DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on November 15, 2012, 08:23:32 AM
-
Israel launches aerial assaults on Gaza; Hamas leader killed
By Isabel Kershner and Fares Akram
New York Times
mercurynews.com
Posted: 11/14/2012 09:40:39 PM PST
November 15, 2012 5:41 AM GMTUpdated: 11/14/2012 09:40:40 PM PST
JERUSALEM -- Israel on Wednesday launched the most ferocious assault on Gaza in four years after persistent Palestinian rocket fire, hitting at least 20 targets in aerial attacks that killed the top military commander of Hamas, damaged Israel's fragile relations with Egypt and escalated the risks of a new war in the Middle East.
The Israel Defense Forces coupled the intensity of the airstrikes with the threat of a ground invasion of Gaza recalling its three-week operation in the winter of 2008-2009, shifting infantry brigades and calling up some specialist reserves. The Israelis also warned all Hamas leaders in Gaza to stay out of sight or risk the same fate as the Hamas military commander, Ahmed al-Jabari, who was killed in a pinpoint airstrike as he was riding in a car down a Gaza street.
"We recommend that no Hamas operatives, whether low level or senior leaders, show their faces above ground in the days ahead," the Israel Defense Forces said in a Twitter message. Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, the military spokesman, said, "If I were a senior Hamas activist, I would look for a place to hide."
The escalation in hostilities between Israel and Hamas, the militant organization regarded by Israel as a terrorist group sworn to its destruction, prompted Egypt to recall its ambassador and demand meetings of the Security Council and the Arab League.
Israel had already been facing growing tensions with its Arab neighbors. Israel has confronted
Advertisement
lawlessness on its border with Sinai, including cross-border attacks. It recently fired twice into Syria, which is caught in a civil war, after munitions fell in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and it has absorbed more than 750 rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel this year. The rockets have hit homes, caused injuries and frightened the population. On Saturday, Gaza militants fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli army jeep patrolling the Israel-Gaza border, injuring four soldiers.
It is both the rocket fire and the buildup of advanced weaponry in Gaza that has increasingly tested Israeli officials and prompted such an intense attack, according to military experts in Israel.
"Deterrence has to be maintained," said Gabi Siboni, a colonel in the reserves who leads the military and strategic affairs program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. "It was only a question of time until this moment arrived."
The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza said the Israeli attacks killed at least five others besides Jabari, including a baby and a 7-year-old girl, and had wounded at least 40.
The ferocity of the airstrikes provoked rage in Gaza, where Hamas said the campaign amounted to war and promised a harsh response. It quickly launched dozens of rockets into southern Israel. Several barrages struck the city of Beersheba, shattering windows and damaging cars but causing no injuries.
Civil-defense authorities in Israel, anticipating retaliation, instructed residents within a 25-mile radius of Gaza not to go to school or work Thursday. Many remained indoors or congregated in bomb shelters.
Mordechai said the operation "would continue and grow." The military said it was designed to "severely impair the command and control chain of the Hamas leadership."
By targeting Jabari, 52, the Israelis said they had killed the mastermind of virtually every attack to come from Gaza in recent years, including the kidnapping in 2006 of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Jabari was involved in the negotiations to release Shalit, whose five years as a prisoner was a source of national anguish. When he was finally released through Egypt, Jabari made a rare public appearance alongside him.
The attacks on Gaza were undertaken at a delicate time for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, nine weeks before elections, and may have partly reflected his administration's own sense that it needed to send a message of deterrence beyond Gaza. In a statement, Netanyahu praised the military for the operation and said: "We will not accept a situation in which Israeli citizens are threatened by the terror of rockets. No country would accept this."
In Washington, the White House issued a carefully worded statement saying that President Barack Obama had spoken with both Netanyahu and President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt, reiterating to both that the United States supports Israel's right to self-defense from the rocket attacks. The statement said that Obama had urged Netanyahu to "make every effort to avoid civilian casualties," and that Obama and Morsi "had agreed on the importance of working to de-escalate the situation as quickly as possible."
http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx?q=http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_21999818/israel-launches-aerial-assaults-gaza-hamas-leader-killed (http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx?q=http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_21999818/israel-launches-aerial-assaults-gaza-hamas-leader-killed)
-
'bout time!
Israeli Airforce Kills Top Hamas Commander Ahmed Al-Jabari (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAzGjzyXGLI#)
"By targeting Jabari, 52, the Israelis said they had killed the mastermind of virtually
every attack to come from Gaza in recent years, including the kidnapping in 2006 of
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit"
-
Miraculous Recovery by Injured Gaza Man?
Pallywood is in high gear as Gazans dupe BBC viewers in time-honored style.
By Gil Ronen
11/15/2012
Barely one day into the fighting in Hamas-run Gaza, the locals are hard at work playing the victim for the world's press.
Footage from the BBC captured by watchdog group Honest Reporting shows a heavy man lying on the ground and being carried away by residents, apparently after being injured by an Israeli attack.
Moments later, that same man again fills the frame, except he is walking about and obviously unhurt.
The widespread staging of such victim situations is a favored tactic of Arabs fighting Israel and has come to be known as "Pallywood." Because Israel is stronger militarily, the Arabs cling to the underdog image of poor refugees under occupation and siege by evil Israelis, thus eliciting sympathy.
Exposed: Pallywood Returns to Gaza (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvaUmIB87-M#)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162130#.UKU_0odJHGC (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162130#.UKU_0odJHGC)
-
The people who are forced to live in Gaza certainly deserve sympathy. It is a squalid impoverished mess, thanks to the Israelis.
-
Notice how it's always the Israelis fault, and never any of the Muslim countries who could easily embrace and accept their fellow "Arabs" into their own country, or provide them with some of their oil rich fortunes. Naaaa....let's bash the one little country that actually has a functioning democracy in the region. Yea, that's the ticket
-
Israel made those people refugees. Israel is the root cause of their suffering.
-
Israel made no one anything. The UN made remade Israel. The Arab countries that then atttacked Israel, helped produce the Palestinian refugees. Those same Arab nations have done squat for their fellow Arabs since, outside of use them as political fodder, in in Hamas' case, human shields
No, Israel does not have completely clean hands in this whole middle east debacle, but to keep trying to claim that they're the reason for it all, is pure ignorance.......probably sprinkled with hatred and anti-semetism
-
Bullshit Zionist propaganda custom made for unthinking dolts.
-
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/575321_10151266198513188_1530424001_n.jpg)
-
No, Israel does not have completely clean hands in this whole middle east debacle...
That's an understatement. They have refused to let those Arabs who fled the war to return to their homes. They have violated several UN mandates by building, and refusing to stop building, settlements in occupied territories, and taking more Arab lands. Most of the issues that are the root cause of the conflict they face now are of their own making.
-
Bullshit Zionist propaganda custom made for unthinking dolts.
Well you are the BS master and professor for such dolts, I'll give you that, though in this case its more leftist dogma
-
Most of the issues that are the root cause of the conflict they face now are of their own making.
While I've conceded Isreal has issues, and has contributed to the problems in the Middle East, your above summation is that would be you are in error. The "root" causes is the ongoing mindest, as soon as Israel was allowed to relocate via the UN, that they cease to exist. Every effort was brought to bear in that endeavor. Initially it was militarily, but when that backfired big time, now its the ongoing effort to bring about a political war, with the unfornate casualties of Palestinians being used by the Arab world, the UN, and terrorists like Hamas. The goal of their being removed is the "root cause" I'm afraid, and hardly of their making
-
The Arabs that fled had homes and property in what is now Israel, and were never allowed to return to them after the war. Their homes and property were confiscated and the Israeiis forced them to become refugees. They want what is theirs returned to them, not to be forced to move to another country and be assimilated there. I would feel the same way - this is my home, my property, and anyone who tries to remove me by force and take it from me is going to get a fight. If I evacuate because of a hurricane and return to find squatters on my land tryng to claim it for their own. the same applies.
The Israelis had the opportunity, after the wars following their independence, to allow the Arabs to return to their homes and property. They didn't, claiming that simply becausae they were Arab, they would be a security risk. No appeals, no hearings, no attempt to screen out the real threats from those who simply wanted to go home and live peacefully, just a slap in the face and a fuck you as they confiscated their homes and property for themselves.
That was the beginning of their land grab that has lasted ever since, in violation of UN mandates (which for some reason we can enforce against Iraq but not Israel) and human rights conventions that persons displaced by war should be allowed to return to their homes. They force the Arabs to show documents and get permission to travel from place to place, they build settlements and roads exclusively for non-Arab use, confiscate and destroy Arab property at will - sounds like Nazi Germany under Hitler. They build walls and put in checkpoints to make it difficult for Arabs to get to work and move from one place to another, does the Berlin Wall ring a bell? Or the Polish ghettoes under the Nazis? They are doing the same things to the Arabs that were done to them before and during WWII, and using the same excuse, national security. And, lo and behold, partisan groups and freedom fighters sprang up then too, to fight the Nazis.
-
Their homes and property were confiscated and the Israeiis forced them to become refugees. They want what is theirs returned to them, not to be forced to move to another country
Their homes and property were confiscated (The American Indian) and the American Indians wanted/want what was theirs returned to them. We see how that worked out. And we see how it's worked out for centuries when countless "new nations" were founded. Almost always somebody on the land that is known today as _______________ (fill in the blank) someone else at some time in history was run off that same land.
and anyone who tries to remove me by force and take it from me is going to get a fight.
And that's really the bottom line.
They will only stop fighting when the Palestinians are utterly destroyed.
Thats pretty much how it's worked throughout history.
If the American Indian would have been allowed to get missles from Iran (had missles existed)
and the United States had allowed them to keep shooting missles without destrying the American Indian's will to fight....then we'd still be having squirmishes today. The answer for Israel just like it's been for countless other countries exsiting today...is to utterly destroy the enemy by whatever means necessary. The sooner this is done, the less killing in the future. Isreal should not negotiate with those that want to end it's existence, they should seek utter destruction of any entity attacking Israel directly or indirectly.
-
...The answer for Israel just like it's been for countless other countries exsiting today...is to utterly destroy the enemy by whatever means necessary...
In other words, ethnic cleansing. Much like the Nazis tried to do.
-
Ummm...no. Not quite. As slanted as your deductions are, in this supposed slapping the Palestinians silly, you keep skipping over the real root cause, as well as the timeline.
Had Israel been left alone back in the late 40's, there would be no issue, there would be no now, as it relates to the conflict. There was no "Palestine" for Palestinians to live, there were merely Arabs that lived around the region, who were displaced by the UN's allocation of Isreal to relocate there, following their near extermination at the hands of the Nazis
Well, guess what...the Arabs had a big massive hissy fit. Said no way, said, get out of town, despite the UN's intervention, and decided to try and take Israel out. They failed...miserably. Despite being surrounded, Israel prevailed, and in the process extended its lands to better defend themselves. Ever since then, most of the Arab nations around, have been pretty damn bitter, and following the displacement of the "Palestinians" following these wars, its not surprising that Israel had no confidence in allowing them to "return", especially since they outnumber the Israelis. Palestinians also provide political cover for terrorists and Arab nations, as the decry the conduct of Israel upon the Palestinians, all the while not lifting 1 damn finger to bring them into their lands, or provide them any shred of financial support outside of apparently weapons.....oh yea, and schools, to educate each and every generation how evil Israel is supposed to be, and that they need to be removed from the region, 1 way or another
So, in the interim, you have these folks like the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and other entities that have an exclusive goal of ridding the region of Israel. NOT co-existing, NOT having 2 seperate "countries" of Palestine & Israel. No, Israel is to cease to exist.
So, how do you "negotiate" peace with that? Here's a hint....it does't include "Right of return", since Palestinians outnumber Israelis, and could simply vote Israel out of existance. It also doesn't include "land for peace". That's a non-starter, as its been tried before, and all it does is give more launching areas for terrorists to attack Israel from
So, with those 2 avenues off the books, where do we go from there?
-
In other words, ethnic cleansing. Much like the Nazis tried to do.
.
More like how our country was founded and just about all others. No matter where you go, no matter what period in history, who-ever is occupying land, someone else was on it before the current "owner". The current occupiers ran somebody else off, usually by bloody force. But of course Israel is demonized for what everbody else is guilty of at some time in their own history...except maybe Adam and Eve!
-
No hearings.
No appeals.
No attempt to even determine who might be a risk and who might not.
No compensation for homes or property taken from them.
Just you are Arab, you can't go home.
See Nazis. See ethnic cleansing.
-
No hearings. No appeals.
Yes thats pretty much how world history has unfolded.
See World History.
-
Israel will strike Gaza so long as Khamenei nixes talks with Obama
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis
November 17, 2012, 10:52 AM (GMT+02:00)
(http://www.debka.com/dynmedia/photos/2012/11/16/src/GazaIsraeliBomb15.11.12.jpg)
Israeli air strike in Gaza Strip
Early Saturday, Nov. 17, US President Obama, in a phone conversation with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, reiterated his support for Israel?s right to defend itself. He also spoke to Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and urged him to persuade Hamas to accept Israel?s terms for a ceasefire.
So what happened to turn the notoriously prickly relations between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu into harmonious cooperation - defying dire predictions by Israeli politicians and media that the second Obama term heralded still more jarring discord?
debkafile?s analysts attribute the change to a single cause: Iran?s omnipotent supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has backtracked on his earlier consent to one-on-one talks with the US on its nuclear program, after it was acclaimed by US media on Oct. 20 in the run-up to the presidential election.
Friday, Nov. 16, Henry Kissinger, foreign policy guru to a succession of US presidents, laid Obama?s dilemma out plainly in the Washington Post: ?The most urgent decision facing the president is how to stop Iran from pursuing a military nuclear program. The time available for a diplomatic outcome shrinks in direct proportion as the Iranian enrichment capacity grows and a military nuclear capacity approaches,? Kissinger wrote, adding: ?We cannot afford another strategic disaster.?
While also aiming a dig at Obama?s first-term performance, Kissinger was warning him strongly that Iran is on the way to becoming a nuclear power and this must not be allowed to happen.
On Oct. 19, debkafile?s intelligence sources reported exclusively that Iran had finished installing in Fordo the last set of advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium to 20 percent purity. This would bring its program technically to a short hop before weapons grade. We also disclosed that the number of centrifuges in Natanz was being doubled to 6,000 to substantially expand its output of medium-grade enriched uranium.
Iran already has in place the technological infrastructure for quickly raising its 20-percent enriched stocks to the 90 percent bomb-making level.
American experts now estimate that this jump would take no more than two to three weeks from the moment a go-ahead order came down from Khamenei.
The advanced state of Iran?s drive for a nuclear weapon was confirmed in the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report released Friday, Nov. 16, which stated dryly that it was ?unable? to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.?
The release of this nuclear watchdog finding on Day Three of Israel?s Gaza operation against the escalating Palestinian missile war against the southern half of the country was not fortuitous. It also backed up Kissinger?s warning about the imminence of a ?strategic disaster? for America if Iran was allowed to attain a nuclear capacity. There was no need to remind anyone that this disaster was even more imminent for Israel.
The implied corollary from the Kissinger proposition, that a form of pre-emptive military action has become unavoidable, leads directly to the rationale behind Obama?s support for Israel?s offensive in the Gaza Strip.
The US president has evidently concluded that confronting Khamenei?s intransigence with the calibrated application of military measures which gradually strip Iran of its strategic assets is the shortest and most effective way to make him give serious thought to sitting down with the United States for nuclear negotiations.
One such indirect measure, the Syrian uprising against Iran?s ally Bashar Assad, fell flat: Assad is still in charge and fighting after nearly two years of a bitter, bloody civil war. The Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah pact remained as robust as ever before and Khamenei as far as ever from dialogue with Obama.
But then, a new opportunity presented itself in a big mistake made three months ago by the radical Palestinian Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip.
A Hamas delegation led by Mahmoud A-Zahar and Marwan Issa traveled to Tehran and Beirut and signed military and mutual defense pacts with Iran and Hizballah. This was revealed exclusively at the time by debkafile. After Assad?s patronage had melted away in the heat of the Syrian conflict, Hamas was acting to solidify its protection from Tehran.
Khamenei seized on the chance of enclosing the Palestinian extremists in an iron hug, welcoming it as a point scored against America.
After being assured of big-league support, Hamas proceeding to sharply escalate its war on Israel, driven hard to cross all former lines against violence by the late Ahmed Jabari, commander of the Hamas military wing (who died in an Israeli air strike on Day One of its counter-offensive).
From mid-October, Hamas gunmen and bombers started mounting cross-border attacks on Israeli military targets ? not all of them successful.
On Nov. 8, they blew up by remote control a four-meter deep tunnel packed with explosives which ran under the border into Israel. The IDF spokesman reported that the blast was powerful enough to blow over heavy military vehicles stationed there. By sheer chance, those vehicles were empty and so no soldiers were hurt.
The next attack two days later was more damaging: On Nov. 10, an anti-tank guided missile fired from Sejaya struck a Givati brigade armored jeep driving past the Karni crossing and injured four soldiers and officers, one critically and two seriously.
That attack touched off a heavy barrage of Palestinian rocket fire against Israeli towns and villages. People there had begun losing patience with impotence of yet another government and military in the face of more than a decade of Palestinian on-and-off missile war.
Between the two episodes, the prime minister sent his national security adviser, Yaacov Amidror, to Washington to lay before Tom Donilon, President Obama?s close adviser and director of national security, the full picture of Hamas?s clandestine deal with Iran and Hizballah for the combined pursuit of their common objectives.
Obama thereupon gave Israel the green light for a major offensive in the Gaza Strip that would proceed in close sync with the White House.
After three days, in which hundreds of Israeli air sorties failed to stop the Palestinian missile offensive and its radius expanded to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem Thursday and Friday, Nov. 15-16, the Netanyahu government announced the operation would be broadened and 75,000 reservists called up for ground action inside the Gaza Strip.
However, the nature and scale of this next stage is not solely up to the inner Israeli cabinet of nine ministers. It will be finally determined by what passed between Obama and Netanyahu in their conversation Friday, and subsequent bilateral conversations, including the one that took place later between Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
Obama has plainly decided to use Israel?s counter-terror operation against Tehran?s Palestinian ally in the Gaza Strip as a military threat to squeeze the Iranian supreme leader in to accept talks without resorting to direct American military action. Netanyahu is using this opportunity to rid Israel of a perennial terrorist peril, while also hoping it will at long last place the US president?s feet on the road to a military confrontation with Iran before it is too late.
US and Israeli interests converge in Gaza up to this point. For now, the situation is too volatile for reliable predictions about the duration and outcome of this partnership.
http://www.debka.com/article/22537/Israel-will-strike-Gaza-so-long-as-Khamenei-nixes-talks-with-Obama (http://www.debka.com/article/22537/Israel-will-strike-Gaza-so-long-as-Khamenei-nixes-talks-with-Obama)
-
Israel's local Iranian franchise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QT_j6E3OeQ#ws)
-
The Arabs that fled had homes and property in what is now Israel, and were never allowed to return to them after the war.
Some Arabs remained and became Isreli citizens.
They amount to an important minority that elects a few Kennesset seats.
How is this diffrent from the Tories that left here and settled in Canada in the aftermath of our Revolution?
Were the Arabs that planned the invasion of Isreal planning to restore the Jews to their homes after the war they were compiling?
I assume that their plans included winning.
-
I note the Whitehouse states support for Isreals right to defend itself.
I don't think that self defense is democratic, that is , if the burgulars outnumber you , you don't poll them.
-
How is this diffrent from the Tories that left here and settled in Canada in the aftermath of our Revolution?
=================================================
There are thousands of differences. Start with comparing the size and resources of Canada with those of Gaza. There were no refugee camps for Tory losers in Ontario, either.
-
How is this diffrent from the Tories that left here and settled in Canada in the aftermath of our Revolution?
=================================================
There are thousands of differences. Start with comparing the size and resources of Canada with those of Gaza. There were no refugee camps for Tory losers in Ontario, either.
1.comparing the size and resources of Canada with those of Gaza... in no way relivant, the US government took no responsibility at all in provisioning Canada for expatriots.
You are thinking of the Cherokee and Oklahoma which would be more alike.
2. Tories did become refugees, and England in some cases made good part of the loss, this would be a lot like establishing a Palistenian enclave in Saudi Arabia , but it is also not alike in that the US took no responsibility for providing refugee standard of living for Tory exiles.
-
Did the United States prevent the Tories from coming back?
I like this principle of might makes right. It means I can take over any property I want by force of arms, kick the owners out, take their home and keep it, and they have no recourse under the law and no right to return. That seems to be what is being espoused here. I might become a militant social climber.
-
Did the United States prevent the Tories from coming back?
I like this principle of might makes right. It means I can take over any property I want by force of arms, kick the owners out, take their home and keep it, and they have no recourse under the law and no right to return. That seems to be what is being espoused here. I might become a militant social climber.
I didn't say I liked it , though if my ancestors had not been driven out of Scotland I might be there talking like Robert Burns. So it turned out well for me.
When the Arab armys were gathering up for the purpose of making war on Isreal , did they have a plan for the refugees?
Were there going to be any?
-
I'm actually still waiting for any suggestions outside of right of return and land for peace, since they're non-starters. Is this just going to be a rag on thread?
-
Well we could do like Hitler, build the camps and gas chambers and ovens. We're halfway there already.
-
Did the United States prevent the Tories from coming back?
I like this principle of might makes right. It means I can take over any property I want by force of arms, kick the owners out, take their home and keep it, and they have no recourse under the law and no right to return. That seems to be what is being espoused here. I might become a militant social climber.
I didn't say I liked it , though if my ancestors had not been driven out of Scotland I might be there talking like Robert Burns. So it turned out well for me.
When the Arab armys were gathering up for the purpose of making war on Isreal , did they have a plan for the refugees?
Were there going to be any?
Ah ah ah, I asked first - did the United States prevent the Tories from coming back?
-
Because Israel is stronger militarily, the Arabs cling to the underdog image of poor refugees under occupation and siege by evil Israelis, thus eliciting sympathy.
+=============================================
This is because the Gazans are, in fact, poor refugees under occupation and siege.
Do you dispute that they are poor?
Do you dispute that they are prevented from leaving Gaza by land, sea or air by the Israelis?
Do you dispute that their homes have been destroyed by Israelis, who then prevent them from rebuilding by banning cement from entering Gaza?
The rockets are strategically a dumb idea. They will not defeat the Israelis with rockets.
The Israelis will not end rocket attacks by invasions, bombings and assassinations, either.
Both sides are guilty of typical Middle Eastern braggadocio, vengeance and countervengeance stupidity.
The Gazans and West Bankers need to figure out how to turn massive world opinion against the Zionist colonizers. Gandhi ended the British Empire, mostly with passive resistance and public relations.
-
Did the United States prevent the Tories from coming back?
I like this principle of might makes right. It means I can take over any property I want by force of arms, kick the owners out, take their home and keep it, and they have no recourse under the law and no right to return. That seems to be what is being espoused here. I might become a militant social climber.
I didn't say I liked it , though if my ancestors had not been driven out of Scotland I might be there talking like Robert Burns. So it turned out well for me.
When the Arab armys were gathering up for the purpose of making war on Isreal , did they have a plan for the refugees?
Were there going to be any?
Ah ah ah, I asked first - did the United States prevent the Tories from coming back?
Depends on how technical you want to be about it.
No leagal measures were taken , I don't know if any returned or not.
But no leagal measure was taken to expell them either,
It was just the Mobs.
The measures used to expell the Cherokee were, strictly speaking, extra leagal, the courts found in the Cherokees favor, but by orders of the govenor of Georgia and the President of the US pretty much ignored the Supreme Court and cancelled the earlyer treaty .
After the Civil War a group of Confederate familys who felt put upon by the circumstances of reconstruction moved to Brazil and their decendants are there still , Mitt Romneys family includes a bunch of Mexican citizens because his grandparents felt the environment of the US to be unfavorable.
A universal right of return would move us all, I even have an ancestor who lost his farm when a lynch mob threatened his life for supporting the abolition of slavery. I hear it was a good farm too, but my claim on it is pretty diluted by time and his not being a direct ancestor anyway.
Would I rather return to one of the farms in Alabama or North Carolina tha my family has lost to banks and other circumstances , or would I like to return to Scotland?
How moot can you get?
Maybe I should bear my grudge as a decendant of Picts and demand that Hadrians wall be unbuilt so that I can have my bit of York.
The further you go the more unrealistic you get , conquest and migration does change things and the constituancy for the status quo are those who are doing alright.
It is a lot better to build a fairness within the borders as they are than to change them , this is a general principal that I think applies well to Isreal and Palistine. A state of war works more twards changing the border than establishing any fairness.
I think it entirely possible that the Palistinians could get worse off, I would give that potential good odds too.
-
After the Revolution, a lot of Canadians came into the US, and many Americans went to Canada. By the 1840's, most opposition to the English and the Royalists in the US was gone. Irish Catholics were looked down upon because they were poor, illiterate, often spoke little English, and were Catholics, ignorantly guided by the Pope. But there was plenty of land elsewhere, and few returned or had any desire to return to the old country.
It was nothing like Palisrael, as there was unlimited land for all in both countries. Canadians blended in with the US population better than anyone. Arabs will never blend in with Jews or vice versa. At this stage, both sides are held together by a sense that they are martyrs fighting for survival against unjust oppressors.
Again, the rockets will not accomplish anything, nor will invading Gaza yet again. The more Israel annoys Egypt, the more weapons will be smuggled in. The desert between Egypt and Sudan is porous, and the smuggling tunnels into Gaza will simply be dug and redug again and again. Pissing off Egypt will not solve Israel's problems,it will only make it worse.
A well-planned PR campaign by the Palestinians is the best way to go. Force the Israelis to publicly oppress the Palestinians, and get it on tape and show the world what they are like. It worked for Gandhi, it was even useful in getting the French out of Algerie.
-
Well we could do like Hitler, build the camps and gas chambers and ovens. We're halfway there already.
Not only did that not even make an attempt to answer the question, I fail to see anywhere where the Israelis are rounding up anyone and murdering them via your ethnic clensing charge. Care to try again?
What can be done, outside of right of return and land for peace, that will bring about some form of middle east peace, which includes security for Israel and sovereignty for Palestinians?
-
There was enormous displacement in the wake of WWI WWII and the cold war.
There is really no right of return for most of the displaced.
Would you advocate a right of return for Vietnam, Tibet, Cuba ,Armenia, Croatia, etc. etc. etc...
A right of return would have to be pecular and limited to Palestinians , there is not much precident.
A global right of return would be impossibly disruptive , it is hard to imagine the Humog returning the the mountains of Vietnam or the Jews returning to the citys of Poland.
If the Palistinians are willing to engauge in give and take there might be a middle found , but the middle is not near makeing Jeruselem the capitol of an Arab state for the first time ever, nor drawing borders that include salilents that are practicly a completed pincher .
What makes desegregation a good idea for Americans but anathama for Jews and Arabs?
Jews and Arabs have more in common than randomly selected Americans.
-
So, back to my question...outside of right of return and land for peace, what can be done that will bring about some form of middle east peace, which includes security for Israel (literally a right to exist, right where they are) and sovereignty for Palestinians?
-
The problem of the Palestinians is one of poverty, not a lack of land. Some of those displaced and driven out by the Israelis were farmers, but those people are mostly dead and none of the rest are likely to farm anything. The reasons for their poverty is a lack of money and a way of earning more of it. Gaza is very densely populated, but so is Singapore. Gaza has sunny beaches, so tourism could be an asset. The same is true of fishing and growing hothouse vegetables. Israel has money, and owes the Palestinians for its taking their land.
Arabs and Israelis may have monotheism and chromosomes in common, but they are culturally inflexible as Americans are not. The religion is the essence of being Jewish or Muslim. Religion is NOT normally as important to most Americans.
Catholics and Protestants get married all the time, no big deal, despite the various churches being against it. Many Jews and Muslims are simply fanatics, and many more are led by fanatics.
It is silly to talk about anyone else returning or not returning, as there is no problem with most of those you mentioned. There is no one size fits all when it comes to cultural differences, each culture is different,and each pair of cultures has different perspectives.
-
...The further you go the more unrealistic you get , conquest and migration does change things and the constituancy for the status quo are those who are doing alright...
Ah, but the Palestinian problem does not go back that far, only to 1947 - 65 years. And while the UN has passed human rights conventions for the right of return, and resolutions against the continued building and occupying of settlements by the Israelis, they have ignored them, and the US has not enforced them - unlike in Iraq, where the violations of UN resolutions were cited as one of the excuses supporting the invasion. Why the double standard? Oil? The Judeo-Christian heritage? Because Saddam threatened DaddyBush? Why is it we can use human rights abuses and violations of UN resolutions as an excuse to invade one country, and not use them as a reason to prevent them in another? The Israelis have ignored them and stalled for 65 years, just so people like you can make the argument that, oh well,, it's too late now.
It wasn't that long ago the US offered reparations to the Japanes Americans displaced in WWII. It also wasn't that long ago the US offered a settlement to the Sioux Indians for the Black Hills. What has Israel offered to the Palestinians other than continued exile from their homes in Israel?
-
There was enormous displacement in the wake of WWI WWII and the cold war.
There is really no right of return for most of the displaced...
They have the right, in most cases. Whether they want to or not is a different matter. The Palestinians are not even allowed the right to return at all.
-
There was enormous displacement in the wake of WWI WWII and the cold war.
There is really no right of return for most of the displaced...
They have the right, in most cases. Whether they want to or not is a different matter. The Palestinians are not even allowed the right to return at all.
So now that we've put that to rest.....what can be done that will bring about some form of middle east peace, which includes security for Israel (literally a right to exist, right where they are) and sovereignty for Palestinians?
-
As if sirs could put anything to rest. I would say that they DO have a right to return. But they will need to exchange it for money and economic assistance, just as some American and Canadian Indians have done in the past.
Israel definitely owes the Palestinians.
-
As if sirs could put anything to rest. I would say that they DO have a right to return.
The question of course is hypothetical, despite the literal nazi's efforts. As it's already been referenced why right of return is a non-starter, back to the question......what can be done that will bring about some form of middle east peace, which includes security for Israel (literally a right to exist, right where they are) and sovereignty for Palestinians?
-
The Israelis give the Palestinians money, job training,and jobs. The Palestinians agree not to kill Israelis. The Israelis withdraw from the West Bank and Hebron and stop hogging the water
-
What gurantees that Palestinians not kill Israelis?
But let's run with this. Israelis "give" Palestinians money, job training, and even jobs. Any subsequent agreement is going to have to include some contingency in the event some folks are still hell bent on killing Israelis. So, before any withdrawl, there's gonna have to be some time to allow the Palestinians to back up the agreement of no killing. I'd say 10 year, but I know in this day and age of now, now, now, I'll reduce that to 4. So, if after 4 years, no Israelis are killed by Palestinians or terrorist organizations that the Palestinians support, then the Israelis are obliged to withdraw from the West Bank
So, is this a start?
-
What has Israel offered to the Palestinians other than continued exile from their homes in Israel?
They were offered full citizenship and the right to live anywhere they wanted in Isreli territory.
Some took this offer and elect from their own number members of the legislature.
The arab citizens of Isreal are not all happy with their lot , but they got a better deal than those who jumped the other way.
Do you really favor that the right of return be a real right for everyone displaced since 1967?
Is there any way to enforce this in South East Asia?
-
Do you really favor that the right of return be a real right for everyone displaced since 1967?
I favor it for any displaced refugees.
Is there any way to enforce this in South East Asia?
There may not be a way to enforce it, but the US does not have to support governments that refuse to allow it, with billions in aid and military assistance. Kill two birds with one stone - stop supporting a regime bent on ethnic cleansing, and cut the budget by billions at the same time.
-
The US has no major interest in returning refugees to SE Asia. Palisrael is different,and must be addressed separately. I agree with Hnumpah that there should be a right of return recognized for those who were driven out of Israel. To say that other Arabs have an obligation to resolve the mess created by Zionist colonialism is cynical and useless. To claim that "there is no such thing as a Palestinian" is monumentally ignorant.
-
Since right of return is a non-starter, where do we go from there? If there is no other "where", outside of beating one's chest as to there has to be a right of return, then the situation has no chance of resolvement outside of further full-scale war, and then deal with what's left from the ashes. Not a solution I'd be supportive of, but if there are no others, then.....well, that's what's going to happen
-
All we know is that sirs is too dumb to imagine that acknowledging that people have a right of return is not the same as them actually returning. The one sure thing is that sirs will not be in charge of negotiations. It would be like sending Ann Coulter in on the US Olympic Weightlifting Team,but not quite so amusing.
-
Since right of return is a non-starter, where do we go from there?
War!
Throughout human history these issues have mostly been decided by war.
The sooner Israel destroys the enemies will to fight, the better.
Had we left the Nazis or Indians with a will to fight...we'd still be at war with them.
Israel should have never turned Gaza back over to those murderous bastards.
Israel needs to draw a clear line and enforce it.
One rocket lands in Israel the country it is launched from loses 10,000 people.
It's really up to the rocket launchers how many dead they want.
The rocket launchers control their own fate.
I would put up with this crap about as long as the US would if rockets were coming from Mexico.
-
SIRS....it's not possible to negotiate with people
whose goal is to wipe you off the face of the earth.
They want no truce....it's a waste of time....a farce.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3638.htm (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3638.htm)
-
SIRS....it's not possible to negotiate with people
whose goal is to wipe you off the face of the earth.
They want no truce....it's a waste of time....a farce.
It's kinda what I thought as well, especially considering how we're not seeing any suggestions that could overt war, and still give Israel security. Go Israel.....your survival depends on it. amazing how we're kinda witnessing the mindset of some vast need to rid the region of Israel. One would have thought we learned that lesson the 1st go around......and here we are again, watching people actually not defend Israel's right to exist....that they're actually the bad guys in this story. Again, not that they're hands are crystal clean, but as far as "blame" for the current crisis escalating in the Middle east, they're somewhere in the 15% to blame range.
To Xo's credit, at least he made an effort, with a suggestion, that didn't include non-starters. But nothing seems to have prompted any follow-up or alternatives, that are ripe for debating, in this, a debate forum
-
I don't see much future in a two state solution.
Every step ever taken in that direction has had negative results.
If Isreal were to agree to move to the 1967 borders and allow Jeruslem to become the capitol of an Arab state for the first time ever, they could easily have the same problem they have right now with Gaza only moreso.
What I expect to happen is both sides seeking better wepons and taking harder lines with outside partys trying to prevent full war but bankrolling deadly protracted half war.
My expectation is merely projecting the past as it runs into the future, so I expect lots more ugly scenes on the TV including killings staged just for the purpose of producing ugly scenes on our TVs as well as killing for spite and for retaliation.
Gaza is doing something they did not need to , if there had been no upgrading of missles and no use of those upgraded missles they would be no poorer or worse off.
Isreal is retaliating , and if their retaliation is well targeted I think it proper, I am dismayed at the smashing of media offices , that is a poor choice of target , seems like witness intimidation and I think Isreal will see negative effect from that.
In sum , this is on track to get worse , and by the time it is over there will be bloody hands on all left standing.
-
My Idea of solution is integration.
The Aparthied that both sides are busy enforcing and the international community is expensively promoting , only make the crudest and largest wepon easy to aim.
Whether you are firing east or west the environment is target rich, whether you are firing a suicide bomber or a Mavrick Missle it is often a safe assumption that the building or even the block it will land on has none of your friends in it.
The seaprateness is self enforced and self reinforcing with less and less acnoledgement of the opponents humanity as time goes on.
When individual Arabs have met individual Jews in times past one would hire the other more often than any transaction of violence , bad leadership overcomes the common mans common sense.
There are a few small efforts at coming together that still survive and swim counter the tide that sweeps the region twards war , I pray for them , not because they have a great chance for the production of peace , their chances are slim for success.
The idea of two states has no chance at all for producing a peace , and the success of any other idea is a wipeout of one side, a wipeout solution has the virtue of being kinda likely , it has good chances of happening. A Wipeout has the drawback of being partially or totally mutual , if you want to call that success.
-
, but as far as "blame" for the current crisis escalating in the Middle east
SIRS....this Arab newspaper says Iran is behind latest Gaza flareup...big surprise. ::)
(http://www.asharq-e.com/english/images/asharq-e.gif)
The solution to Gaza? Return to Syria!
17/11/2012
By Tariq Alhomayed - Editor in Chief
Unfortunately, wars in our region have become like a race, so each war is to cover another one. In other words, these wars are nothing more than a move to escape forward. Therefore what is happening in Gaza is escaping forward, particularly in the hope of saving al-Assad or at least ensuring that the cost of toppling him will be greater for everybody. The greatest architect of such wars is Iran, from the unmanned Ayoub drone, not to mention all the attempts in the Sinai Peninsula. When the Golan front did not move quickly enough for al-Assad and Iran, they resorted to the Gaza front, because this can be inflamed far quicker, whilst it is also easier for Israel in this regard.
For Israel, Gaza is like a punching bag that can be used for training and muscle flexing, whilst success in Gaza would strike several ?files? in one go. In Gaza, Tel Aviv is able to crush Hamas and embarrass Egypt and Mursi, who will be the biggest loser in this battle, no matter what he does. This is because if Mursi succeeds politically he will lose his popularity and vice versa, that is of course unless the Egyptian president is able to pull off a political miracle that reflects his cunning. However his choices are severely limited. As for Israel, striking Gaza sends a strong message to al-Assad and clips Iran?s wings, particularly in the event that there is an Israeli strike on Iran. Above all else, Israel striking Gaza strengthens Netanyahu?s chances at the forthcoming elections.
Very well, but what about Syria? Now, the best solution to get out of this war ? or air strikes ? in Gaza is to return to Syria, and strongly, for whoever is responsible for the launch of the home-made rockets in Gaza did this whilst being well aware that there is no equivalence. The whole purpose of this was to save al-Assad, whose days are numbered; indeed his ouster is just around the corner! This is also a war to distract the Arab parties, particularly as we have seen a series of outbidding today. Therefore the Arabs have been unable to ask the fundamental question, namely: who incited the Gaza front? And why now? This is an essential question, particularly as Hassan Nasrallah is calling on the Arabs to pressure the US to stop the aggression. So why isn?t Nasrallah asking the agents of Iran in Gaza to stop pushing the Gaza Strip into the unknown? Why did he, and Iran, not ask al-Assad to stop the violence against the people of Syria? This is a series of outbidding, and everybody is playing this game.
What I want to say here is: who knows what will happen? The magic may turn against the magician, for the armed Palestinian groups in Gaza, including Hamas, do not want to continue the fighting, because they are incapable of this, whilst Israel does not want to prolong this aggression because it believes it has already made achievements, and on several levels. As for Mursi?s Egypt, it does not want, nor can it bear, this crisis; nor does the international community want this either.
Therefore, the best way to escape from Gaza now is to quickly return to Syria, for the Gaza fire was the result of an al-Assad spark, and from here the magic may turn against the magician, particularly as everybody is convinced of the threat represented by the al-Assad regime and the need to topple it. The solution to Gaza is to return to Syria, and accelerate the ouster of the criminal regime of the tyrant of Damascus.
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=31846 (http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=31846)
-
Yep, no surprise there. War by proxy, and the Palestinians get squashed in the middle :(
-
Israel is screwed. They can't do anything about Iran. They can't stop Hamas except periodically. The Arab world is on fire and they can't do a thing about it. They get their marching orders from us and most Americans are sick and tired of the problem. They'll never be able to do anything but buy periodic peace. Screwed.
Why would anyone live in Israel?
BSB
-
The Middle East is screwed. At least Israel has the ultimate weapon as the last deterrent. Good luck fellas, as our strongest ally in the region, we'll have your back
-
"At least Israel has the ultimate weapon as the last deterrent."
The smell of napalm in the morning argument. Does it smell like victory?
BSB
-
Nope, sure doesn't. Hate to see it come to it though. Sad. Israel has to do, what Israel has to do to survive. We sure as hell would (fight back), if our way of life was being threatened. And if became a situation where we were being surrounded, and had no other alternative, then yea, we'd pull out our last resort weapon as well. We've actually had practice at it. Killed thousands, saved millions
-
There is some illusion of smallness and weakness reguaring Isreal, and some illusion of greatness and strength of Isreals opponants.
The whole picture isn't in just comparing the land areas or population amounts.
Isreal has a lot of force multiplyer , Iran has a lot of fragility.
Egypt has a huge population and a lot of unemployment .
Syria is burning down , Lebanon is less than half recovered from having been burnt down.
There is too much ignorance to go around for anyone to expect any kind of happy ending, but I don't expect Isreal to loose the fight outrright even if all of the anti-Isreal forces were to get co-ordinated.
That fight would be awful , I think it worthwile to put it off another year , every year .
-
"There is some illusion of smallness and weakness reguaring Isreal, and some illusion of greatness and strength of Isreals opponents"
It's just the opposite. There is some illusion of greatness regarding Israel and some illusion of smallness and weakness regarding its opponents.
That's the whole point of pointing out the smell of napalm in the morning scene. Because of our military strength we were seen as the one with greatness, and the VC and NVA were seen as small and weak. But what happened? Who won?
Israel's "greatness" is an illusion. They can only hope for momentary victories and then they're right back in the toilet.
BSB
-
So far all they have is a long string of momentary victorys.
Do you support the assertion that Isreal will only loose once?
-
"So far all they have is a long string of momentary victorys"
Ever heard of Lebanon?
BSB
This is all too predicable.
-
"So far all they have is a long string of momentary victorys"
Ever heard of Lebanon?
BSB
This is all too predicable.
Yes Lebanon lost that one.
Over and over.
What did Isreal loose there?
I can imagine better and worse choices and outcomes, but would choosing to not be active or involved have been better for Isreal?
-
Since no one is serious about ending the conflict, & instead ranting around with non-starters, war is inevitable. And unfortunately for the Palestinians, both modern history & the U.S. are on Israel's side
-
Since no one is serious about ending the conflict, & instead ranting around with non-starters, war is inevitable. And unfortunately for the Palestinians, both modern history & the U.S. are on Israel's side
The value of another year of peace needs to be weighed with the cost of a war sooner rather than later.
Who really wants war to be inevitable?
-
I sure don't.................but, I'm not seeing any serious efforts otherwise. Xo did take a stab, to his credit
-
If Israel invades Gaza again, they will temporarily end the rockets,but they will have to repeat the whole thing again. Each time, the rockets will be more deadly, each time, the resentment against Israel will increase in the entire Arab world. Egypt has a border with Gaza, and Mubarak is gone. There are no permanent solutions in the latest phase of this war.
Eventually, Israel will be outnumbered. It could take 50 years or more, but in the end, Israel loses. Smart Israelis know this and favor a settlement. Netanyahu will not live so long that he sees the end, but it is coming, anyway.
The key element is the Arab population of Israel, that has been ignored by everyone,but could be ideal mediators.
There is a peaceful and harmonious solution possible, just as there was in Ulster (Northern Ireland).
-
There is a peaceful and harmonious solution possible, just as there was in Ulster (Northern Ireland).
Not until it's been made clear that there's no right of return nor any land for peace, as a supposed "solution". Only those alternatives outside of those 2 non-starters are viable.....at least for the sake of Israel's existance
-
The return of stolen land for peace and financial compensation in exchange for the right of return are essential to any peace process.
Israel must pay for what it has stolen and the pain and suffering that it has caused.
-
The rockets are getting longer ranged and heavyer whether Isreal fights or not, on that score the more Isreal fights the better because they can disrupt the rockets and save a few lives every day they fight.
Taking over Gaza has a lot of advantages in that respect , but would make them responsible for law enforcement over the misery of survivors, so the cost is steep.
As the rockets grow the cost of not invading Gaza grows and adds weight to the scales that balance one cost against the other.
What do Gazans get for being the launchpad for Iranian ire?
Each one of these rockets is an official declaration of war on the part of Iran , and seems so far to have cost Iran nothing.
What if Irans population centers were included on the target list?
It would be ugly and cruel , and perfectly fair.
-
The return of stolen land for peace and financial compensation in exchange for the right of return are essential to any peace process.
Not going to happen until there's an extended time demonstrated by the Palestinians of their adoption of the right of Israel to remain, right where they are, with no more terrorist attacks and killing. I've said 4 years. After that, then Israel would be obliged to turn over lands, NOT stolen, but aquired in the defense of their very existence
They've tried the land for peace approach. It didn't and still doesn't work, since there are no provisions that keep terrorists from attacking Israel, with lands closer to their populated regions. That's why land for peace is a non-starter
-
The land for peace is the West Bank, dummy.That was stolen long after independence.
You are the epitome of ignorance on this.
-
And again with the insults. It's like.....in your DNA. IIRC Gaza was taken in defense of Israel, when Egypt, Jordan, and Syria attacked them, so no, it was not stolen. You would be......drum roll......wrong
-
When was it that the Isrelis agreed to the borders they had in 1966?
When have the Palestinians , or any other Arabs, agreed to those borders?
-
According to the UN Convention, No nation may annex any part of another without the consent of the inhabitants.
Golan was stolen from Syria and chunks of the West Bank have been stolen on a continuing basis for a really long time. Gaza was stolen but they gave it back. The people of Gaza hate Israel far more than the West Bankers,and Israel was getting weary of having their soldiers killed,maimed and otherwise traumatized, just as happened in Lebanon.
-
That must be good news for Tibet and Tiwan.
What did the UN do about the 1967 war before the 1967 war?
Perusal of the map makes it seem that the border drawn by the UN was gerrymandered tomake the 67 war hard to avoid.
-
According to the UN Convention, No nation may annex any part of another without the consent of the inhabitants.
Someone needed to tell that to messers Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, before they tried attacking Israel. Bad move on their parts, and still nothing stolen, as Israel merely took lands to better defend themselves.
Try as you may Xo, you can't re-write history.
-
That must be good news for Tibet and Tiwan.
Taiwan is independent now, but it was always claimed that it was a part of China in the days of the Emperor. It was taken away from China by the Japanese and returned to the Nationalists by the US. The people of Taiwan were not consulted when this was done,by the way.Tibet was also claimed by the Empire. It was too remote to govern and too poor to mess with by the ROC, which also claimed it. There are many, many diverse nationalities within China other than the Tibetans.The West does not try to claim their right to independence, because they are also politically Communist.Tibet resisted and there was a Cold War on, and the Dalai Lama is a very charismatic fellow.
I see few similarities between Taiwan and Tibet and the colonization of the West Bank. Totally different situations.
Like the Taiwanese and the Tibetans, I favor the independence of the Palestinians.
The Zionists are thieves.Face it.
-
History & reality would say otherwise, I'm afraid
-
You do not know diddly-squat about history OR reality, unless it is about the Bizarro World of sirs.
-
That must be good news for Tibet and Tiwan.
Taiwan is independent now, but it was always claimed that it was a part of China in the days of the Emperor. It was taken away from China by the Japanese and returned to the Nationalists by the US. The people of Taiwan were not consulted when this was done,by the way.Tibet was also claimed by the Empire. It was too remote to govern and too poor to mess with by the ROC, which also claimed it. There are many, many diverse nationalities within China other than the Tibetans.The West does not try to claim their right to independence, because they are also politically Communist.Tibet resisted and there was a Cold War on, and the Dalai Lama is a very charismatic fellow.
I see few similarities between Taiwan and Tibet and the colonization of the West Bank. Totally different situations.
Like the Taiwanese and the Tibetans, I favor the independence of the Palestinians.
The Zionists are thieves.Face it.
The Zionists predate the actual Isreal, I am not sure when they started as a movement.
But the Jews have been singing about returning to their homeland for centurys.
If there is a statute of limitations on such claims , then the problem becomes keeping the Palestenians out untill that time has passed.
Or if there is no statute of limits on such claims , then the Palistenians are theives.
-
The Jews invaded Canaan when they left Egypt around 1225 BCE. Joshua pulled out his horn and played musical genocide on Jericho and threw the Canaanites out (of course, converting some, enslaving others). The Philistines arrived, probably from Mycenean Greece by boats and with pigs, around 1175BCE. After that there were other invasions and migrations, notably those resulting from the conquest of the area by Alexander the Great around 332, who took it from the Persians and Syrians.
After Alexander came the Herods, first as Roman allies, then as satraps, then a very brief Jewish state of the failed Messiah Shimon Ben Kochkba, then the Romans again, and then the Byzantines and the Turks, who ruled through the end of WWI.
The argument of who was there first is not relevant. Zionism began with Theodore Herzl, a Hungarian Ashkenazi Jew, in 1897.
I fail to make any sense of what you wrote. Check out Wikipedia.
-
You do not know diddly-squat about history OR reality, unless it is about the Bizarro World of sirs.
Wrong again. I would be willing to consider that I'm wrong......as soon as I start seeing you referencing how the U.S. stole CA & Texas, with the need that the U.S. give those states back to Mexico. Oh yea, we best give most of the rest of the country back to our Native Americans. Think they'll let us keep living here?
In other words, this country is FAR more gulity of stealing any lands, than Israel, as they simply were defending themselves from enemies surrounding them. The lands taken, as an aftermath to the wars waged on Israel, were IN DEFENSE OF THEIR RIGHT TO EXIST. THEY STOLE NOTHING
-
The Jews invaded Canaan when they left Egypt around 1225 BCE. Joshua pulled out his horn and played musical genocide on Jericho and threw the Canaanites out (of course, converting some, enslaving others). The Philistines arrived, probably from Mycenean Greece by boats and with pigs, around 1175BCE. After that there were other invasions and migrations, notably those resulting from the conquest of the area by Alexander the Great around 332, who took it from the Persians and Syrians.
After Alexander came the Herods, first as Roman allies, then as satraps, then a very brief Jewish state of the failed Messiah Shimon Ben Kochkba, then the Romans again, and then the Byzantines and the Turks, who ruled through the end of WWI.
The argument of who was there first is not relevant. Zionism began with Theodore Herzl, a Hungarian Ashkenazi Jew, in 1897.
I fail to make any sense of what you wrote. Check out Wikipedia.
What you wrote is pretty clear , invasion followed by invasion, followed by invasion.
It is the human way.
When the Turks lost it they lost possession to England , which hardly wanted it .
They admistered it and allowed settlers many of whom were Zionists or Jews who were not Zionists.
Then after WWII a whole lot of Jews decided that they didn't like living in Europe anymore.
The King of Saudi Arabia suggested that slices of the defeated countrys be devoted to a homeland for Jews, but his suggestion was not considered and lots of displaced Jews arrived in the British protectorate, more even than the British wanted.
Palistine was lightly settled ,Jeruslem was small as citys go.
There was plenty of room.
Zionists started fighting the English , including some ugly terrorist style bombings , this was happening to the English in several more important countrys too so the English came to terms .
Arabs got kinda alarmed at what was happening and fighting broke out between the Jews and the Arabs.
The US recognised Isreal as a country , lots of other countrys and the UN also.
Now we don't want Isreal to exist?
-
Whether Israel exists or not is not up to me,and that is not the issue. The issue is the manipulation of Gaza by Netanyahu to win an election by assassination, and the FACT that Israel must make a deal to allow the Palestinians to have their own country.
-
If an assasination wins an election , the the votors must like the assination.
What was Biden wont to say?
"General Motors is alive and Osama Bin Laden is DEAD!"
I don't think we held his discourtesy to Hitler against Eisenhour either.
-
Killing Bin Laden was not done to provoke an attack on the US. Killing the Hamas leader obviously had that goal.
The Hamas leader knew the job was dangerous when he took it,as Super Chicken often said to his sidekick, Fred.
Killing anyone in the Middle East will always be followed by a desire for vengeance. Al Qaeda was not equipped to carry out an attack on US civilians, though. Of course, assassinating a US president is no more immoral than a US president assassinating someone else.
All assassinations are by nature immoral.
-
Finally a disagreement.
Osama Bin Laden had it coming ,, in my estimation, and I feel that the population of the US feels the same overall.
But his killing did indeed provoke retaliation.
Nevertheless it was a good idea and completely morally correct, there was no hope for peace negotiation with Osama Bin Laden and no point in preventing his assassination.
If Osama Bin Laden had real controll of Al Quieda , and was wont to negotiate peace , there might have been a case to make against his killing, but neither was the case.
Al Quieda is not a criminal enterprise , it is a gang at war, a war of attrition should be waged to reduce them from the top down and the bottom up.
If all acts of War are deploreable , then yes it is a game that no one should be playing.
But Osama Bin Laden signed his death warrant himself ,, his assignation was a good days work.
-
Killing Bin Laden was a wise decision,but that does not make it a moral one.
The US refuses to recognize the World Court, so trying him there was not an option.But that would have been the moral response.The President could not get Congress to recognize the World Court, so assassinating Bin Laden was the best solution available to him.
Netanyahu ordering the assassination of the leader of Hamas was different, because Israel is morally obligated to negotiate with Hamas. The US did not need to negotiate with Bin Laden.
-
Killing Bin Laden was a wise decision,but that does not make it a moral one.
And the same could be said about Israel taking out Hamas leadership. As could be said about Obama using drones to take out Terrorist suspects (noting also no apparent trial)
Your dislike for Bibi is likely clouding any possible objectivity as it relates to the likelyhood that it was far more a wise decision than some feigned effort at getting relected. Especially when you consider there is no "moral obligation" to negotiate with an organization who's primary purpose is to kill you. At that point, you're merely defending yourself
-
Killing Bin Laden was a wise decision,but that does not make it a moral one.
The US refuses to recognize the World Court, so trying him there was not an option.But that would have been the moral response.The President could not get Congress to recognize the World Court, so assassinating Bin Laden was the best solution available to him.
Netanyahu ordering the assassination of the leader of Hamas was different, because Israel is morally obligated to negotiate with Hamas. The US did not need to negotiate with Bin Laden.
Being tryed in the world court was absolutly an option.
The US is not the only country he offended.
Osama Bin Laden could have gone at any time and presented himself to the world court, and right now I think he wishes he had.
-
Being tryed in the world court was absolutly an option.
No,it was not. Like any criminal, Bin Laden was not going to present himself to the Court.Only the US could capture him,and since the US is not a mamber of the Court and does not recognize its authority, they would never have simply arrested him and delivered him alive to the World Court.
-------------------------------------------------------
The US is not the only country he offended.
None of the others had the ability or inclination to pursue him. The Saudis would have beheaded him on sight.
-------------------------------------------------------
Osama Bin Laden could have gone at any time and presented himself to the world court, and right now I think he wishes he had.
-------------------------------------------------------
I really doubt that Bin Laden is wishing anything. He is dead and gone.
Bin Laden turning himself in would have been impossible even if he had tried. It is not like he could just hop on a plane and fly from Karachi to the Hague. But there is no reason he would try. I imagine that he expected to die as a martyr to his Cause. The idea of recreating a Muslim Caliphate is as silly as uniting all of Christendom under the Pope. Like all fanatics, he was incapable of rational thought.
I really question that he is capable of any thought at the moment. His brains have surely been devoured by the fish by now.
-
What makes you call Osama Bin Laden a criminal?
Was he ever convicted of anything?
It was certainly his option to surrender to his favorite authority,criminals do this all the time, innocent people do it too, in the hope of a fair trial.If he had understood the concept of eternal appeals the way an American or European lawyer can do them he could have made his trial a bully pulpit that would give him a stage for many years.
Might have been better than hiding under the wing of the Pakistani Army , he would certainly have been protected from assassination better.
Ayman al-Zawahiri! If you are listening out there heed this! Your death would serve any American who accomplishes it towards becoming president, but you can foil that and be heard in public every week if you surrender to a trial at the Hague. It won't be hard either, start at a Peruvian Embassy or a Belgin embassy , or perhaps just for humors sake surrender at a Danish embassy!
In any case there is no death penalty and no extradition to where there is, you could have free food till you die of old age and be heard frequently without dooming your courier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri)
-
He would have had to get there first.
Not likely.
This is simply moot,since Bin Laden is dead.
-
He would have had to get there first.
Not likely.
This is simply moot,since Bin Laden is dead.
It became moot pretty suddenly.
But for Ayman al-Zawahiri it is not yet moot.
If he can remain hidden for a decade or two , turning himself in to the authoritys should be quite easy.
He just has to pick the authority that will try him in the right place.
He certainoy doesn't want to get captured by Americans , he could die of old age in Guantanamo if that happened.