The Future of Palestine

I’m assuming you are, based on the name-calling. Its the jewish way: slander anyone who doesn’t support Israel by calling them an “anti-semite” or a “muslim”.

Seriously, if you like Israel so much that you support the actions of the traiterous jewish lobby, why don’t you just move there? Instead of pretending to be an American and supporting the parasitic Israel-American “alliance”.

My favorite jewish lobby moment was in the early 80s when they pressured Congress into not selling $40 billion worth of F-16s to Jordan. That contract would’ve created 40,000 AMERICAN jobs and pumped billions into the economy. Yet the traitors at AIPAC felt that Israel would be threatened if Jordan got F-16s and they pressured the money whores in Congress enough to block the bill.

So again PRCalDude, if you support Israel at the expense of America, why don’t you move there?

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
I’m assuming you are, based on the name-calling. Its the jewish way: slander anyone who doesn’t support Israel by calling them an “anti-semite” or a “muslim”.

Seriously, if you like Israel so much that you support the actions of the traiterous jewish lobby, why don’t you just move there? Instead of pretending to be an American and supporting the parasitic Israel-American “alliance”.

My favorite jewish lobby moment was in the early 80s when they pressured Congress into not selling $40 billion worth of F-16s to Jordan. That contract would’ve created 40,000 AMERICAN jobs and pumped billions into the economy. Yet the traitors at AIPAC felt that Israel would be threatened if Jordan got F-16s and they pressured the money whores in Congress enough to block the bill.

So again PRCalDude, if you support Israel at the expense of America, why don’t you move there?[/quote]

The problem with trying to discuss things with antisemites is not that I can’t do it, it’s that antisemites have typically constructed an elaborate mental Gordian knot as to why the Jews are behind almost everything (the Arabs and many non-Muslim antisemites in the US believe the Jews were behind 9/11, btw), meanwhile they refuse to acknowledge the most basic and obvious non-Jewish factors. For example, we’re allowed to discuss Israeli actions as the ONLY factor in the Israel/Arab conflict, but the most obvious explanation for the conflict (the Jew-hatred inherent in Islam per Surah 3:112 and others) is inadmissible. Muhammad ethnically cleansed thousands of Jews and stole their wives for concubines and their children for slaves. Per surah 33:21, Muhammad’s actions are considered “good” by the Muslims. I’d be willing to discuss Israel’s influence on US foreign policy if you weren’t at war with Occam’s razor regarding the Israel/Arab conflict. I don’t doubt for an instant, though, that the Arabs would still hate us even if we completely through Israel under the bus. They’ve even said so.

So it’s not that I can’t discuss it with you, I just prefer to believe what I see with my own eyes and read in Islamic texts rather than in elaborate Jewish conspiracy theories. I simply can’t untie your mental Gordian knot. Only a therapist can do so.

And regarding the F-16s: call me crazy, but I think we should find alternative revenue streams than the Arabs. They usually don’t pay their bills in full and the weapons we give them usually end up getting used against non-Muslims adjacent to them. For example, the Egyptians used their bombers against non-Muslim sub-saharan Africans in the 70s, and there are many more examples. AIPAC did us a favor on that one.

Just so there is no confusion: I don’t give a rat’s ass about Israel. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Arabs/Palestinians.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian Christians still living in the west bank and being subject to the brutal IDF on a daily basis. That is my skin in the game. And the other Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria) have as much blame in this as does Israel.

Both sides (Israel/the Arabs) have plenty of blame to go around. There is not a “right” side in the conflicy. The most prudent foreign policy would be strict neutrality in this conflict. Public opinion polls show this. The only Americans who don’t support this viewpoint are nutjob Christian evangelicals, Jewish- “Americans”, and Arab-“Americans”.

Our one-sided, unconditional support of Israel is responsible for most of our foreign problems. How can sell out America by supporting this ridiculous policy, which benefits Israel at the expense of America, and still call yourself an American?

Right, this is the point I made earlier: the Jews are behind all our problems, not Arabs giving money to jihadists to attack us, not our own appeasement of them. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq to defend Israel, not to combat terrorism or WMD, even though our attack of Iraq has been decidedly bad for Israel.

Throwing the Jews under the bus will only embolden the Arabs and other Muslims and won’t abate our foreign problems one iota. Britain is trying the same approach right now.

The “one-sided” support of Israel is non-existent also, because we also support the Pakistanis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Saudis (who have a lot of our weapons). People we shouldn’t support.

I can’t untie your mental knot. You’ll continue to see Jews behind everything no matter how much I present counter evidence. Let’s just table the discussion.

No point in continuing this thread. The anti-Israel folks don’t even have facts to support their vitriol or know the history.

FYI, Israel offered to give up 95% of the disputed lands in 2000 at the Camp David Summit.

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Just so there is no confusion: I don’t give a rat’s ass about Israel. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Arabs/Palestinians.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian Christians still living in the west bank and being subject to the brutal IDF on a daily basis. That is my skin in the game. And the other Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria) have as much blame in this as does Israel.

Both sides (Israel/the Arabs) have plenty of blame to go around. There is not a “right” side in the conflicy. The most prudent foreign policy would be strict neutrality in this conflict. Public opinion polls show this. The only Americans who don’t support this viewpoint are nutjob Christian evangelicals, Jewish- “Americans”, and Arab-“Americans”.

Our one-sided, unconditional support of Israel is responsible for most of our foreign problems. How can sell out America by supporting this ridiculous policy, which benefits Israel at the expense of America, and still call yourself an American?[/quote]

Championing Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, suicide bombings, and breaches of the cease fire (first committted by Hamas) does not equal unconditional support of Israel.

I dont’ agree with all of Israel’s actions. It is not blameless. But strict neturality is ludicrous when comparing the conduct of both nations in this conflict. For once, our government has it right. It’s the anti-Israel media and the stupid lemmings who eat up their words without finding the real facts that have it wrong.

FYI, the Israeli offer in 2000 didn’t include roads…i.e., the Palestinian villagers would have been trapped in their own villages. They would’ve needed permission to travel from village to village. Only an idiot would’ve accepted that offer…which makes me surprised Arafat didn’t, because he was a corrupt fool.

You think that Israel is the victim here…its the other way around. Any T-Nation man would fight back if someone bulldozed his house using tanks without any compensation and then was relegated to living in a tent in a refugee camp while new immigrants from Russia moved into where his old house was.

Yeah, the Arabs collectively are a bunch of jackasses, but the Israelis are even bigger jackasses.

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Israel and Hamas had a cease-fire. Then on November 5th Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Gaza, killing 6 palestinians, including 2 teenagers. Thats when Hamas started firing back.

Arafat would’ve been stupid to accept the peace accord back in the 90s. Sure, it gave the Palestinians a lot of land, but the Israelis would have kept control of the roads linking villages. Palestinians would not have been able to freely travel out of their towns. Imagine being given a mansion and then having to request permission to travel from room to room.[/quote]

The reason there is a blockage of Gaza and other Palestinian territories and the reason the Palestinians are not allowed to travel out of their towns freely is because of a tactic the terrorists use known as suicide bombings.

If the Palestinians did not strap bombs to their bodies and then proceed to detonate them in crowded areas killing scores of unarmed civilians in the process, I doubt Israel would have any reason to restrict the Palestinian’s access.

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
FYI, the Israeli offer in 2000 didn’t include roads…i.e., the Palestinian villagers would have been trapped in their own villages. They would’ve needed permission to travel from village to village. Only an idiot would’ve accepted that offer…which makes me surprised Arafat didn’t, because he was a corrupt fool.
[/quote]

Arafat didn’t accept because he feared retrobution from more radical Arabs like Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention fanatics in neighboring Syria and Iran who would have turned on him as they have turned on Abbas.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
No point in continuing this thread. The anti-Israel folks don’t even have facts to support their vitriol or know the history.

FYI, Israel offered to give up 95% of the disputed lands in 2000 at the Camp David Summit.[/quote]

That’s incredibly simplistic. You either don’t know what the real reasons for the impasse were, or you’re ignoring them. The issue of an Israeli road bisecting Palestinian territory has been mentioned more than once now. East Jerusalem is another issue. And the right of return is another, although that will never happen. The Israelis made an offer they knew Arafat could not accept. The “anti-Israel” Western media bought it, hook, line and sinker.

This article from the Israeli paper Ha’aretz sums it up:

"In reflecting on whether the above constitutes a genuine counter-offer, it is important not to confuse that question with whether the Palestinian proposal was tenable within Israeli politics. Clearly it was not politically tenable. But then, the Israeli offer was probably untenable within Palestinian politics. We will never know whether continued negotiations would have lead to an agreement. But it is hard to see why the Palestinian proposal - one that allows most settlers to remain, allows Jewish neighborhoods to remain in East Jerusalem, accepts Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish quarter of the Old City and the Western Wall, agrees to an Israeli veto over excavation, and in principle accepts that the actual return to Israel cannot be unlimited - is somehow proof of Palestinian determination to destroy Israel.

The fact that this conclusion has been drawn, points to a continued problem in the mind set of many, the insistence that meeting the demands of Israeli politics is the criteria for judging whether a Palestinian proposal represents a genuine offer to end the conflict. The Israeli public would have been far better served if the Barak government had turned to Israelis and said: “Here is the price the Palestinians are asking for peace - we have rejected it because it is more than we are willing to pay.”"

Read the whole thing for specifics:
http://www.peacelobby.org/HaaretzOctober1001.htm

And it’s kind of funny how “the disputed lands” suddenly becomes just the West Bank and Gaza, as though all of Israel proper just magically appeared in the hands of Jewish settlers (hint: ethnic cleansing played more than a small role, as even right-wing Israeli historians like Benny Morris concede).

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No point in continuing this thread. The anti-Israel folks don’t even have facts to support their vitriol or know the history.

FYI, Israel offered to give up 95% of the disputed lands in 2000 at the Camp David Summit.

That’s incredibly simplistic. You either don’t know what the real reasons for the impasse were, or you’re ignoring them. The issue of an Israeli road bisecting Palestinian territory has been mentioned more than once now. East Jerusalem is another issue. And the right of return is another, although that will never happen. The Israelis made an offer they knew Arafat could not accept. The “anti-Israel” Western media bought it, hook, line and sinker.


And it’s kind of funny how “the disputed lands” suddenly becomes just the West Bank and Gaza, as though all of Israel proper just magically appeared in the hands of Jewish settlers (hint: ethnic cleansing played more than a small role, as even right-wing Israeli historians like Benny Morris concede).[/quote]

And from this last paragraph, are we to conclude, as you seem to, that “all of Israel proper” has no right to exist as a state–not within borders of 2000 at Camp David, or 1967, or 1948, or 1947? Must the Palestinian “West Bank” refer to the territory as defined by Hamas, that is, all the land from the Jordan to the Mediterranean?

What makes that position–which you barely occlude–legitimate? Not land claims–those belong to the Ottomans and the British Mandate, which held most of the territories in the cartoon map at the head of this thread, or to the absentee landlords of Beirut and Damascus. Legitimate because of the suffering endured by the Palestinians themselves, held captives in refugee camps, not by Israelis, but by their Arab brothers? Don’t bother to answer, GKD; you have your opinions washed in a small reservoir of highly selected “facts.”


Speaking of which, I do not know what fulcrum you must stand upon to call the (disputable) revisionist historian, Benny Morris, a “right-winger.” From a review from his work:
Morris argues that the 700,000 Palestinians who fled their homes in 1947 left mostly due to Israeli military attacks, but also due to fear of impending Israeli attack, fear of being caught up in fighting, and expulsions, but not as the result of an expulsion policy…
The book shows a map of 228 empty Palestinian villages, and attempts to explain why the villagers left. In 41 villages, he writes that the inhabitants were expelled by military forces; in another 90 villages, that the inhabitants panicked because of attacks on other villages, and fled. In six villages, he writes, the inhabitants left under instructions from local Palestinian authorities. He was unable to find out why another 46 villages were abandoned.

Your heavy “hint” about “ethnic cleansing” needs thought and perspective. How is that quantified? It isn’t. In the excerpt above, it is not clear which “military forces” caused the expulsion of the nakba. Some Palestinians remember, for example, that they fled before Israeli tanks. But Israel had no tanks in 1948; their villages were emptied by Egyptian tanks, and by the British-trained army of Transjordan. As well, blame Arab provocateurs, who hoped that rumors of Zionist expulsions would incite solidarity, only to instill fear and panic, and perpetuate the abandonment of their towns and homes. Why would renters stand and fight when their Arab brothers’ armies would vanquish the “invaders?”
The panic had many fathers. There were Zionists who promoted the expulsion or their neighbors, and there were many Zionists who fervently opposed it.

Sad image. Its horrible that the apartheid wall that Israel built is inside of the West Bank, not the original border. They are bulldozing down olive trees that are hundreds of years old. Hundreds of checkpoints block off every city from another. Settlements are being built on private Palestinian owned land.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No point in continuing this thread. The anti-Israel folks don’t even have facts to support their vitriol or know the history.

FYI, Israel offered to give up 95% of the disputed lands in 2000 at the Camp David Summit.

That’s incredibly simplistic. You either don’t know what the real reasons for the impasse were, or you’re ignoring them. The issue of an Israeli road bisecting Palestinian territory has been mentioned more than once now. East Jerusalem is another issue. And the right of return is another, although that will never happen. The Israelis made an offer they knew Arafat could not accept. The “anti-Israel” Western media bought it, hook, line and sinker.

This article from the Israeli paper Ha’aretz sums it up:

"In reflecting on whether the above constitutes a genuine counter-offer, it is important not to confuse that question with whether the Palestinian proposal was tenable within Israeli politics. Clearly it was not politically tenable. But then, the Israeli offer was probably untenable within Palestinian politics. We will never know whether continued negotiations would have lead to an agreement. But it is hard to see why the Palestinian proposal - one that allows most settlers to remain, allows Jewish neighborhoods to remain in East Jerusalem, accepts Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish quarter of the Old City and the Western Wall, agrees to an Israeli veto over excavation, and in principle accepts that the actual return to Israel cannot be unlimited - is somehow proof of Palestinian determination to destroy Israel.

The fact that this conclusion has been drawn, points to a continued problem in the mind set of many, the insistence that meeting the demands of Israeli politics is the criteria for judging whether a Palestinian proposal represents a genuine offer to end the conflict. The Israeli public would have been far better served if the Barak government had turned to Israelis and said: “Here is the price the Palestinians are asking for peace - we have rejected it because it is more than we are willing to pay.”"

Read the whole thing for specifics:
http://www.peacelobby.org/HaaretzOctober1001.htm

And it’s kind of funny how “the disputed lands” suddenly becomes just the West Bank and Gaza, as though all of Israel proper just magically appeared in the hands of Jewish settlers (hint: ethnic cleansing played more than a small role, as even right-wing Israeli historians like Benny Morris concede).[/quote]

Fair enough. I don’t agree with all you’ve said, but I did oversimplify. But much less so than the pro-Hamas posters have been doing on these forums.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No point in continuing this thread. The anti-Israel folks don’t even have facts to support their vitriol or know the history.

FYI, Israel offered to give up 95% of the disputed lands in 2000 at the Camp David Summit.

That’s incredibly simplistic. You either don’t know what the real reasons for the impasse were, or you’re ignoring them. The issue of an Israeli road bisecting Palestinian territory has been mentioned more than once now. East Jerusalem is another issue. And the right of return is another, although that will never happen. The Israelis made an offer they knew Arafat could not accept. The “anti-Israel” Western media bought it, hook, line and sinker.


And it’s kind of funny how “the disputed lands” suddenly becomes just the West Bank and Gaza, as though all of Israel proper just magically appeared in the hands of Jewish settlers (hint: ethnic cleansing played more than a small role, as even right-wing Israeli historians like Benny Morris concede).

And from this last paragraph, are we to conclude, as you seem to, that “all of Israel proper” has no right to exist as a state–not within borders of 2000 at Camp David, or 1967, or 1948, or 1947? Must the Palestinian “West Bank” refer to the territory as defined by Hamas, that is, all the land from the Jordan to the Mediterranean?
[/quote]

No, I never said that. Israel is a state, and we should accept it as such. Whether it should have been established in the first place is one issue, but it can’t just be reversed now. Personally, I think the only solution would be a true multi-ethnic democracy encompassing all of Israel and the Occupied Territories (minus the Golan Heights for peace with Syria, which will probably happen in the near future anyway), like South Africa. This will probably never happen.

He thinks Israel should have ethnically cleansed all of the Palestinians from Palestine in 1948. I don’t what you’d call that, certainly not left-wing.

Absolutely. I’m not denying that it was a disaster with many authors. I’m saying that the idea that the Palestinians just left at Arab urging is wrong.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No point in continuing this thread. The anti-Israel folks don’t even have facts to support their vitriol or know the history.

No, I never said that. Israel is a state, and we should accept it as such. Whether it should have been established in the first place is one issue, but it can’t just be reversed now. Personally, I think the only solution would be a true multi-ethnic democracy encompassing all of Israel and the Occupied Territories (minus the Golan Heights for peace with Syria, which will probably happen in the near future anyway), like South Africa. This will probably never happen.

…[/quote]

Now I do not know what planet you stand on.

What peaceful “multi-ethnic domocracy” would Hamas and Hezbollah found. You presume it would be better than Lebanon.
You believe in the OneNation crap–which “will probably never happen.” To which I add, “Thank God, Allah, and any other Interested Party!”

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No point in continuing this thread. The anti-Israel folks don’t even have facts to support their vitriol or know the history.

No, I never said that. Israel is a state, and we should accept it as such. Whether it should have been established in the first place is one issue, but it can’t just be reversed now. Personally, I think the only solution would be a true multi-ethnic democracy encompassing all of Israel and the Occupied Territories (minus the Golan Heights for peace with Syria, which will probably happen in the near future anyway), like South Africa. This will probably never happen.

Now I do not know what planet you stand on.

What peaceful “multi-ethnic domocracy” would Hamas and Hezbollah found. You presume it would be better than Lebanon.
You believe in the OneNation crap–which “will probably never happen.” To which I add, “Thank God, Allah, and any other Interested Party!”

[/quote]

Do you see what I did here?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No point in continuing this thread. The anti-Israel folks don’t even have facts to support their vitriol or know the history.

No, I never said that. Israel is a state, and we should accept it as such. Whether it should have been established in the first place is one issue, but it can’t just be reversed now.

Personally, I think the only solution would be a true multi-ethnic democracy encompassing all of Israel and the Occupied Territories (minus the Golan Heights for peace with Syria, which will probably happen in the near future anyway), like South Africa. This will probably never happen.

Now I do not know what planet you stand on.

What peaceful “multi-ethnic domocracy” would Hamas and Hezbollah found. You presume it would be better than Lebanon.
You believe in the OneNation crap–which “will probably never happen.” To which I add, “Thank God, Allah, and any other Interested Party!”

Do you see what I did here?
[/quote]

Yes. To propose “solutions” which “will probably never happen” is to be dishonest while pretending fairness. In short, hypocrisy.