Not sure if this is an OK topic but is anyone concerned about the Israel incident?

[LibraryLover]

Hey, there were people who WANTED the US economy to collapse (and thus opposed the government interventions to prevent such) on this very forum, because (from what I gather) such tribulations might usher in the end-times.

 

What can one say?

 

Bill

 

 

With all the gay men gone, what will become of fashion? No more good shoes, no more September issue of Vogue. One thousand years of denim jumpers. That's going to be rough.

Edited June 9, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Spy Car]

There must be men on both sides who are willing to meet on middle ground, and it doesn't seem to be happening, at least not now. Each side would have to truly embrace a "land for peace" deal, not just pay it lip-service. The fanatics on each side refuse to even give an inch (Rabin's assasination is a sad example of that). When you add in the potent anti-Israeli sentiment in nearby Iran (and I would add Syria), it makes it look like peace is getting farther and farther away. The fact that Achmedinejad (sp?) continues to call for the death of Israel is pretty scary to me, and I don't even live near the Mediterranean.

 

The thing about that is there was always a very large percentage of Israelis who would have made a land for peace deal (although the enthusiasm is less than it was before the rejection of Ehud Barak's Camp David Peace offer by Yasser Arafat in 2000 and the launching of the Second Intifada.

 

And most Palestinians are weary of the conflict and would support a land for peace deal. But a minority of maximalists on both sides who are determined to wing through violent means can (and do) make sure peace doesn't happen.

 

What a waste.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Not to change the subject, but this makes me wonder what all of this will look like in 200 years. If you think about it, we were once occupying British land. Actually we were once occupying Native American land and mistreating them to boot.

 

When I'm outside barbecuing, and I reflect that my home is only a couple of hundred yards from a major Native American burial mound (that is covered by a huge office building) it does give me a little perspective about condemning others too harshly for gaining homelands by force. It has been the way of the world throughout human history. And while it may not be the current ideal in world affairs, it is hardly unique.

 

And sometimes I think Israeli conquests get classed all my themselves, as if they are guilty of something that no other nation or civilization has done, when it is not really so.

 

Bill (who is not sure how barbecues fit into the story, but....:D)

[asta]

I respectfully disagree that it isn't important that a renowned news organization like the AP got caught altering official news photographs. I don't need or want a sanitized Orwellian version of international news- give it to me straight and let me make up my own mind.

If we cannot count on unbiased reporting (from everyone, including Fox) we are in big trouble, IMHO.

 

It wasn't AP, it was Reuters, and this is the second time they have been caught altering photographs from a combat zone. The first one was a couple of years ago in Beirut: they had (poorly) photoshopped several "explosion plumes" into a photo to make it appear as if there was extensive damage done that actually had not occurred. The first scandal is detailed here.

 

The second scandal was "broken" by blogger Little Green Footballs, not Fox News, and has gone viral. Reuters admitted that they cropped the photos just this morning.

 

Just because a major news organization reports something "off the wires" does not mean it is invalid.

 

 

a

[Heather in Neverland]

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by insinuating that one has to live in an actual combat zone to feel compassion or to have an opinion on a situation. That's really patronizing.

 

.

 

That's not what I was saying at all. You can have all the opinions you want. My point is that most Americans look at the situation through American lenses and we want to apply solutions that are peaceful, reasonable and logical in our minds. But we think differently then the terrorists do. You cannot possibly comprehend the mindset of someone willing to strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up along with a bus full of innocent people.

 

Take, for instance, the situation I mentioned earlier in regards to the use of Allah. A christian organization was translating the bible into the local language and they used the word "Allah" for the word "God"...which is what it means. The Muslims in the country responded by burning down christian churches left and right...churches that had nothing to do with the incident.

 

They were running white people off the road because they assumed they were christian, smashing their windows and in general, terrorizing them. We were sent multiple notices from the U.S. embassy telling us not to leave our house. And if we were crazy enough to leave our house then get rid of anything that might point to you being a christian, bumper stickers, jesus fish on your car, etc.

 

Now I can sit here and try to reason it out by saying "Geeze Louise people, it was ONE christian organization not ALL of them. At least target the right people. And Allah DOES mean God. Sure we can get into a big theological debate about whether it means the SAME god but all they were trying to do was give the locals a bible they could read in their own language. I mean, do you OWN the word Allah? No one else is allowed to utter it? And if we do you burn down our churches?"

 

Doesn't that all sound logical?

 

But logic does not come into play here. These are extremists who are hell-bent on burning down christian churches for some trumped up offense. These are people who CANED a woman in a public place near me for drinking a beer and who will put a Christian in jail FOR LIFE just for handing a bible to a Muslim.

 

THAT was my point. Not that you can't have an opinion. And yes what happened on 9/11 was tragic. But terrorism is alive and well and operating on a DAILY basis over here. We as Americans can sit there and say "Why can't they just all get along?" but we cannot comprehend their mindset and our "solutions" will never work for them.

[Rosie_0801]

I've been wondering this for years and would really like to know why it would be a stupid idea because I don't know enough to figure it out for myself, so I hope no one minds a slight hijack.

 

What if Jerusalem was to become a UN administered city? Move headquarters there from The Hague. There have been so called free cities before, like Danzig/Gdansk. It wouldn't solve the issues of X people wanting to own it, but it would solve the problems of the other guys owning it instead us.

 

Rosie

[sheryl]

Hi everyone! This is a good thread. I do not wish to go into verbal combat ;) myself....."man" makes decisions in/dependent of God. If I said the land Israel was in the Bible, then I was wrong. I thought I said that the "Promised Land" became known as Israel when it became a nation in 1948.

 

Jacob in the Bible had a name change from Jacob to Israel. His descendants comprise the Jewish people then living in Canaan and today living in "Israel".

 

Israel refers to the "land" and "people"!

 

Like I said read the Bible for yourself.

[junepep]

I've been wondering this for years and would really like to know why it would be a stupid idea because I don't know enough to figure it out for myself, so I hope no one minds a slight hijack.

 

What if Jerusalem was to become a UN administered city? Move headquarters there from The Hague. There have been so called free cities before, like Danzig/Gdansk. It wouldn't solve the issues of X people wanting to own it, but it would solve the problems of the other guys owning it instead us.

 

Rosie

 

Hey Rosie, I think that Jerusalem is just a rallying cry, if it were handed over on a silver platter they would find another. Muslim extremists would exterminate the Jewish people off of the face of the earth if they could. This isn't about land, it's about religious persecution and colonial practices on both sides going back for thousands of years. IMO it always has been.

 

I think that the best analogy would be the Irish National Liberation Army & Peoples Liberation Army. What do you really think would happen if N.Ireland were returned? Do you think that they would sit idly by, happy at last? Or do you think that (after fully consolidating their power) they'd then move to "punish" the British for forcing them to lose so many in the fight? Again, religious persecution and colonial practices have bred this, but it's a slightly more recent conflict, with fewer followers.

 

There just doesn't seem to be any true way to put a stop to the hate. It's as if some people simply haven't any empathy available for people different from themselves. Maybe it's just easy to put hate and blame on others. We have enough examples of people doing so in our own country to have more than a passing acquaintance with the issue and we haven't been able to stop it here either.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

I don't know when you were there, but I do know that, in 2005, terrorists killed a 10 month old baby, and it led to riots in Hebron.

 

 

a

 

 

I think we should all keep our data correct

 

 

asta

 

In the spirit of keeping data correct, there was no 10 month old killed in 2005 that led to riots in Hebron. If I am wrong please share.

[asta]

In the spirit of keeping data correct, there was no 10 month old killed in 2005 that led to riots in Hebron. If I am wrong please share.

 

Well, crap. Now I have to figure out where I read that. I read it in more than one place, too.

 

a

 

 

ETA: Ah... here it is, I had the date wrong:

 

April 1, 2001

Web posted at: 9:34 a.m. EDT (1334 GMT)

 

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Two children on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are being buried on Sunday.

 

Jewish settlers are burying a 10-month-old girl killed by sniper fire while Palestinians are burying an 11-year-old boy shot during clashes with Israeli forces.

 

The funerals mark the end of one of the bloodiest weeks since the Palestinian intifada began last September.

 

Israeli forces Sunday arrested six members of Force 17 -- the security group responsible for protecting Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat Ã- at a checkpoint between Palestinian and Israel controlled territories.

 

Israel launched military attacks against Force 17 bases during the week, saying intelligence reports indicated the group was implicated in the escalating violence.

 

Jewish settlers had said they would not bury the baby -- killed on Monday -- until Israel captured the Palestinian-populated hill from where the gunfire originated.

 

While Israel has not met the demand, the baby will be buried in Hebron to give her family the usual seven-day Jewish mourning period before the Passover holiday.

 

The funeral comes a day after Palestinians buried six people killed in clashes with Israeli security forces.

 

Tens of thousands of Palestinians marched in the funeral processions. Five of them died in street battles in Nablus on Friday and one was killed in Ramallah as Palestinians marked "Land Day," commemorating the deaths of six Arabs 25 years ago while protesting land confiscations in northern Israel.

 

Several hundred others were wounded on Friday, and clashes continued on Saturday as several people were reported wounded at two border crossings outside Gaza.

 

Friday's violence punctuated one of the bloodiest days yet in the six-month-old Palestinian uprising.

source

[asta]

Are you familiar with the recent sloppy assassination the Mossod did to a Hamas in Dubai? They were identified by hotel cameras, and they have learned their lesson well. This latest incident was way too aggressive for what they wanted done. Israel screwed up, and thank God the world knows it.

 

1. It's Mossad.

 

2. Mossad doesn't screw up. Everything they do is intentional. Just because someone outside of Mossad is not privy to the "why" does not mean something is unintentional.

 

But we aren't discussing the Mossad now, are we?

 

 

a

[asta]

And how would you know they don't screw up? I see you're a member of the elite spelling police, but would you like to admit to more?

 

Nope.

[Spy Car]

It wasn't AP, it was Reuters, and this is the second time they have been caught altering photographs from a combat zone. The first one was a couple of years ago in Beirut: they had (poorly) photoshopped several "explosion plumes" into a photo to make it appear as if there was extensive damage done that actually had not occurred. The first scandal is detailed here

 

This paints a very false impression. "Reuters" did not alter the Beirut photographs, the fraud was the work of an individual photographer in their employ. When Adnan Hajj's deception was discovered he was fired and his photographs were removed from the accessible Reuters archive.

 

It is contemptible that a photojournalist would alter images for propaganda purposes. But Reuters was not involved beyond inadvertently distributing a photo they didn't realize had been doctored. When they became aware of the deception they apologized and took appropriate actions.

 

Bill

[asta]

This paints a very false impression. "Reuters" did not alter the Beirut photographs, the fraud was the work of an individual photographer in their employ. When Adnan Hajj's deception was discovered he was fired and his photographs were removed from the accessible Reuters archive.

 

It is contemptible that a photojournalist would alter images for propaganda purposes. But Reuters was not involved beyond inadvertently distributing a photo they didn't realize had been doctored. When they became aware of the deception they apologized and took appropriate actions.

 

Bill

 

Correct.

 

Poor editorial control, though.

 

 

a

[Spy Car]

Correct.

 

Poor editorial control, though.

 

 

a

 

Two of my closest friends happen to to be photojournalists, both of whom were in Beirut during the 1982 war, and one of whom was in Beirut during the more conflict where the picture was altered. I have a pretty good idea how the spot-news photography business works. With instant demand on a global basis a news agency simply can not vet every photograph with CSI-like study.

 

Agencies have to rely on the ethics of the people who work for them. occasionally they get burned, as Reuters was in the case of the doctored photo in Beirut. But this is not "poor editorial" control, it is an example of a reputable news agency being duped by a photographer. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Bill

[Mejane]

To play devil's advocate, what is a nation to do when it had conquered territory where the leadership of the opposition has a charter that seeks to destroy their state, and is willing to use terrorism and violence to achieve their aims?

 

Believe me, I'm not overly pleased with many aspects of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or with the treatment of Palestianians in Israel proper, but the Palestinian people have their own share of the blame for some of the misery they have endured, as they have chosen violence as the means of their national struggle, and that choice has natural repercussions that the Israelis would be foolish to ignore.

 

Bill

 

I agree with you. As I stated in a previous post, I think there have been reprehensible acts committed by both sides. Imo, both leaders need to man up and do what's right - not what's Biblical, what's right - for their peoples.

 

That said, there are laws being broken by Israel. We exist through our laws. One country cannot simply choose to ignore them, but that is precisely what Israel has been doing for 35 years. The real question is why has it been allowed to continue?

Edited June 9, 2010 by Mejane

[asta]

I'm sure everything will be fine now. The US President has just announced $400 million in aid for Palestine.

 

 

a

[Mejane]

I'm sure everything will be fine now. The US President has just announced $400 million in aid for Palestine.

 

 

a

 

Put it on our tab, China! :glare:

[hornblower]

Drop in the bucket compared to what the US hands out to Israel.

 

Congressional Research Service report Dec 2009

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

 

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel.

In August 2007, the Bush Administration announced that it would increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the next decade. The agreement calls for incremental annual increases in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to Israel, reaching $3 billion a year by FY2012.

 

For FY2010, the Obama Administration requested $2.775 billion in FMF to Israel. Congress provided $555 million of Israel's total FY2010 FMF appropriation in P.L. 111-32, the FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act. The remaining funds are contained in H.R. 3081 and S. 1434, the House and Senate’s FY2010 Foreign Operations Appropriations bills respectively, which await further action in both chambers.

 

(emph added)

 

I'm sure everything will be fine now. The US President has just announced $400 million in aid for Palestine.

 

 

a

[Spy Car]

I agree with you. As I stated in a previous post, I think there have been reprehensible acts committed by both sides. Imo, both leaders need to man up and do what's right - not what's Biblical, what's right - for their peoples.

 

I could not agree more.

 

That said, there are laws being broken by Israel. We exist through our laws. One country cannot simply choose to ignore them, but that is precisely what Israel has been doing for 35 years. The real question is why has it been allowed to continue?

 

International laws are being broken by Israel. There is no question about that. When Hamas fires rockets into Sderot they are also violating the moral law and committing War Crimes. The same when suicide bombers kill civilians.

 

One moral outrage does not excuse the other. But the problems don't occur in a vacuum.

 

My wife just left to go walking with one of the best girlfriends, a lovely woman from Palestine, and tonight I hope to see one of my best friends, a Jewish Nationalist who hopes to emigrate to Israel. Both good people.

 

The violence is senseless and serves only the hate-mongers who are like mirror-images of one another. But there are decent people on both sides of this conflict and I pray (in my secular way) that reason prevails over hate.

 

Bill

[ImmigrantsWife]

Hi Asta,

While I thank you for the clarification, I just wanted to let you know that I'm pretty up to date on most of the Israeli - Lebanese conflicts. We also get a lot of info firsthand from in-laws who live all over Lebanon, including soldiers who lived in the southern zone and served with the Israelis when they occupied it.

I was pretty sure AP and Reuters are close so when I saw the photo with an AP credit, I assumed that they were both guilty of whitewashing, hence my statement about "reliable" news sources.

I wasn't putting down Fox, btw; it's one of the only major news sources I can actually stand. But there has been a time or two when I feel even Fox wasn't fair and balanced.

 

Rosie,

I don't think the Jews would accept a UN-occupied Jerusalem. I think they are pretty cognizant of the anti-Israel feeling towards them, directly from leaders of the UN itself, not just voting members. Also, it seems that since the UN peace-keeping soldiers will not get involved in any war (in fact, they sat and watched while Hezbollah kidnapped that Israeli soldier in summer 2006, which set off the entire war that year) it really wouldn't help to keep fanatics from either side in line.

 

 

And wow, a sniper killing a 10-month old baby. Now that's cold, I don't care who you think are the bad guys.

[hornblower]

Has anyone read Jimmy Carter's book? Palestine: Peace not Apartheid?

 

I heard him interviewed several times when it was published & I read several of his articles & Op Ed pieces which came out around that time

(here's one) and I put it in my TBR (to be read) List but I haven't got to it yet. (kinda embarassing given that it's been a few years since it came out...)

[mirth]

It wasn't AP, it was Reuters, and this is the second time they have been caught altering photographs from a combat zone.

 

Remember the Reuters fake Soviet submarine photo (taken from a movie about the Titanic)?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/10/pressandpublishing2

 

from article above ...

"The incident is doubly embarrassing for the agency since it follows a case in August last year in which it published an image by a freelancer of Israeli bombings in Lebanon that had been dramatised using photo manipulation, with the addition of smoke rising from allegedly burning buildings.

 

 

After that gaffe, Reuters promised to tighten up its controls on material being put out in its name."

[pqr]

oh, that's hilarious! :smilielol5:

 

Why???

 

Rather than simply jump on the band wagon (and no I do not only read Fox, actually I am partial to BBC) show how Fox is MORE biased than other mainline news outlets. I constantly hear snide remarks about FOX and agree that it does take a Conservative viewpoint but conservatism does not make it wrong or irrelevant. Let me see how it is MORE biased than others. Demonstrate how they are more factually innacurate than others and do not bring up Beck et al as they are commentators not journalists.

Edited June 9, 2010 by pqr

[asta]

Hi Asta,

While I thank you for the clarification, I just wanted to let you know that I'm pretty up to date on most of the Israeli - Lebanese conflicts. We also get a lot of info firsthand from in-laws who live all over Lebanon, including soldiers who lived in the southern zone and served with the Israelis when they occupied it.

I was pretty sure AP and Reuters are close so when I saw the photo with an AP credit, I assumed that they were both guilty of whitewashing, hence my statement about "reliable" news sources.

I wasn't putting down Fox, btw; it's one of the only major news sources I can actually stand. But there has been a time or two when I feel even Fox wasn't fair and balanced.

 

No biggie. It was probably picked up by AP after the fact. I just keyed on it because of Reuters' history.

 

 

And wow, a sniper killing a 10-month old baby. Now that's cold, I don't care who you think are the bad guys.

 

Yeah. Like Bill said, war is hell.

 

 

a

[Mejane]

Drop in the bucket compared to what the US hands out to Israel.

 

 

 

Yes. Supporting both sides; that's what you call ironical. :001_rolleyes:

[Wayfaring Stranger]

And wow, a sniper killing a 10-month old baby. Now that's cold, I don't care who you think are the bad guys.

 

The devil is in the details.

 

It sounds like the gun man (Muhammad x3 Amro) tried to kill the girls father (Yitzhak Pass) who is a leader of a violent Jewish settler cell but kills the girl (Shalhevet Pass) instead. Four months later Mr. Pass and his brother-in-law kill four people in their car (Kheyder Jadu'a 'Abd al-Jabber Kan'an age 27, Muhammad Salameh a-Tameizi age 23, Muhammad Helmi a-Tameizi age 23 and Diaa' Marwan a-Tameizi under 1 year) and wound several others.

 

Mr. Pass is arrested and sentenced to 2 years in jail and Mr. Amro is given 3 life sentences.

 

http://www.forward.com/articles/7788/

 

'Pass’s wife Oriya, interviewed in the daily Yediot Aharonot last week, flatly denied her husband’s guilt in the killings, but added: “We don’t weep when an Arab child is killed, whatever the circumstances.”'

 

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

 

This is sad all around.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Father of Pearl

[mycalling]

Drop in the bucket compared to what the US hands out to Israel.

You beat me to it.:D

 

$2.775 Billion to Israel last year alone. Most of this is for "Security Assistance." We're only in the 3rd year of the Memorandum of Understanding:

The MOU outlines defense aid to be provided to Israel by the Americans to the tune of $30 billion in the next decade.

Imagine if US public schools had received that instead.:glare:

[Rosie_0801]

Rosie,

I don't think the Jews would accept a UN-occupied Jerusalem. I think they are pretty cognizant of the anti-Israel feeling towards them, directly from leaders of the UN itself, not just voting members. Also, it seems that since the UN peace-keeping soldiers will not get involved in any war (in fact, they sat and watched while Hezbollah kidnapped that Israeli soldier in summer 2006, which set off the entire war that year) it really wouldn't help to keep fanatics from either side in line.

 

 

I wasn't talking about filling the place with "peace-keepers." I meant filling the place with a nice mix of international bureaucrats! Probably war would just continue around them though.

 

Rosie

[Mrs Mungo]

I could not agree more.

 

 

 

International laws are being broken by Israel. There is no question about that. When Hamas fires rockets into Sderot they are also violating the moral law and committing War Crimes. The same when suicide bombers kill civilians.

 

One moral outrage does not excuse the other. But the problems don't occur in a vacuum.

 

My wife just left to go walking with one of the best girlfriends, a lovely woman from Palestine, and tonight I hope to see one of my best friends, a Jewish Nationalist who hopes to emigrate to Israel. Both good people.

 

The violence is senseless and serves only the hate-mongers who are like mirror-images of one another. But there are decent people on both sides of this conflict and I pray (in my secular way) that reason prevails over hate.

 

Bill

 

The other little problem that confuses the issue is the fact that Israel frequently does the dirty work of the international community. The US has given Israel intelligence in the past that the US didn't want to act on. I can't blame Israel for taking action in some cases.

 

Ultimately, there are entire countries that want Israel wiped off the map and all of the Jews dead. They do far less to protect themselves than what the US is doing around the globe.

[mycalling]

 

The other little problem that confuses the issue is the fact that Israel frequently does the dirty work of the international community. The US has given Israel intelligence in the past that the US didn't want to act on.

I'd like to read up about this. Do you have links?

Ultimately, there are entire countries that want Israel wiped off the map and all of the Jews dead.

Many of those countries think the same thing about the US because we are funding and backing Israel.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'd like to read up about this. Do you have links?

 

There is a lot of information out there about this. I was recalling a specific town hall meeting by Senator Christopher Shays, but there are tons of news articles about the bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor, etc.

 

 

Many of those countries think the same thing about the US because we are funding and backing Israel.

 

That's hardly the only reason they also think that of the US. However, the US is large nation across an even larger ocean with an extremely large military presence in that region. We're not really in the same position as Israel.

[Spy Car]

The other little problem that confuses the issue is the fact that Israel frequently does the dirty work of the international community. The US has given Israel intelligence in the past that the US didn't want to act on. I can't blame Israel for taking action in some cases.

 

Tis so.

 

There is someone we want to "go away" and we can't act, there is another way.

 

In 2006 we (and the Israelis) were quite keen to test our "bunker-buster" bombs against (Iranian designed) Hizbullah fortifications to see how they might do against Iranian nuclear targets.

 

There are many other examples, but I don't want to endanger national security.

 

Ultimately, there are entire countries that want Israel wiped off the map and all of the Jews dead. They do far less to protect themselves than what the US is doing around the globe.

 

I really don't think there really are entire nations that want to wipe Israel off the map. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is an obvious exception, but he is a clown (a dangerous clown) who stole an election and doesn't really hold the position of power in Iran.

 

The other states in the region have largely accommodated themselves to Israel (Syria wants the Golan back) and would prefer economic integration to war. The same thing is true of most Palestinians (granting there is a powerful minority that has other ideas).

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

(granting there is a powerful minority that has other ideas).

 

 

Really, that's the ultimate problem with Israel and the entire GWOT.

[Spy Car]

Really, that's the ultimate problem with Israel and the entire GWOT.

 

I'm not sure I'm following your meaning.

 

Bill

[pqr]

Tis so.

 

 

 

 

I really don't think there really are entire nations that want to wipe Israel off the map. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is an obvious exception, but he is a clown (a dangerous clown) who stole an election and doesn't really hold the position of power in Iran.

 

The other states in the region have largely accommodated themselves to Israel (Syria wants the Golan back) and would prefer economic integration to war. The same thing is true of most Palestinians (granting there is a powerful minority that has other ideas).

 

Bill

 

Really?

 

Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia (or at least huge segments of their populations which in essence make up the nation) may disagree with you.

 

Syria wants the Golan back but to say that she would not want to see Israel destroyed is self delusion. Just what do you base your statement on? Perhaps it is the 9 June 2010 statement by Syrian diplomat Rania Al Rifaiy to the UN when he said

 

"This is a state that is built on hatred, discrimination, oppression and a paranoid feeling of superiority. Hatred is widespread, taught to even small children, who are taught to use weapons, and who are taught to sign missiles that will be fired at Arabs.

Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school. And I quote “With my teeth I will rip your flesh. With my mouth I will suck your blood.”

The Israeli systematic violations of human rights and illegitimate occupation has destabilized the whole region, bringing it to the brink of war on so many occasions. We appeal to the international community to put an end to the Israeli impuntiy and to their extreme, extremely brutal policies inside and outside occupied arab territories".

 

 

Yes, you are absolutely correct these words are are strongly indicative of a true desire for economic integration rather than being reminiscent of The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion

Edited June 10, 2010 by pqr

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not sure I'm following your meaning.

 

Bill

 

What I mean is when you said:

 

"(granting there is a powerful minority that has other ideas)."

 

You said a mouthful. It's a minority but a vocal, powerful, wealthy group of extremists perpetuating the whole GWOT conflict (maybe it's wrong of me in some ways to see the Israel/Palestine issue as part of that, but I do).

 

The problem with thinking one can resolve the issue peacefully is in assuming everyone involved *wants* peace. There are *plenty* of people in this vocal, powerful, wealthy minority who in no way desire peace.

[Spy Car]

What I mean is when you said:

 

"(granting there is a powerful minority that has other ideas)."

 

You said a mouthful. It's a minority but a vocal, powerful, wealthy group of extremists perpetuating the whole GWOT conflict (maybe it's wrong of me in some ways to see the Israel/Palestine issue as part of that, but I do).

 

The problem with thinking one can resolve the issue peacefully is in assuming everyone involved *wants* peace. There are *plenty* of people in this vocal, powerful, wealthy minority who in no way desire peace.

 

Yes, I agree. We just ought not make the mistake of thinking *no one* wants peace, because that is not the case.

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, I agree. We just ought not make the mistake of thinking *no one* wants peace, because that is not the case.

 

Bill

 

I don't disagree with that. :)

[Spy Car]

I don't disagree with that. :)

 

I didn't suspect you would :)

 

Bill

[pqr]

I really don't think there really are entire nations that want to wipe Israel off the map. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is an obvious exception, but he is a clown (a dangerous clown) who stole an election and doesn't really hold the position of power in Iran.

 

The other states in the region have largely accommodated themselves to Israel (Syria wants the Golan back) and would prefer economic integration to war. The same thing is true of most Palestinians (granting there is a powerful minority that has other ideas).

 

 

Yes, I agree. We just ought not make the mistake of thinking *no one* wants peace, because that is not the case.

 

Bill

 

 

Who? Outside Egypt (which does have diplomatic relations) and possibly Jordan or Morrocco, just which major party or national leader in the Arab World has called for peace while granting Israel's right to exist and to defend herself? Which major leader has offered talks WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS such as acceptance of the 67 boundaries? Which major leader wants peace with Israel rather than peace without Israel?

 

Seriously, who? When you get beyond some rhetoric and a few platitudes designed to persuade the gullible, in the West, of their intentions I have seen precious little hard evidence that there is any great desire for peace with the Israeli State.

 

I sincerely hope your comment about people wanting peace is correct, I simply want to know who you are speaking of.

Edited June 11, 2010 by pqr

[Jyniffrec]

Which major leader has offered talks WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS such as acceptance of the 67 boundaries?

 

What major leader would ever go to talks without some preconditions in this kind of political situation? This is politics and they are politicians with goals and national interests after all.

[pqr]

What major leader would ever go to talks without some preconditions in this kind of political situation? This is politics and they are politicians with goals and national interests after all.

 

 

So what you are saying is that they are not really interested in peace?

[Jyniffrec]

So what you are saying is that they are not really interested in peace?

 

Peace at what cost?

[missiemick]

We've been watching watching the whole situation closely for the last several months. We expect a war some time this summer . . .

Eddie Chumney (hebroots.org -- "5" minute update) and Monte Judah (lionlamb.net -- Fri. 8:00) both give a very good synopsis each week.

 

Mickie

[Jyniffrec]

I think it is interesting that no one commented on Father of Pearl's (my dh) quotes about the children who were killed and the comments of the mother of the first child (the Israeli). As long as this attitude continues on the side of the Israelis there will be no peace. They are the stronger side. I have seen it with my own eyes. I was called a Nazi by Israeli settlers just for standing in the road next to Palestinians that I didn't even know. I was just a student who got caught in the web of a tense day. I saw more that day and I will never, ever forget it. Up until that point I had been completely supportive of Israel - out of ignorance.

[pqr]

Peace at what cost?

 

The quote was

"We just ought not make the mistake of thinking *no one* wants peace, because that is not the case.-Spycar"

 

If one is interested in peace and a precondition for talks is that Israel agree to the 67 boundaries then you are asking one side to make a huge concession just to get you to the table. This does not demonstrate interest in peace, this is a political ploy.

 

As to at what cost, that is generally what talks are for not a decision made before talks begin.

 

I ask who in the Arab World (outside Egypt and possibly Jordan and Morrocco) has demonstrated a genuine interest in peace WITH Israel rather than simply seeing the state destroyed and having peace in the absence of Israel?

 

 

I am not taking a side here, though I do obviously do have my own opinions, I am simply arguing that to say that there are those in the Arab World who genuinely want peace does require an indication of who one is talking about.

Edited June 11, 2010 by pqr

[Jyniffrec]

I ask who in the Arab World (outside Egypt and possibly Jordan and Morrocco) has demonstrated a genuine interest in peace WITH Israel rather than simply seeing the state destroyed and having peace in the absence of Israel?

 

I don't think you get it. Very few would even be talking about Israel being destroyed if they were acting justly and not starving the Palestinians.

[pqr]

I don't think you get it. Very few would even be talking about Israel being destroyed if they were acting justly and not starving the Palestinians.

 

 

So there is no interest in actual talking. As the Israelis would hotly dispute your comment what you really are saying is that until Israel makes the concessions that are demanded of her there will be no talks.

 

Justly in whose eyes? You are letting your bias intrude on the discussion. I am sure many in Israel would state that they are justly defending themselves while others would agree with you.

 

As to the destruction of the State of Israel this has been a call since the founding of the nation, it is not a recent phenomena. It predates accusations of starving the Palestinians.

 

So we agree that there is no one in the Arab World who currently wants peace WITH Israel as she exists today?

Edited June 11, 2010 by pqr

[Jyniffrec]

So there is no interest in actual talking. As the Israelis would hotly dispute your comment what you really are saying is that until Israel makes the concessions that are demanded of her there will be no talks.

 

Justly in whose eyes? You are letting your bias intrude on the discussion. I am sure many in Israel would state that they are justly defending themselves while others would agree with you.

 

As to the destruction of the State of Israel this has been a call since the founding of the nation, it is not a recent phenomena. It predates accusations of starving the Palestinians.

 

They've been talking for 60 years and things have only gotten worse for the Palestinians. But what I say isn't necessarily how everyone in the Middle East feels so I wouldn't draw conclusions so quickly.

 

The Israelis have to defend themselves so strongly because of the atrocities they have committed. I'm not giving in on this. I'm tired of the lines being blurred in this horrible situation. If I am biased, I am biased towards there being value in all humans, not one nation over another. If the Israelis were willing to live peaceably then there would be peace. But they want the water under Gaza without the Gazans having access to it. And they want the land that their ancestors had, never mind that there are people living there. How about this? Maybe they can live peaceably side by side if the Israelis begin thinking of the Palestinians as human beings instead of dogs. That might be a nice beginning point. Bring that one to the negotiating table.

 

By the way, I don't agree to disagree. :glare:

 

I'm done for now. Sorry if I hijacked the thread. I'm dropping it.