has said about the cease fire and about "war crimes" has been answered adequately elsewhere. With regard to Israeli attacks on civilians, even the Times is reporting, without embellishment, how Hamas is placing its military installations near hospitals, schools, and residences. The reader will learn how Hamas has taught the civilian population to climb to the roofs of apartment buildings which contain military targets to shield them. However, I would call attention to Professor Khalidi's final paragraph:
quote:
This war on the people of Gaza isn't really about rockets. Nor is it about "restoring Israel's deterrence," as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defence Forces chief of staff, in 2002: "The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.
here
There is a valid question as to whether Moshe Yaalon said what he is quoted as saying. Again, the reader is advised to consult the CAMERA web site. However, the readers of The New York Times must be reminded of what this war is about from the viewpoint of the Palestinians. If you ask them, they will say it's about "ending the occupation."
I will not quibble with that goal. All I ask is that you consider how they define "the occupation" - what is being occupied and who is doing the occupying. It is plain and open for everyone to see. You can find it stated in the textbooks used in Palestinian schools. It's set out in the curricula of the Palestinian Universities established under Israeli occupation. It's their in the media, and in PA and Hamas publications. To the Palestinian, the occupation is not just about the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. It's about West Jerusalem, Galilee, the Coastal Plain, and the Negev. It's Beer-Sheva and Tel Aviv as much as it's Hebron and Nablus. And the occupier is not the State of Israel. The occupier is every Jew who lives in what was once the British Mandate of Palestine. This is the occupation they seek to end. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
camelot
Barsoom
USA
481 Posts |
Posted - 14/01/2009 : 00:50:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
I lived there....
I think that is the problem with the Israeli government today. Not enough "Miriams" live there...or they are not being heard.
Blondie, this is not a love note I just think that centerist thinking has disappeared from Israeli (and U.S.) political thinking. When you hear the unedited comments from Israeli officials, (military officials are the worst), you get a picture of the true right wing fanatics. They sound pretty much like the rest of the wild eyed groups that promise to push people into the sea. Yet my neighbors and co-workers of the Jewish persuasion seem to readily acknowledge Israel's past errors along with a belief that Israel has a right to defend itself. |
|
|
|
Anubis
Calaspia
718 Posts |
Posted - 14/01/2009 : 10:18:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by camelot
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
I lived there....
I think that is the problem with the Israeli government today. Not enough "Miriams" live there...or they are not being heard.
Blondie, this is not a love note I just think that centerist thinking has disappeared from Israeli (and U.S.) political thinking. When you hear the unedited comments from Israeli officials, (military officials are the worst), you get a picture of the true right wing fanatics. They sound pretty much like the rest of the wild eyed groups that promise to push people into the sea. Yet my neighbors and co-workers of the Jewish persuasion seem to readily acknowledge Israel's past errors along with a belief that Israel has a right to defend itself.
So now there is virtually total agreement in Israel that Hamas must be exterminated:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4230933/Benjamin-Netanyahu-says-Hamas-must-be-removed-from-Gaza.html
People everywhere (well, apart from those living in Gaza) must realize that the Hamas representatives, overwhelmingly elected by popular vote in Gaza, must be removed. And presumably, the best way to do that is by sending in an army and making the elected government the specific target of assault.
Furthermore, don't let's have talk of 'equality' in this area. With all the imaginable modern military equipment, tanks, planes -- to say nothing of the enormous stock piles of nuclear weapons, the Israeli state also requires that their neighbours have nothing -- hence the emphasis on 'closing the tunnels' into Gaza (Israel's military arsenal, from USA and Britain, doesn't have to come furtively through tunnels -- the cargoes arrive under the stars and stripes banners; all 'open' above board .... not 'sneaky' like the odd rifle carried through a tunnel).
It's all a bit like reading the Nazi press as they describe their valiant battles with the Czech bandits, hiding behind hedges so they can make sneak attacks on the German protector, Heydrich. "cowardly" -- that's how the gunning down of Himmler's henchman was described ....
There can be no solution to this problem in the short term -- whatever 'peace' established by 'agreement' will be temporary; in the long term, world power will shift from the West to the East, oil will cease to be the fulcrum of international power politics, Israel's importance as a 'base in the Middle East' will vanish .... and will cease to exist as Washington's 'base' in that part of the world (the main reason for its existence today).
Unfortunately(?), all of us reading this text, will all be dead by then ..... |
|
|
|
BLONDIE
Barsoom
491 Posts |
Posted - 14/01/2009 : 12:52:10
|
Idle thought !
Just imagine Mr Obama sending the US Sixth Fleet to the shores of Gaza with the simple statement of "Stop it NOW................or else. Further ceasing the supply of ALL armaments to Israel. I reckon that would do the trick. Then the powers that be including Hamas could get around the table together and thrash out a solution. |
|
|
|
sweeny todd
Barsoom
United Kingdom
249 Posts |
Posted - 14/01/2009 : 14:07:18
|
| unfortunately blondie although your (stop now or else)comment was a hypothetical one im afraid it would fall on deaf ears,fanatics are not afraid of any conflict (indoctrination) has ruined them as logical thiking people! |
only borrow from a pessimist |
|
|
|
BLONDIE
Barsoom
491 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2009 : 00:05:20
|
| True and also very sad. But I can dream can't I? |
|
|
|
camelot
Barsoom
USA
481 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2009 : 01:01:43
|
[/i]Originally posted by Anubis[/i]
So now there is virtually total agreement in Israel that Hamas must be exterminated:
The logic is the same as that used to invade Afgahnistan. If the government of a country refuses to stop its people from causing harm to another country, that is, takes no real action to stop them, then that government is responsible and open to attack. I see the irony in a freely elected government being attacked by the people who set up the election. But if Hamas takes no action to stop people from firing a steady stream of rockets into Israel, then someone else will take the action Hamas failed to take.
This does not , of course , justify the "iron fist" response against soft civilian targets. Firing missiles into a crowded city street (or school!) because the bad guys ran inside is exactly the same logic used by a suicide bomber on a crowded Israeli bus. "I will kill them all and let God/Allah sort it out in the hereafter.."
|
Edited by - camelot on 15/01/2009 01:05:25 |
|
|
|
sweeny todd
Barsoom
United Kingdom
249 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2009 : 01:42:56
|
| yes blondie of course you can! be great if our dreams of if you dont mind a bit of neville c peace in our time could actualy happen ! |
only borrow from a pessimist |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2009 : 07:59:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by camelot
The logic is the same as that used to invade Afgahnistan. If the government of a country refuses to stop its people from causing harm to another country, that is, takes no real action to stop them, then that government is responsible and open to attack. I see the irony in a freely elected government being attacked by the people who set up the election. But if Hamas takes no action to stop people from firing a steady stream of rockets into Israel, then someone else will take the action Hamas failed to take.
This does not , of course , justify the "iron fist" response against soft civilian targets. Firing missiles into a crowded city street (or school!) because the bad guys ran inside is exactly the same logic used by a suicide bomber on a crowded Israeli bus. "I will kill them all and let God/Allah sort it out in the hereafter.."
Agreed, however when you are confronted with an opponent who as a rule places its military installations near hospitals schools and residences then this is, sadly, inevitable. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
BLONDIE
Barsoom
491 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2009 : 12:13:19
|
| Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That what the Israelis say. But is it true, after all no news media was allowed into Gaza. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6640 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2009 : 12:37:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by BLONDIE
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That what the Israelis say. But is it true, after all no news media was allowed into Gaza.
Actually no Blondie, this was reported by the Times even the Times is reporting, without embellishment:
quote:
Hamas members were ordered to swap their uniforms for civilian clothes and keep their guns tucked under their jackets.
here
How it is organised:
and Hamas itself in a rally:
|
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
Edited by - Miriam Binder on 15/01/2009 12:42:10 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Israel, Palestine, et al ...