Posted by Frederick Jones on Oct 10, 2007 - 01:39 PM
![Palestinian villagers and peace activists wave flags September 7, 2007. [AP photo]](http://blogs.state.gov/images/UNGA/field/palestinian2_m.jpg)
Is the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state feasible? Should the United States play such a major role in its establishment?
|
Home Videos Photos Welcome About Legal Search Archive |
Share This Post
Recent Posts
Young Europeans React to Secretary Clinton’s VisitWhat Actions Should the International Community Take To Resolve the Situation in Darfur?
Spring Break: Have Fun, Stay Safe
Secretary Clinton Responds to Your Text Messages
Secretary’s 2009 International Women of Courage Awards
Question of the Week: Is the Creation of a Palestinian State Feasible? Should U.S. Play a Role?
Posted by Frederick Jones on Oct 10, 2007 - 01:39 PM
Secretary Rice arrives in the Middle East this week to continue discussions with leaders from Israel and the Palestinian Authority in support of the ongoing efforts to lay a foundation for serious negotiations on the establishment of a Palestinian state. Later this fall, the United States will host an international meeting to help Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas achieve the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security.
Is the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state feasible? Should the United States play such a major role in its establishment?
Posted by Frederick Jones on Oct 10, 2007 - 01:39 PM
Is the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state feasible? Should the United States play such a major role in its establishment?
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Eric in New Mexico writes:
If there is one thing about people that's a given, it's that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.
And in the knowing, all things are possible.
Regarding America's role playing:
The concept of "Karma" is simply put, reaping what you sow. It goes way beyond this, and forms the basis of living in peace with your actions in the world.
People who bring trouble between them to your door, are asking you to engage in their karma, and feed it. They often blame you when it's still unresolved opon leaving. If you've taken sides, one blames the consequences of the other's action opon you. You have just incurred karma and have done so by allowing the dispute to continue in your home first, and in siding with a disputant, and the attachment to the conflict that it represents, secondly. I'm speaking as if it were
two individuals involved, not nations.
If Arafat and Sharon personalized this conflict, they ignored the best interests of their citizens. Hamas should read the writing on the wall.
A people can elect terrorism to power, but a democracy it doesn't make.
Diplomacy is done by individuals, and words are the worst form of communication ever invented.
But to rid the Karma of attachment to that conflict that America has been burdened with. I mean until they start thinking in the public's interests first and foremost, we will not advance the interests of peace and security, and while we may encourage them to engage in peace, they must find it in their own best interests, and work toward that end to find security.
Any way we approach the situation, our efforts have been consistently sabotaged by seeming to be taking sides, and when we don't step in to stop the slaughter, we are blamed for it.
The goal of a Palestinian State as supported, gives hope to the stateless, and is worthy in that regard.
The thought of a Palestinian state without terrorism is today, unthinkable without the change in attitude necessary from all parties to find peace and eventual trust in that peace.
Bold steps and perhaps controversial ones are required, when a plan is not working, everything must be considered to find one that does. I believe this situation must be next on the list to effectively win the war on terrorism. It must be done through diplomacy, not armed intervention, however that option too must be considered if a peace keeping force is necessary in supporting diplomacy.
Peace comes through strength, this is a given in today's world, how we employ it, ethically, diplomatically, economicly and militarily, let the lessons of Afghanistan be the guide. There is a way. I have faith in this, as I do in my government's ability to correct past mistakes and to address the future with those lessons in hand.
To all the parties I would offer the following advice:
You can achive this most difficult of things, finding the "undiscovered country", so long as you remember your joy. One cannot have hope without it.
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007
If there is one thing about people that's a given, it's that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.
And in the knowing, all things are possible.
Regarding America's role playing:
The concept of "Karma" is simply put, reaping what you sow. It goes way beyond this, and forms the basis of living in peace with your actions in the world.
People who bring trouble between them to your door, are asking you to engage in their karma, and feed it. They often blame you when it's still unresolved opon leaving. If you've taken sides, one blames the consequences of the other's action opon you. You have just incurred karma and have done so by allowing the dispute to continue in your home first, and in siding with a disputant, and the attachment to the conflict that it represents, secondly. I'm speaking as if it were
two individuals involved, not nations.
If Arafat and Sharon personalized this conflict, they ignored the best interests of their citizens. Hamas should read the writing on the wall.
A people can elect terrorism to power, but a democracy it doesn't make.
Diplomacy is done by individuals, and words are the worst form of communication ever invented.
But to rid the Karma of attachment to that conflict that America has been burdened with. I mean until they start thinking in the public's interests first and foremost, we will not advance the interests of peace and security, and while we may encourage them to engage in peace, they must find it in their own best interests, and work toward that end to find security.
Any way we approach the situation, our efforts have been consistently sabotaged by seeming to be taking sides, and when we don't step in to stop the slaughter, we are blamed for it.
The goal of a Palestinian State as supported, gives hope to the stateless, and is worthy in that regard.
The thought of a Palestinian state without terrorism is today, unthinkable without the change in attitude necessary from all parties to find peace and eventual trust in that peace.
Bold steps and perhaps controversial ones are required, when a plan is not working, everything must be considered to find one that does. I believe this situation must be next on the list to effectively win the war on terrorism. It must be done through diplomacy, not armed intervention, however that option too must be considered if a peace keeping force is necessary in supporting diplomacy.
Peace comes through strength, this is a given in today's world, how we employ it, ethically, diplomatically, economicly and militarily, let the lessons of Afghanistan be the guide. There is a way. I have faith in this, as I do in my government's ability to correct past mistakes and to address the future with those lessons in hand.
To all the parties I would offer the following advice:
You can achive this most difficult of things, finding the "undiscovered country", so long as you remember your joy. One cannot have hope without it.
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007
Yonason in Florida writes:
A misconception that many today labor under is that the "Palestinian" Arabs were some sort of ancient people who have inhabited Israel for millennia and the Jews are trying to displace them.
There is NO connection between the "Palestinians," who acquired that name in about 1967 as a propaganda tool to fool people into believing that "Palestine" was named for them, and the Philistines who evaporated from history well before the common era (2000 plus years ago) leaving no remnant. The "Palestinians" couldn't possibly be related, especially since most were immigrants to Israel after the Jews began making it a fit place to live in.
Of course, there is one striking connection between the Philistines and the "Palestinians," and that is the fact that Philistine comes from the Hebrew word meaning "invader" which is what those people were.
http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/055422.php
And I will grant you that, in that aspect, the Philistines and the "Palestinians" are exactly the same.
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007
A misconception that many today labor under is that the "Palestinian" Arabs were some sort of ancient people who have inhabited Israel for millennia and the Jews are trying to displace them.
There is NO connection between the "Palestinians," who acquired that name in about 1967 as a propaganda tool to fool people into believing that "Palestine" was named for them, and the Philistines who evaporated from history well before the common era (2000 plus years ago) leaving no remnant. The "Palestinians" couldn't possibly be related, especially since most were immigrants to Israel after the Jews began making it a fit place to live in.
Of course, there is one striking connection between the Philistines and the "Palestinians," and that is the fact that Philistine comes from the Hebrew word meaning "invader" which is what those people were.
http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/055422.php
And I will grant you that, in that aspect, the Philistines and the "Palestinians" are exactly the same.
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007
Yonason in Florida writes:
Excerpts from "The Palestine Mandate" and How the British Violated Them:
It seems there are those who don't like my interpretation of the Palestine Mandate. Maybe these comments will make it clearer.
The mandate was a result of the "...recognition ... [of] ... The historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;..."[my emphasis, here and below]
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm
Not the "palestinian people" but the "Jewish people." [@Susan of Maryland, please note this well!]
And, so, how were the Brits "mandated" to do it?
"ART. 6.
... Facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall ENCOURAGE, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, ... " (IBID) [where "close settlement" means many and densely populated areas)
So, how did the Brits "faithfully" execute their "mandate?"
"The British resistence to immigration after 1939 was dramatically illustrated in 1941 by the loss of the ship named Struma with 760 Jewish passengers, ... "
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_oppose_immigration.php
More sordid details of how these Jews were sent back to die in Hitlers death camps can be found here.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/struma.htm
And that was just one example. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of Jews could have been saved from extermination had the British, who knew what Hitler was up to, allowed Jews the privilege that the "mandate" required.
Meanwhile, Arab immigration went unrestricted,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html
... despite the fact that Jewish immigration was ostensibly drastically reduced because the land allegedly couldn't support any more, a claim the Brits later admited was false..
That was only one way the Brits savaged the intent of the "mandate." Another involed violation of this portion, . . .
"ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
How did they do that? They gave 70% of it, East of the Jordan river, to be a kingdom for Abdullah, son of Sherif Hussein of Mecca, as in what is now "Saudi Arabia."
_____________________________________
But, apart from the fact the Jews were denied what they eventually won, with G-D's help, the question remains. Should the "Palestinians" have their own state, and should the USA help?
Here is some more information of the "moderate" "leaders," like Abbas, who would be in control of that little corner of Hell on Earth.
"In mid-March Abbas met with a delegation of 13 terrorist groups in Cairo and invited them to come to Gaza after Israeli Prime Minister Sharon completed his pullout. In doing this he assured the creation of a terrorist entity at Israel�s border.
By late March he met with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and offered them the opportunity to join the PLO - without renouncing terrorism.
In early April he gave the order for the incorporation of wanted gunmen into the PA Security Forces. This was specifically to protect them from Israel; once they began collecting salaries, they had immunity. Before long, he was recruiting Hamas."
http://israelbehindthenews.com/pdf/InsideFateh.pdf
Those are the kind of "states" that we want to see destabilized, not established. It is amazing that with what we know about the "Palestinian" Arabs and their leaders that any sane person could want them in charge of anything, let alone a state.
Heck, even many of the "Palestinian" Arabs living in Israel prefer it to Arafat's Islamic, Judenrein "paradise."
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2534
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007
Excerpts from "The Palestine Mandate" and How the British Violated Them:
It seems there are those who don't like my interpretation of the Palestine Mandate. Maybe these comments will make it clearer.
The mandate was a result of the "...recognition ... [of] ... The historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;..."[my emphasis, here and below]
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm
Not the "palestinian people" but the "Jewish people." [@Susan of Maryland, please note this well!]
And, so, how were the Brits "mandated" to do it?
"ART. 6.
... Facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall ENCOURAGE, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, ... " (IBID) [where "close settlement" means many and densely populated areas)
So, how did the Brits "faithfully" execute their "mandate?"
"The British resistence to immigration after 1939 was dramatically illustrated in 1941 by the loss of the ship named Struma with 760 Jewish passengers, ... "
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_oppose_immigration.php
More sordid details of how these Jews were sent back to die in Hitlers death camps can be found here.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/struma.htm
And that was just one example. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of Jews could have been saved from extermination had the British, who knew what Hitler was up to, allowed Jews the privilege that the "mandate" required.
Meanwhile, Arab immigration went unrestricted,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html
... despite the fact that Jewish immigration was ostensibly drastically reduced because the land allegedly couldn't support any more, a claim the Brits later admited was false..
That was only one way the Brits savaged the intent of the "mandate." Another involed violation of this portion, . . .
"ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
How did they do that? They gave 70% of it, East of the Jordan river, to be a kingdom for Abdullah, son of Sherif Hussein of Mecca, as in what is now "Saudi Arabia."
_____________________________________
But, apart from the fact the Jews were denied what they eventually won, with G-D's help, the question remains. Should the "Palestinians" have their own state, and should the USA help?
Here is some more information of the "moderate" "leaders," like Abbas, who would be in control of that little corner of Hell on Earth.
"In mid-March Abbas met with a delegation of 13 terrorist groups in Cairo and invited them to come to Gaza after Israeli Prime Minister Sharon completed his pullout. In doing this he assured the creation of a terrorist entity at Israel�s border.
By late March he met with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and offered them the opportunity to join the PLO - without renouncing terrorism.
In early April he gave the order for the incorporation of wanted gunmen into the PA Security Forces. This was specifically to protect them from Israel; once they began collecting salaries, they had immunity. Before long, he was recruiting Hamas."
http://israelbehindthenews.com/pdf/InsideFateh.pdf
Those are the kind of "states" that we want to see destabilized, not established. It is amazing that with what we know about the "Palestinian" Arabs and their leaders that any sane person could want them in charge of anything, let alone a state.
Heck, even many of the "Palestinian" Arabs living in Israel prefer it to Arafat's Islamic, Judenrein "paradise."
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2534
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007
Susan in Maryland writes:
@ Bill in Texas -- I will not permit my statements to be perverted; I did not say Jews were responsible for their own incineration: stick to the text at hand, not the way you want to pervert it.
There WERE causes to the wars, they did not emerge from insubstantial ether. In "The Pity of it All," Amos Elon explains at length how Germans and Jews lived together to their mutual benefit for many generations. Zionism, however, introduced attitudes and practices that DID inflame the passions of Germans, similar to the way Naomi Klein explains that impositions of the "Shock Doctrine" inflames rage in people, rage that boils over in deadly ways. John Maynard Keynes made the same observation in 1920 in "The Consequences of the Peace," when he warned that the extreme punishment levied on Germany after WWI would result in a very dangerous reaction. History proves that he was right.
Today we have an opportunity to learn from Klein and from Keynes and from the bitter experience of the Jewish people as well as from the ongoing tragedy that the Palestinians are enduring. Instead, some are denying not only facts as they occurred but even denying the search for the facts, while simultaneously repeating the very acts of violence and horror that had created victims in the past.
It is intellectually dishonest as well as dangerous to attack a dispassionate search for facts, patterns, and behaviors as to how it came about that-- to stick to the Rafsanjani statement-- Palestinians were dispossessed of their homes and lands by Jews who had been victimized by Germany. Problems cannot be solved if their causes are not understood, and understanding is not advanced by propaganda but by hard-headed analysis of the facts as they happened.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
@ Bill in Texas -- I will not permit my statements to be perverted; I did not say Jews were responsible for their own incineration: stick to the text at hand, not the way you want to pervert it.
There WERE causes to the wars, they did not emerge from insubstantial ether. In "The Pity of it All," Amos Elon explains at length how Germans and Jews lived together to their mutual benefit for many generations. Zionism, however, introduced attitudes and practices that DID inflame the passions of Germans, similar to the way Naomi Klein explains that impositions of the "Shock Doctrine" inflames rage in people, rage that boils over in deadly ways. John Maynard Keynes made the same observation in 1920 in "The Consequences of the Peace," when he warned that the extreme punishment levied on Germany after WWI would result in a very dangerous reaction. History proves that he was right.
Today we have an opportunity to learn from Klein and from Keynes and from the bitter experience of the Jewish people as well as from the ongoing tragedy that the Palestinians are enduring. Instead, some are denying not only facts as they occurred but even denying the search for the facts, while simultaneously repeating the very acts of violence and horror that had created victims in the past.
It is intellectually dishonest as well as dangerous to attack a dispassionate search for facts, patterns, and behaviors as to how it came about that-- to stick to the Rafsanjani statement-- Palestinians were dispossessed of their homes and lands by Jews who had been victimized by Germany. Problems cannot be solved if their causes are not understood, and understanding is not advanced by propaganda but by hard-headed analysis of the facts as they happened.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Susan in Maryland writes:
What happened to the Iran blog?
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
What happened to the Iran blog?
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Susan in Maryland writes:
@ Bill in Texas:
You are reading what you want to read, not what Rafsanjani said. The point Rafsanjani was trying to make is similar to the point Ahmadinejad has made several times, most recently at Columbia University. Ahmadinejad said:
"given this historical event, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?
The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time."
Here's what MAMRI says that Rafsanjani said:
"Europe resolved a great problem � the problem of the Zionist danger. The Zionists, who constituted a strong political party in Europe, caused much disorder there. Since they had a lot of property and controlled an empire of propaganda, they made the European governments helpless. What Hitler and the German Nazis did to the Jews of Europe at that time was partly due to these circumstances with the Jews. They wanted to expel the Zionists from Europe because they always were a pain in the neck for the governments there. **This is how this calamity fell upon the Muslims, especially the Palestinians, and you all know this history, more or less.**
Rafsanjani is saying that Muslims are being punished for the wrongs of Germany. That is not disputable.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
@ Bill in Texas:
You are reading what you want to read, not what Rafsanjani said. The point Rafsanjani was trying to make is similar to the point Ahmadinejad has made several times, most recently at Columbia University. Ahmadinejad said:
"given this historical event, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?
The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time."
Here's what MAMRI says that Rafsanjani said:
"Europe resolved a great problem � the problem of the Zionist danger. The Zionists, who constituted a strong political party in Europe, caused much disorder there. Since they had a lot of property and controlled an empire of propaganda, they made the European governments helpless. What Hitler and the German Nazis did to the Jews of Europe at that time was partly due to these circumstances with the Jews. They wanted to expel the Zionists from Europe because they always were a pain in the neck for the governments there. **This is how this calamity fell upon the Muslims, especially the Palestinians, and you all know this history, more or less.**
Rafsanjani is saying that Muslims are being punished for the wrongs of Germany. That is not disputable.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Gary in Virginia writes:
I assume the question refers to a Palestinian state as part of a 'two-state solution.' Surely that solution is not feasible, at least not unless the Palestinian side wants there to be two states. The Arab League absolutely rejected the partition of Palestine back in 1947,[see: ]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1947UN181.html] and the Palestinian National Charter affirms that rejection, especially in Articles 2 and 17 [see: ]http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html]. Unless and until that changes, and a couple of generations have passed, I see no reason to expect a two-state solution to work.
Should the U.S. play a major role? Maybe, but I wonder why we are even bothering with peace negotiations at a time when the Palestinian side is violently divided into its al-Fatah and HAMAS wings. Until the Palestinians make peace with themselves, how can we talk about them making peace with Israel?
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
I assume the question refers to a Palestinian state as part of a 'two-state solution.' Surely that solution is not feasible, at least not unless the Palestinian side wants there to be two states. The Arab League absolutely rejected the partition of Palestine back in 1947,[see: ]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1947UN181.html] and the Palestinian National Charter affirms that rejection, especially in Articles 2 and 17 [see: ]http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html]. Unless and until that changes, and a couple of generations have passed, I see no reason to expect a two-state solution to work.
Should the U.S. play a major role? Maybe, but I wonder why we are even bothering with peace negotiations at a time when the Palestinian side is violently divided into its al-Fatah and HAMAS wings. Until the Palestinians make peace with themselves, how can we talk about them making peace with Israel?
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Bill in Texas writes:
@ Susan in Maryland --
RE: "I see nothing that is factually in error or problematic in Rafsanjani's statement." speaks for itself.
There is no distinction between "Jews" and "zionism". The gas chambers did not discriminate and neither has any other irrational Jew-hater throughout history. In your world view the Jews are responsible for their own incineration. That view is a perversion beyond my ability to describe. I have made my case and will leave it to all of the readers of this blog to make up their own mind - no need for you to respond to the 9/11 inquiry.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
@ Susan in Maryland --
RE: "I see nothing that is factually in error or problematic in Rafsanjani's statement." speaks for itself.
There is no distinction between "Jews" and "zionism". The gas chambers did not discriminate and neither has any other irrational Jew-hater throughout history. In your world view the Jews are responsible for their own incineration. That view is a perversion beyond my ability to describe. I have made my case and will leave it to all of the readers of this blog to make up their own mind - no need for you to respond to the 9/11 inquiry.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Susan in Maryland writes:
@ Bill in Texas-
I don't drink beer.
I don't speak Farsi and must be skeptical of a MEMRI translation of Rafsanjani's comments. Nevertheless, assuming the translation is accurate and unbiased, I see nothing that is factually in error or problematic in Rafsanjani's statement.
I believe a distinction between "Jews" and "zionism" was more than implicit; I believe zionism was identified as a political force and movement; I believe Rafsanjani is historically correct and is supported by historians such as Amos Elon in "The Pity of It All" in stating that zionists controlled great wealth, political power, and media in pre-war Germany; that their disproportionate wielding of that wealth and power played a role in inflaming the World Wars that destroyed many parts of Germany and over 2 million German civilians and that included the holocaust of Jews as well as millions of Russian Christians, Polish Catholics (thousands of whom found refuge and safety in Iran, where they still live peacefully), and others.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
@ Bill in Texas-
I don't drink beer.
I don't speak Farsi and must be skeptical of a MEMRI translation of Rafsanjani's comments. Nevertheless, assuming the translation is accurate and unbiased, I see nothing that is factually in error or problematic in Rafsanjani's statement.
I believe a distinction between "Jews" and "zionism" was more than implicit; I believe zionism was identified as a political force and movement; I believe Rafsanjani is historically correct and is supported by historians such as Amos Elon in "The Pity of It All" in stating that zionists controlled great wealth, political power, and media in pre-war Germany; that their disproportionate wielding of that wealth and power played a role in inflaming the World Wars that destroyed many parts of Germany and over 2 million German civilians and that included the holocaust of Jews as well as millions of Russian Christians, Polish Catholics (thousands of whom found refuge and safety in Iran, where they still live peacefully), and others.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Susan in Maryland writes:
@ Yonason in Florida -- You've made about 7 assertions in 2 posts.
Let's deal with them one at a time,starting with this one:
yonason wrote: "The British were required by the League of Nations to establish a Jewish homeland in all of what they renamed "Palestine,"... And part of that mandate (legally binding under international law) was that Jews would be assisted to emigrate there and Arabs would be limited. The Brits reneged on that, and prevented Jews from coming while encouraging Arabs."
The elided part mentions the naming of Palestine, who 'owned' it in some earlier millenia and on and on and on and on. Suggest you read some unbiased histories; I have found very good Teaching Company lectures such as Prof. Harl's "Ancient Civilizations of Asia Minor" and Salim Yaqub, "US & Middle East, 1914-2001."
For those who can't Google the Balfour document and the League of Nations , here are relevant portions. Compare the actual words to yonason's desiderated meanings, above.
"Balfour Declaration 1917
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour"
Please note three items:
1. The Declaration is addressed to Baron Rothschild;
2. It grants a national home for the Jewish people "IN Palestine," not "OF Palestine;"
3. It is "clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, July 24, 1922, states in its Preamble:
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,** [ie the Balfour Declaration, above] by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment **in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,** it being **clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,** or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
In other words, the terms of the League of Nations=the terms of the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate of 1922 gave mandatory powers to Great Britain, ie. GB was to administer and enforce the "establishment IN Palestine of national home for the Jews," AND GB was to ensure that "the civil & religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" were not prejudiced by the establishment of Jews IN Palestine."
I have read the entire League of Nations Mandate and could find nothing that would support your assertion that "Arabs would be limited" in living in Palestine; the documents seem to state the opposite.
Great Britain may, indeed, be accused of double-dealing: Balfour signed an agreement with Baron Rothschild for territory that was already the subject of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, subdividing the same territory between the French and the British.
And indeed, the British did seek to stem the flow of Jews to Palestine as the demographic balance began to shift, causing consternation among Arabs that "IN" was becoming "OF," and as the rights of Arabs were not being protected as the League of Nations Mandate required. Zionists responded by attacking British troops and British government authorities and installations, waging guerrilla war against the British mandatory authority and harrying Arabs who were attempting to establish a sovereign state of their own in the wake of the collapse of the Ottomans.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
@ Yonason in Florida -- You've made about 7 assertions in 2 posts.
Let's deal with them one at a time,starting with this one:
yonason wrote: "The British were required by the League of Nations to establish a Jewish homeland in all of what they renamed "Palestine,"... And part of that mandate (legally binding under international law) was that Jews would be assisted to emigrate there and Arabs would be limited. The Brits reneged on that, and prevented Jews from coming while encouraging Arabs."
The elided part mentions the naming of Palestine, who 'owned' it in some earlier millenia and on and on and on and on. Suggest you read some unbiased histories; I have found very good Teaching Company lectures such as Prof. Harl's "Ancient Civilizations of Asia Minor" and Salim Yaqub, "US & Middle East, 1914-2001."
For those who can't Google the Balfour document and the League of Nations , here are relevant portions. Compare the actual words to yonason's desiderated meanings, above.
"Balfour Declaration 1917
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour"
Please note three items:
1. The Declaration is addressed to Baron Rothschild;
2. It grants a national home for the Jewish people "IN Palestine," not "OF Palestine;"
3. It is "clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, July 24, 1922, states in its Preamble:
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,** [ie the Balfour Declaration, above] by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment **in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,** it being **clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,** or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
In other words, the terms of the League of Nations=the terms of the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate of 1922 gave mandatory powers to Great Britain, ie. GB was to administer and enforce the "establishment IN Palestine of national home for the Jews," AND GB was to ensure that "the civil & religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" were not prejudiced by the establishment of Jews IN Palestine."
I have read the entire League of Nations Mandate and could find nothing that would support your assertion that "Arabs would be limited" in living in Palestine; the documents seem to state the opposite.
Great Britain may, indeed, be accused of double-dealing: Balfour signed an agreement with Baron Rothschild for territory that was already the subject of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, subdividing the same territory between the French and the British.
And indeed, the British did seek to stem the flow of Jews to Palestine as the demographic balance began to shift, causing consternation among Arabs that "IN" was becoming "OF," and as the rights of Arabs were not being protected as the League of Nations Mandate required. Zionists responded by attacking British troops and British government authorities and installations, waging guerrilla war against the British mandatory authority and harrying Arabs who were attempting to establish a sovereign state of their own in the wake of the collapse of the Ottomans.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Ron in Kansas writes:
@ Ralph in Greece --
1.) As long as our Congress funds and arms Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, that's how long America will continue to be the target of Muslim terrorism.
2.) As long as our U.S. military continues to occupy Muslim land, that's how long America will be the target of Muslim terrorism.
3.)Despite what Bush & Cheney says, it doesn't have a thing to do with hating our freedoms, hot dogs, apple pies and Chevrolets. Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Sir,
1- Please refresh my memory as to when the Isrealites actually lost any claim to at least some of the land where their ancestors existed before the expansion of the "muslim" empires
2- I wonder if you could explain where "muslim lands" vs not yet muslim lands is supposed to end. Am I incorrect in my understanding that the teachings are that any land that can is to be taken and once it has will therefore after be considered such?
3- At least we here still have the ability to get a hot dog on just about any street corner, can eat apple pies day in day out without any compunction, and can buy a chevrolet without having to use an entire life savings.
We can only hope to provide others with the opportunity to experience such for themselves and their children.
@ Kenneth in Canada --
You are right in one context reference the Palestinian state and that is that we cannot create it, good thing we're not trying to.
We are however in our efforts doing everything we can to enable the Palestinian people ( note: not those who seek to control through fear, terror)
but the real people who have families and wish to simply live, worship, and grow without constant interference from outside parties.
In doing so it must be admitted that we have definately done more towards that end than the many neighbors who for their own reasons have chosen to work proactively against exactly that.
Speaking of neighbors, I think Chavez has enough to worry about with his own neighbors that we needn't waste the time in invasions, etc.
PS: I would think he does a good enough job on his own proving his despotism without any help.
:)
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
@ Ralph in Greece --
1.) As long as our Congress funds and arms Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, that's how long America will continue to be the target of Muslim terrorism.
2.) As long as our U.S. military continues to occupy Muslim land, that's how long America will be the target of Muslim terrorism.
3.)Despite what Bush & Cheney says, it doesn't have a thing to do with hating our freedoms, hot dogs, apple pies and Chevrolets. Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Sir,
1- Please refresh my memory as to when the Isrealites actually lost any claim to at least some of the land where their ancestors existed before the expansion of the "muslim" empires
2- I wonder if you could explain where "muslim lands" vs not yet muslim lands is supposed to end. Am I incorrect in my understanding that the teachings are that any land that can is to be taken and once it has will therefore after be considered such?
3- At least we here still have the ability to get a hot dog on just about any street corner, can eat apple pies day in day out without any compunction, and can buy a chevrolet without having to use an entire life savings.
We can only hope to provide others with the opportunity to experience such for themselves and their children.
@ Kenneth in Canada --
You are right in one context reference the Palestinian state and that is that we cannot create it, good thing we're not trying to.
We are however in our efforts doing everything we can to enable the Palestinian people ( note: not those who seek to control through fear, terror)
but the real people who have families and wish to simply live, worship, and grow without constant interference from outside parties.
In doing so it must be admitted that we have definately done more towards that end than the many neighbors who for their own reasons have chosen to work proactively against exactly that.
Speaking of neighbors, I think Chavez has enough to worry about with his own neighbors that we needn't waste the time in invasions, etc.
PS: I would think he does a good enough job on his own proving his despotism without any help.
:)
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Ken in California writes:
A sovereign Palestinian state is only feasible if the West Bank and Gaza are somehow physically connected into a single state. With the Palestinian people having complete control of the entire area.
The past offer from Israel to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank was an insult. Israel was to keep most of Jersulem, the entire area bordering the Jordan River, and the rest of the West Bank was divided into three parts. Israeli settlements were to remain with Israeli only roads connecting the settlements, further braking the West Bank into at least 23 small separated parts.
If Israel really wants Palestianians to accept Israels right to exist, Isreal must also accept the right of Palestine to exist as a real state.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
A sovereign Palestinian state is only feasible if the West Bank and Gaza are somehow physically connected into a single state. With the Palestinian people having complete control of the entire area.
The past offer from Israel to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank was an insult. Israel was to keep most of Jersulem, the entire area bordering the Jordan River, and the rest of the West Bank was divided into three parts. Israeli settlements were to remain with Israeli only roads connecting the settlements, further braking the West Bank into at least 23 small separated parts.
If Israel really wants Palestianians to accept Israels right to exist, Isreal must also accept the right of Palestine to exist as a real state.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Bill in Texas writes:
@ Susan in Maryland -- Once when I was much younger I saw a man in the restroom of a bar pouring his beer down the urinal and asked him what he was doing. He responded that he was just saving the middle man. That's why I asked you straight away about the Holocaust. It saved a lot of needless rhetoric and those reading the blog now know exactly with whom they're dealing. For those readers interested in some new Holocaust research and interpretation, I invite you to view Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president, and listen to him in his own words.
Please see: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1575.htm
If you sympathize with these views then I can convince you of nothing. The only possible response I have is that Germany lost World War I and lost land. The Turkish Empire also lost World War I and they also lost land. Germany lost World War II and lost more land. The Arabs lost the war in 1948 and they lost more land. The undeveloped land called E1 near Maaleh Adumim that you previously noted is yet another example of losers losing more land. If the Palestinian Arabs continue on this course then my sense is that they will continue to lose land and their naqbahs will multiply accordingly. I can only repeat that the Arabs have been offered (progressively smaller tracts of) land for peace four times in the last 70 years and rejected it each time. If you are inclined to visuals, please look at a map of what the Peel Commission offered the Arabs in 1937. This alone is worth far more that I anything I have said.
Please see: http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/nopalestinianstate.html
Finally, if anyone believes that a relationship exists between the Holocaust not being a topic in the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature until 1979 and the US relationship with Iran in the same year then they can follow that rabbit down the hole. Susan, do I have to ask you what part the Mossad played in 9/11?
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
@ Susan in Maryland -- Once when I was much younger I saw a man in the restroom of a bar pouring his beer down the urinal and asked him what he was doing. He responded that he was just saving the middle man. That's why I asked you straight away about the Holocaust. It saved a lot of needless rhetoric and those reading the blog now know exactly with whom they're dealing. For those readers interested in some new Holocaust research and interpretation, I invite you to view Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president, and listen to him in his own words.
Please see: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1575.htm
If you sympathize with these views then I can convince you of nothing. The only possible response I have is that Germany lost World War I and lost land. The Turkish Empire also lost World War I and they also lost land. Germany lost World War II and lost more land. The Arabs lost the war in 1948 and they lost more land. The undeveloped land called E1 near Maaleh Adumim that you previously noted is yet another example of losers losing more land. If the Palestinian Arabs continue on this course then my sense is that they will continue to lose land and their naqbahs will multiply accordingly. I can only repeat that the Arabs have been offered (progressively smaller tracts of) land for peace four times in the last 70 years and rejected it each time. If you are inclined to visuals, please look at a map of what the Peel Commission offered the Arabs in 1937. This alone is worth far more that I anything I have said.
Please see: http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/nopalestinianstate.html
Finally, if anyone believes that a relationship exists between the Holocaust not being a topic in the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature until 1979 and the US relationship with Iran in the same year then they can follow that rabbit down the hole. Susan, do I have to ask you what part the Mossad played in 9/11?
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Yonason in Florida writes:
@ Susan in Maryland -- ...who says to Bill in Texas, ". . . please tell me what part of criminal human rights abuses by Israel against the Palestinians do you deny?"
Well, I can't speak for Bill, but for myself, my answer is an unequivocal ALL OF THEM.
Jenin was a lie. Even the UN says it was a lie. And so all the others.
An Arab kills a Jew, and an Arab in need of an organ transplant is a match and gets the Jewish organ in a Jewish hospital, then she goes home and tells her child to be a shahid to kill Jews for their god.
When they were under Israeli jurisdiction, the Arabs of "Palestine" were much better off than most of the rest of the Arab world. According to CAMERA, "The U.N.'s 2005 Human Development Report, released to coincide with this month's opening session of the U.N. General Assembly, ranks the Arabs of what it calls "Occupied Palestinian Territories" at 102 out of 177 countries. . . " Now, they rule themselves and there are roving gangs, many members wearing police uniforms. But, till then, they were much better off " . . . than Algerians (103), Syrians (106), Egyptians (119), Moroccans (124) and Yemeni (151). Based on data for 2003." If they stopped their attacks, then ALL the violence would stop.
All the suffering of the so-called "Palestinians" is at their own hands. You want to talk civil rights? What about the "Palestiinian" who is accused by his fellows of "colaborating" with Israel? He was given a show trial, and then executed within a matter of hours, his death sentence signed by the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Arafat, when he was still around.. That's a real human rights abuse. Why aren't you up in arms about that?
In short, you show me a case of "Palestinian" persecution by Jews, and I'll show you a lie.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
@ Susan in Maryland -- ...who says to Bill in Texas, ". . . please tell me what part of criminal human rights abuses by Israel against the Palestinians do you deny?"
Well, I can't speak for Bill, but for myself, my answer is an unequivocal ALL OF THEM.
Jenin was a lie. Even the UN says it was a lie. And so all the others.
An Arab kills a Jew, and an Arab in need of an organ transplant is a match and gets the Jewish organ in a Jewish hospital, then she goes home and tells her child to be a shahid to kill Jews for their god.
When they were under Israeli jurisdiction, the Arabs of "Palestine" were much better off than most of the rest of the Arab world. According to CAMERA, "The U.N.'s 2005 Human Development Report, released to coincide with this month's opening session of the U.N. General Assembly, ranks the Arabs of what it calls "Occupied Palestinian Territories" at 102 out of 177 countries. . . " Now, they rule themselves and there are roving gangs, many members wearing police uniforms. But, till then, they were much better off " . . . than Algerians (103), Syrians (106), Egyptians (119), Moroccans (124) and Yemeni (151). Based on data for 2003." If they stopped their attacks, then ALL the violence would stop.
All the suffering of the so-called "Palestinians" is at their own hands. You want to talk civil rights? What about the "Palestiinian" who is accused by his fellows of "colaborating" with Israel? He was given a show trial, and then executed within a matter of hours, his death sentence signed by the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Arafat, when he was still around.. That's a real human rights abuse. Why aren't you up in arms about that?
In short, you show me a case of "Palestinian" persecution by Jews, and I'll show you a lie.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Yonason in Florida writes:
Susan in Maryland tells Bill in Texas that he doesn't know his history? I would have to write many pages to untangle all the errors she makes, so I'll just try to briefly address a couple, and then put the whole into an Historical perspective many may not have considered, but I think is important.
Jews did NOT displace the Arabs. The Arabs displaced themselves at the behest of their fellows to make it easier to distinguish between Jew and Arab when the Arabs invaded to exterminate us Jews.
Earlier, when Jews were first settling Israel, they either bought land from Arabs or developed empty land, much of which was malaria ridden swamps which Jews (not Arabs) reclaimed. And as Jews began to prosper, even more foreign Arabs came to get jobs. Now these squatters are claiming Jewish land. THAT is history.
The British were required by the League of Nations to establish a Jewish homeland in all of what they renamed "Palestine," a term originally given to Israel by the Romans to disguise the fact that it was Jewish land (even though the world, until recently, was able to remember who's it really was, anyway). And part of that mandate (legally binding under international law) was that Jews would be assisted to emigrate there and Arabs would be limited. The Brits reneged on that, and prevented Jews from coming while encouraging Arabs.
Then the Brits hacked off most of the mandate, also illegally. Then the UN further restricted Jews from land rightfully ours. And if a Jew was caught in possession of a gun to defend himself, the Brits hung the Jew, but if an Arab had a gun to kill a Jew, nobody bothered him. If the Brits caught a Jew entering the "Palestinian Mandate" area against British "laws" (laws contrary to their "mandate") he was shipped back to Hitler's death camps. THAT is history.
Susan says, "I just did a quick search through the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. "Holocaust" was not a topic categorized in the Guide until 1979."
I am nearly 60 years old. And all through my teens there were war news reels played in television specials, often showing what everyone then knew as "The Holocaust." The term was first used in the early 1940's and became widespread in the 1950's, which is when I was growing up and first heard it used. It was well known. THAT is history.
Since Susan also invokes Jefferson, and his historical period, I wonder if she knows that if it weren't for Jews, America might never have come to be?
Has she ever heard of Chaim (Haym) Saloman? He used his entire personal fortune of $600,000 (billions in today's dollars) and raised another 3.5 million Pounds from Rothschild and others in France, to finance America's Revolution. And, when the fledgling democracy couldn't pay salaries? Salomon personally supported Jefferson, and others, by paying them a pension. When the "Palestinians" were just Arabs, many of them desert marauders, Jews were helping build America. In fact, there were a lot of Jews who fought for America, like Saloman's wife's brother, who was an officer on Washington's staff at Valley Forge. THAT is history.
Now the USA wants to pay Jews back by giving our mutual enemy the advantage it needs to destroy our fledgling country?
Oh, and neither Mr. Saloman nor his descendents was ever reimbursed for their trouble. That may not be gratitude. But it is history.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Susan in Maryland tells Bill in Texas that he doesn't know his history? I would have to write many pages to untangle all the errors she makes, so I'll just try to briefly address a couple, and then put the whole into an Historical perspective many may not have considered, but I think is important.
Jews did NOT displace the Arabs. The Arabs displaced themselves at the behest of their fellows to make it easier to distinguish between Jew and Arab when the Arabs invaded to exterminate us Jews.
Earlier, when Jews were first settling Israel, they either bought land from Arabs or developed empty land, much of which was malaria ridden swamps which Jews (not Arabs) reclaimed. And as Jews began to prosper, even more foreign Arabs came to get jobs. Now these squatters are claiming Jewish land. THAT is history.
The British were required by the League of Nations to establish a Jewish homeland in all of what they renamed "Palestine," a term originally given to Israel by the Romans to disguise the fact that it was Jewish land (even though the world, until recently, was able to remember who's it really was, anyway). And part of that mandate (legally binding under international law) was that Jews would be assisted to emigrate there and Arabs would be limited. The Brits reneged on that, and prevented Jews from coming while encouraging Arabs.
Then the Brits hacked off most of the mandate, also illegally. Then the UN further restricted Jews from land rightfully ours. And if a Jew was caught in possession of a gun to defend himself, the Brits hung the Jew, but if an Arab had a gun to kill a Jew, nobody bothered him. If the Brits caught a Jew entering the "Palestinian Mandate" area against British "laws" (laws contrary to their "mandate") he was shipped back to Hitler's death camps. THAT is history.
Susan says, "I just did a quick search through the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. "Holocaust" was not a topic categorized in the Guide until 1979."
I am nearly 60 years old. And all through my teens there were war news reels played in television specials, often showing what everyone then knew as "The Holocaust." The term was first used in the early 1940's and became widespread in the 1950's, which is when I was growing up and first heard it used. It was well known. THAT is history.
Since Susan also invokes Jefferson, and his historical period, I wonder if she knows that if it weren't for Jews, America might never have come to be?
Has she ever heard of Chaim (Haym) Saloman? He used his entire personal fortune of $600,000 (billions in today's dollars) and raised another 3.5 million Pounds from Rothschild and others in France, to finance America's Revolution. And, when the fledgling democracy couldn't pay salaries? Salomon personally supported Jefferson, and others, by paying them a pension. When the "Palestinians" were just Arabs, many of them desert marauders, Jews were helping build America. In fact, there were a lot of Jews who fought for America, like Saloman's wife's brother, who was an officer on Washington's staff at Valley Forge. THAT is history.
Now the USA wants to pay Jews back by giving our mutual enemy the advantage it needs to destroy our fledgling country?
Oh, and neither Mr. Saloman nor his descendents was ever reimbursed for their trouble. That may not be gratitude. But it is history.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Mathew in Texas writes:
The establishment of a politically autonomous Palestinian state existing alongside Israel is most definitely feasible--the true question at hand is what must the international community do to expedite the acquirement of independence. Quite simply, barriers to the creation of an independent Palestine exist within the management policies of Israel, which do not comply with the political and humanitarian goals of Israel's neighbors or allies. If the international community continues to stand back as Israel cuts off resources from Gaza and isolates the West Bank, it is very likely that we will not see a democratic, autonomous Palestine in many years. This is where the United States' role comes into play. It is absolutely necessary that the US contributes to the establishment of an independent Palestine for two main reasons: diplomatic legitimacy in the Middle East and political legitimacy internationally. By refusing to interfere in Israel's policies towards its environment (2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict, recent actions within Syria, diplomatically isolating itself) whilst still blindly supporting the Israeli government, the United States is bringing upon itself an outward appearance of belligerence and incompetence. How are we to progress in the Middle East like that?
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
The establishment of a politically autonomous Palestinian state existing alongside Israel is most definitely feasible--the true question at hand is what must the international community do to expedite the acquirement of independence. Quite simply, barriers to the creation of an independent Palestine exist within the management policies of Israel, which do not comply with the political and humanitarian goals of Israel's neighbors or allies. If the international community continues to stand back as Israel cuts off resources from Gaza and isolates the West Bank, it is very likely that we will not see a democratic, autonomous Palestine in many years. This is where the United States' role comes into play. It is absolutely necessary that the US contributes to the establishment of an independent Palestine for two main reasons: diplomatic legitimacy in the Middle East and political legitimacy internationally. By refusing to interfere in Israel's policies towards its environment (2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict, recent actions within Syria, diplomatically isolating itself) whilst still blindly supporting the Israeli government, the United States is bringing upon itself an outward appearance of belligerence and incompetence. How are we to progress in the Middle East like that?
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Susan in Maryland:
@ Bill in Texas -- Hasbara in action, Bill: nail any critic with "holocaust denial" charge. If you had said, Do you think it's fruitful to continue to research Holocaust with honesty & objectivity, I would have had more respect for your writing.
Instead, you want to put loaded words in my mouth then condemn me judged on the standard of your prejudice while simultaneously condemning even the presentation of critiques of the evidence or the offering of alternative evidence or interpretations of it. In a number of countries, criticizing any aspect of holocaust is a crime; this very day people are in jail for that 'crime.'
Before I take the time to prepare a detailed answer to your question based on history that cannot be changed, please tell me what part of criminal human rights abuses by Israel against the Palestinians do you deny?
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
@ Bill in Texas -- Hasbara in action, Bill: nail any critic with "holocaust denial" charge. If you had said, Do you think it's fruitful to continue to research Holocaust with honesty & objectivity, I would have had more respect for your writing.
Instead, you want to put loaded words in my mouth then condemn me judged on the standard of your prejudice while simultaneously condemning even the presentation of critiques of the evidence or the offering of alternative evidence or interpretations of it. In a number of countries, criticizing any aspect of holocaust is a crime; this very day people are in jail for that 'crime.'
Before I take the time to prepare a detailed answer to your question based on history that cannot be changed, please tell me what part of criminal human rights abuses by Israel against the Palestinians do you deny?
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Atilla in Germany writes:
Well since America is the most powerful country in the world + the big brother of Israel and long years supporter with billions of Dollars ( after Israel became strong... ) it has to play an important role in this process.
The truth is, Israel is America (like all other U.S. supported countries ) and it is not the question if creating a sovereign Palestine is correct, it is the question if it is correct of the U.S.A. to just watch and while the blood is running.
It is not about god, it is about oil and power in the Middle East. Palestine should be accepted as state, so the people have a chance to get some food & freedom! And it is only the U.S.A. who can change this situation.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Well since America is the most powerful country in the world + the big brother of Israel and long years supporter with billions of Dollars ( after Israel became strong... ) it has to play an important role in this process.
The truth is, Israel is America (like all other U.S. supported countries ) and it is not the question if creating a sovereign Palestine is correct, it is the question if it is correct of the U.S.A. to just watch and while the blood is running.
It is not about god, it is about oil and power in the Middle East. Palestine should be accepted as state, so the people have a chance to get some food & freedom! And it is only the U.S.A. who can change this situation.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Bill in Texas writes:
@ Susan in Maryland --
Before I take the time to refute your post point by point in detail, please tell me what part of the Holocaust do you deny?
Posted on Sat Oct 13, 2007
@ Susan in Maryland --
Before I take the time to refute your post point by point in detail, please tell me what part of the Holocaust do you deny?
Posted on Sat Oct 13, 2007
Susan in Maryland writes:
@ Bill in Texas --
History must include all of the facts, Bill, not cherry-picked scripts. The latter is called propaganda aka Hasbara. It's not working anymore as more and more people become increasingingly aware that the focal point of the judao- portion of the judeo-christian creed is a vicious tribal god who, at the time of Joshua, sanctified genocide, theft, displacement, treachery, deceit, spying, dividing peoples and exploiting their lack of unity to defeat them. Yesterday, we learned that the IDF has been instructed to take over a million square meters of land from the Palestinians. A professor at BenGurion University said that the purpose of the expropriation of Palestinian land for Israel was to fragment Palestinians so that they would be unable to form a strong, unified government. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Jews and Arabs lived in peace in Palestine until a hack journalist from Vienna put his finger to the wind and perceived that Germans would no longer tolerate the economic disruption Jews had imposed on Germany since the time of German unification in 1871. Herzl calculated that Jews needed an escape plan; Uganda was suggested, but Palestine was settled on.
Every European power knew that Jews were looking for a sponsor, and they also knew that that sponsor state would enjoy the favor of Jewish wealth and political & media acumen. Still, only England took the bait, in the Balfour Declaration delivered to Baron Rothschild, but even that closely proscribed document represented double-dealing on the part of Britain--the same land had been promised in the Sykes-Picot Agreement--and Jews have not honored the clause in Balfour that states that the pre-existing inhabitants of Palestine shall not be displaced.
Repeating the same script from however many media outlets money can buy cannot and will not change the facts, and the facts will ultimately trump Hasbara.
I just did a quick search through the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. "Holocaust" was not a topic categorized in the Guide until 1979. Curious that 1979 is the year the US relationship with Iran derailed; Israel saw an opportunity and stepped in to fill the vacuum.
The question for the United States is how will they manage a soft landing for themselves and their too-close alliance with Jews. How manage the fact that the god that many thought for centuries was the center of their creed has sociopathic tendencies. America has a built-in solution: Thomas Jefferson understood the nature of the Judaic god over 200 years ago and based his creation of the backbone of the United States on the Morals and Teachings of Jesus, a volume he compiled by stripping the King James bible of mythical and miraculous references and compiling only the moral sayings of Jesus, whom Jefferson condisered the greatest moral genius the world had known. That guide, Jefferson's compilation of the Morals of Jesus, is the basis of American government to which Americans can and must return. But what has Israel to turn to? Herzl's Judenstadt? Netanyahu's and Sharon's murderous exploits? The 800,000 homes that Israelis have stolen from Palestinians, in contravention of the Balfour Declaration?
That's real history, too, Bill.
Posted on Sat Oct 13, 2007
@ Bill in Texas --
History must include all of the facts, Bill, not cherry-picked scripts. The latter is called propaganda aka Hasbara. It's not working anymore as more and more people become increasingingly aware that the focal point of the judao- portion of the judeo-christian creed is a vicious tribal god who, at the time of Joshua, sanctified genocide, theft, displacement, treachery, deceit, spying, dividing peoples and exploiting their lack of unity to defeat them. Yesterday, we learned that the IDF has been instructed to take over a million square meters of land from the Palestinians. A professor at BenGurion University said that the purpose of the expropriation of Palestinian land for Israel was to fragment Palestinians so that they would be unable to form a strong, unified government. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Jews and Arabs lived in peace in Palestine until a hack journalist from Vienna put his finger to the wind and perceived that Germans would no longer tolerate the economic disruption Jews had imposed on Germany since the time of German unification in 1871. Herzl calculated that Jews needed an escape plan; Uganda was suggested, but Palestine was settled on.
Every European power knew that Jews were looking for a sponsor, and they also knew that that sponsor state would enjoy the favor of Jewish wealth and political & media acumen. Still, only England took the bait, in the Balfour Declaration delivered to Baron Rothschild, but even that closely proscribed document represented double-dealing on the part of Britain--the same land had been promised in the Sykes-Picot Agreement--and Jews have not honored the clause in Balfour that states that the pre-existing inhabitants of Palestine shall not be displaced.
Repeating the same script from however many media outlets money can buy cannot and will not change the facts, and the facts will ultimately trump Hasbara.
I just did a quick search through the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. "Holocaust" was not a topic categorized in the Guide until 1979. Curious that 1979 is the year the US relationship with Iran derailed; Israel saw an opportunity and stepped in to fill the vacuum.
The question for the United States is how will they manage a soft landing for themselves and their too-close alliance with Jews. How manage the fact that the god that many thought for centuries was the center of their creed has sociopathic tendencies. America has a built-in solution: Thomas Jefferson understood the nature of the Judaic god over 200 years ago and based his creation of the backbone of the United States on the Morals and Teachings of Jesus, a volume he compiled by stripping the King James bible of mythical and miraculous references and compiling only the moral sayings of Jesus, whom Jefferson condisered the greatest moral genius the world had known. That guide, Jefferson's compilation of the Morals of Jesus, is the basis of American government to which Americans can and must return. But what has Israel to turn to? Herzl's Judenstadt? Netanyahu's and Sharon's murderous exploits? The 800,000 homes that Israelis have stolen from Palestinians, in contravention of the Balfour Declaration?
That's real history, too, Bill.
Posted on Sat Oct 13, 2007
Bill in Texas writes:
@ Steve in Florida --
I understand that most people believe that history begins when they were born, but that's not really the case is it? Without ruminating over ancient history from the early Roman Empire and the Jewish wars to the rise and militant expansion of Islam and 14 centuries of dhemmitude for the Jews, I'll skip directly to the more recent events.
Jews begin to prosper and their numbers increase in their ancient homeland in the late 19th and early 20th century. This resulted in riots in Palestine in 1920, the Jaffa riots of 1921, the 1929 Palestine riots and the Great Arab Revolt from 1936 to 1939; and, these are only the highlights. Then another minor thing occurred in Europe called the Holocaust which by the way was actively supported and cheered on by the Arabs. Then came the outright wars: The 1948 Arab-Israeli War; 1956 Arab-Israeli War; 1967 Arab-Israeli War; 1973 Arab-Israeli War; And, again, these are only the highlights of which all were won by the Jews. There were four major offers of a separate Palestinian state during these years that were flatly rejected by the Arabs. I would contend the Arabs don't want peace or a state. I would content that the Arabs want no Jews whatsoever in Israel or any place else (where they are not dhemmis). Thus, I contend that Arabs and Jews cannot co-exist on the same ground. I would suggest, however, that there is a solution.
There are 22 Arab countries covering an area of 14 million square kilometers not to mention the millions of square kilometers of other Muslim countries. Israel has an area of 20,770 square kilometers and is the world's only Jewish country. Separate the Jews and the Arabs - Jews to tiny Israel and Arabs to, well how about Arabia? Are the Arabs afraid they can't compete with tiny Israel or are they so intolerant that they can't accept "the other" in their midst? But that's the crux of the matter isn't it? The Arabs will murder or enslave "the other" every chance they get. And that's the real history of it.
Separate the Jews and the Arabs.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
@ Steve in Florida --
I understand that most people believe that history begins when they were born, but that's not really the case is it? Without ruminating over ancient history from the early Roman Empire and the Jewish wars to the rise and militant expansion of Islam and 14 centuries of dhemmitude for the Jews, I'll skip directly to the more recent events.
Jews begin to prosper and their numbers increase in their ancient homeland in the late 19th and early 20th century. This resulted in riots in Palestine in 1920, the Jaffa riots of 1921, the 1929 Palestine riots and the Great Arab Revolt from 1936 to 1939; and, these are only the highlights. Then another minor thing occurred in Europe called the Holocaust which by the way was actively supported and cheered on by the Arabs. Then came the outright wars: The 1948 Arab-Israeli War; 1956 Arab-Israeli War; 1967 Arab-Israeli War; 1973 Arab-Israeli War; And, again, these are only the highlights of which all were won by the Jews. There were four major offers of a separate Palestinian state during these years that were flatly rejected by the Arabs. I would contend the Arabs don't want peace or a state. I would content that the Arabs want no Jews whatsoever in Israel or any place else (where they are not dhemmis). Thus, I contend that Arabs and Jews cannot co-exist on the same ground. I would suggest, however, that there is a solution.
There are 22 Arab countries covering an area of 14 million square kilometers not to mention the millions of square kilometers of other Muslim countries. Israel has an area of 20,770 square kilometers and is the world's only Jewish country. Separate the Jews and the Arabs - Jews to tiny Israel and Arabs to, well how about Arabia? Are the Arabs afraid they can't compete with tiny Israel or are they so intolerant that they can't accept "the other" in their midst? But that's the crux of the matter isn't it? The Arabs will murder or enslave "the other" every chance they get. And that's the real history of it.
Separate the Jews and the Arabs.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Steve in Florida writes:
The creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state is not only feasible, but absolutely necessary. Also necessary is the payment to every man, woman and child in the occupied territories of Palestine for the taking of their land following World War Two for the creation of the State of Israel. Simply citing the Biblical existence of Israel as being in Palestine, and then proceeding to take over settled Palestinian land for that purpose is ludicrous. Further explanation of that fact is not necessary. Spend the money on war "ad nauseum", or spend the money on the creation of peace; the cost is the same, except in the calculation of loss of human life in the process of the former. Then recover Israeli land to that which existed in its establishment of 1947, and the two countries will have a starting point for peace. What's this -- too difficult to understand? There will be no peace in the Middle East until these two sovereign states can coexist, and there will be no coexistence without compensating Palestinians for their land taken in 1947. I am an American Vietnam Veteran, born in 1950 and raised in the United States of America. Decades of conflict have merely fogged this path to peace, but the solution is simple.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
The creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state is not only feasible, but absolutely necessary. Also necessary is the payment to every man, woman and child in the occupied territories of Palestine for the taking of their land following World War Two for the creation of the State of Israel. Simply citing the Biblical existence of Israel as being in Palestine, and then proceeding to take over settled Palestinian land for that purpose is ludicrous. Further explanation of that fact is not necessary. Spend the money on war "ad nauseum", or spend the money on the creation of peace; the cost is the same, except in the calculation of loss of human life in the process of the former. Then recover Israeli land to that which existed in its establishment of 1947, and the two countries will have a starting point for peace. What's this -- too difficult to understand? There will be no peace in the Middle East until these two sovereign states can coexist, and there will be no coexistence without compensating Palestinians for their land taken in 1947. I am an American Vietnam Veteran, born in 1950 and raised in the United States of America. Decades of conflict have merely fogged this path to peace, but the solution is simple.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
David in Georgia writes:
Yes the creation of a Palestinian state is not only feasible but necessary. The two state solution is the only way to bring some semblance of peace to the area. The U.S. can play a role, however, I think that another mediator should be brought in as I do not think that there is enough trust amongst the Palestinians to the neutrality of the United States to negotiate a perceived fair settlement from the Palestinian perspective.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Yes the creation of a Palestinian state is not only feasible but necessary. The two state solution is the only way to bring some semblance of peace to the area. The U.S. can play a role, however, I think that another mediator should be brought in as I do not think that there is enough trust amongst the Palestinians to the neutrality of the United States to negotiate a perceived fair settlement from the Palestinian perspective.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Dave in Texas writes:
Fundamentalist Islam is utterly intransigent. Its proponents do not make the effort to lie about this; they consistently and publicly state their intentions, which are murderous and destructive.
Given this, any accomodation with Hamas is doomed to failure. As long as Hamas is in any kind of leadership position, let alone elected to govern by a majority, then giving it its own state is a step toward the surrender of Israel to destruction.
Individually, they will lie and steal and cheat and dissemble in order to accomplish their missions; we are fortunate that they are too proud to maintain a group public image that is dishonest. It is in their call to murder and destruction that they find their principal appeal, and so they tell the truth in public. Hey, it helped Hamas get elected!
I've had exposure to State personnel active and retired, and was aghast at the consistent anti-Bush posture they take. I've long believed that State is acting, or at least large numbers of its personnel are acting, to undermine Bush's administration and cause him to fail.
Cocktail party conversation does not lie, especially at the third round of drinks. State is infested with what amounts to traitors, people who take for themselves a role they were not intended to have-- evaluators and rejectors of the policies of the man who is constitutionally their superior, and whose orders they are charged with carrying out.
It's appalling, and I would not have believed it without personally hearing it from their mouths, but they were in their cups and among friends and the truth always comes out under such circumstances. And this was retired ambassadors and present ambassadorial staff in a European country I'm talking about, AT AN AMBASSADORIAL MANSION DINNER PARTY.
incidentally, that's a helluva mansion they live in at my expense.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Fundamentalist Islam is utterly intransigent. Its proponents do not make the effort to lie about this; they consistently and publicly state their intentions, which are murderous and destructive.
Given this, any accomodation with Hamas is doomed to failure. As long as Hamas is in any kind of leadership position, let alone elected to govern by a majority, then giving it its own state is a step toward the surrender of Israel to destruction.
Individually, they will lie and steal and cheat and dissemble in order to accomplish their missions; we are fortunate that they are too proud to maintain a group public image that is dishonest. It is in their call to murder and destruction that they find their principal appeal, and so they tell the truth in public. Hey, it helped Hamas get elected!
I've had exposure to State personnel active and retired, and was aghast at the consistent anti-Bush posture they take. I've long believed that State is acting, or at least large numbers of its personnel are acting, to undermine Bush's administration and cause him to fail.
Cocktail party conversation does not lie, especially at the third round of drinks. State is infested with what amounts to traitors, people who take for themselves a role they were not intended to have-- evaluators and rejectors of the policies of the man who is constitutionally their superior, and whose orders they are charged with carrying out.
It's appalling, and I would not have believed it without personally hearing it from their mouths, but they were in their cups and among friends and the truth always comes out under such circumstances. And this was retired ambassadors and present ambassadorial staff in a European country I'm talking about, AT AN AMBASSADORIAL MANSION DINNER PARTY.
incidentally, that's a helluva mansion they live in at my expense.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Leslie in Texas writes:
A Palestinian state is as feasible as the Israeli state.
The United States could promote an atmosphere of hope by initiating plans to relocate the United Nations,and supporting infrastructure, to the disputed territory.
Will it work? Yes.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
A Palestinian state is as feasible as the Israeli state.
The United States could promote an atmosphere of hope by initiating plans to relocate the United Nations,and supporting infrastructure, to the disputed territory.
Will it work? Yes.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Geo in Virginia writes:
NO & NO
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
NO & NO
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Eric in New York writes:
Is a Palestinian state feasible?
The answer to that is in the hands of the Palestinians. If they can not stop the homicidal generations they have allowed to be created and accept their past mistakes with a willingness to change, then, NO.
Should the US play a major role in its establishment?
Should the representative authority of the Palestinian people openly concede their error in supporting the violence that prejudices their legitimacy as a state and begin to take steps, with an expectation of foreign aid and verification of its intended use, to reverse the decades long corruption of their youth and to accept as "help" in ending the violence the "intrusions", when necessary, to effectively halt outward aggression, YES.
But in no way should the US take part in any role where the Palestinian authority reserves the right to claim self defense while they are not in control of their population.
As I imagine the rules to be, the results would leave no room but for peace and then statehood. The commitment to change the course of their history lies within and requires not only a commitment but a punishment great enough to secure that commitment. That punishment must not be determined outside but agreed upon in advance by the Palestinian authority as their own disciplinary rules should they reverse direction midway. Surely any people would create their own paradise given they also write the rules for failure. That is self determination is it not?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Is a Palestinian state feasible?
The answer to that is in the hands of the Palestinians. If they can not stop the homicidal generations they have allowed to be created and accept their past mistakes with a willingness to change, then, NO.
Should the US play a major role in its establishment?
Should the representative authority of the Palestinian people openly concede their error in supporting the violence that prejudices their legitimacy as a state and begin to take steps, with an expectation of foreign aid and verification of its intended use, to reverse the decades long corruption of their youth and to accept as "help" in ending the violence the "intrusions", when necessary, to effectively halt outward aggression, YES.
But in no way should the US take part in any role where the Palestinian authority reserves the right to claim self defense while they are not in control of their population.
As I imagine the rules to be, the results would leave no room but for peace and then statehood. The commitment to change the course of their history lies within and requires not only a commitment but a punishment great enough to secure that commitment. That punishment must not be determined outside but agreed upon in advance by the Palestinian authority as their own disciplinary rules should they reverse direction midway. Surely any people would create their own paradise given they also write the rules for failure. That is self determination is it not?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Matt in Pennsylvania writes:
A Palestinian state may be feasible at some point in the distant future, but not now or in the near future. Much like the US occupied Afghanistan for its support of terrorism until a moderate government was established, Israel rightly occupies areas whose government supports terrorism against her. A Palestinian state should be off the table completely until the government renounces terrorism and disbands terrorist groups, and after that should be held accountable for making sure that no terrorist or conventional attacks (suicide bombers, rockets, forces from Syria) are launched against it from its territory.
Because Palestinians have not given, and show no intention of giving, a renunciation of terrorism, the U.S. should not bother attempting to create a state. Instead, it should make brutally clear to both Israel and the Palestinians that the latter should not and will not receive a state until they abandon the barbaric practice of murdering civilians, but that once they have done so to the satisfaction of the U.S. and any other interested third parties (e.g., the Quartet) that Israel will give them a state as quickly as is practicable.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
A Palestinian state may be feasible at some point in the distant future, but not now or in the near future. Much like the US occupied Afghanistan for its support of terrorism until a moderate government was established, Israel rightly occupies areas whose government supports terrorism against her. A Palestinian state should be off the table completely until the government renounces terrorism and disbands terrorist groups, and after that should be held accountable for making sure that no terrorist or conventional attacks (suicide bombers, rockets, forces from Syria) are launched against it from its territory.
Because Palestinians have not given, and show no intention of giving, a renunciation of terrorism, the U.S. should not bother attempting to create a state. Instead, it should make brutally clear to both Israel and the Palestinians that the latter should not and will not receive a state until they abandon the barbaric practice of murdering civilians, but that once they have done so to the satisfaction of the U.S. and any other interested third parties (e.g., the Quartet) that Israel will give them a state as quickly as is practicable.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
William in Texas writes:
No. And, no. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that peace and security in the area will be advanced by the establishment of a Palestinian state. When was there any reciprocation on the Arab side? What reason is there believe that there ever be any good faith from that side?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
No. And, no. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that peace and security in the area will be advanced by the establishment of a Palestinian state. When was there any reciprocation on the Arab side? What reason is there believe that there ever be any good faith from that side?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Yonatan writes:
@ Zena in Illinois --
As Zena said, "you have to be kidding!"
The "Palestinians" (a term only applied to them since about 1967 as a propaganda tool) have been waging war against Jews for longer than their imagined "nationality" has existed. Haj Amin Al Husseini allied the Arabs of Israel with the Nazis, and strongly encouraged Hitler to exterminate the Jews of Europe and to come to the Middle East and do the same. He mentored Saddam, Arafat and numerous other M.E. savages.
In more modern times, the "Palestinians" (more correctly the Palestinian Arabs) have allied themselves with Saddam and Bin Laden. In fact, it was they who pioneered the use of airplane hijackings, global terror exploits, and suicide attacks. One might even safely say that if it weren't for them, 9/11 (which they celebrated) wouldn't have happened.
Their hatred of America goes beyond our assistance to Israel, as the hate filled violent sermons of their political leaders and Imams attest.
They have been given autonomy, training and assistance, and yet they have not only not stopped the terrorists, the very "security" forces set up to ostensibly prevent it are themselves it's greatest proponents.
Not only that, the land everyone, including Israel's leaders who were elected on promises they would not do so, is the heart of the heart of Biblical Israel. Although others have ruled there since the Temple's destruction, only Israel ever had a state there. It is all Jewish land and has never been anything else, as any honest student of history must admit. If anyone has violated International law, it is those who have undermined the legally binding mandate for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the region (not nation) of Palestine.
So, should the "Palestinians" have a state?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Should the USA have a role to play in assisting them?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
If for no other reason than they haven't kept a single commitment they have ever made. How on earth can any sane person believe that yet another agreement will be anything more than a bald faced lie? How can anyone believe that their commitment to the extermination of Israel and free democracies everywhere will stop if they are given a state?
The LAST thing these monsters need is the self-determination that the world wants for them even more than they do themselves.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
@ Zena in Illinois --
As Zena said, "you have to be kidding!"
The "Palestinians" (a term only applied to them since about 1967 as a propaganda tool) have been waging war against Jews for longer than their imagined "nationality" has existed. Haj Amin Al Husseini allied the Arabs of Israel with the Nazis, and strongly encouraged Hitler to exterminate the Jews of Europe and to come to the Middle East and do the same. He mentored Saddam, Arafat and numerous other M.E. savages.
In more modern times, the "Palestinians" (more correctly the Palestinian Arabs) have allied themselves with Saddam and Bin Laden. In fact, it was they who pioneered the use of airplane hijackings, global terror exploits, and suicide attacks. One might even safely say that if it weren't for them, 9/11 (which they celebrated) wouldn't have happened.
Their hatred of America goes beyond our assistance to Israel, as the hate filled violent sermons of their political leaders and Imams attest.
They have been given autonomy, training and assistance, and yet they have not only not stopped the terrorists, the very "security" forces set up to ostensibly prevent it are themselves it's greatest proponents.
Not only that, the land everyone, including Israel's leaders who were elected on promises they would not do so, is the heart of the heart of Biblical Israel. Although others have ruled there since the Temple's destruction, only Israel ever had a state there. It is all Jewish land and has never been anything else, as any honest student of history must admit. If anyone has violated International law, it is those who have undermined the legally binding mandate for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the region (not nation) of Palestine.
So, should the "Palestinians" have a state?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Should the USA have a role to play in assisting them?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
If for no other reason than they haven't kept a single commitment they have ever made. How on earth can any sane person believe that yet another agreement will be anything more than a bald faced lie? How can anyone believe that their commitment to the extermination of Israel and free democracies everywhere will stop if they are given a state?
The LAST thing these monsters need is the self-determination that the world wants for them even more than they do themselves.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Linda in U.S.A. writes:
If the State Department would open their eyes and see that the Palestinians have vowed to destroy Israel and if possible all of America, they would not push Israel into giving away land to terrorists. Fatah is not a moderate party. They are just as much terrorists as is Hamas. The real question should be how will America survive if she no longer blesses Israel?
The policy of this Department of State is outrageous. Look at Gaza and see what is in store for the rest of the area if given to terrorists.
We will rue the day that we turn our back on Israel
What God gives, man should not take away.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
If the State Department would open their eyes and see that the Palestinians have vowed to destroy Israel and if possible all of America, they would not push Israel into giving away land to terrorists. Fatah is not a moderate party. They are just as much terrorists as is Hamas. The real question should be how will America survive if she no longer blesses Israel?
The policy of this Department of State is outrageous. Look at Gaza and see what is in store for the rest of the area if given to terrorists.
We will rue the day that we turn our back on Israel
What God gives, man should not take away.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Susan in North Carolina writes:
I do not believe there is a right of Palestinians to a sovereign state. There are many states that are primarily or completely Muslim and many of those Muslim states are predominantly Arab. But, historically, there has never been a state or nation called Palestine. During the Ottoman empire the area in question was part of "southern Syria". People have a right to some reasonable amount of autonomy and representative government, but that does not necessarily mean statehood. Just ask the Kurds. Finally, why is our State Department so committed to sovereignty for Palestinians, when sovereignty implies the ability of the state to exert control over its territory, something no group in the current Palestinian Authority is able to do? This will turn into just another failed state, host to various terror groups, al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda wannabes, and various criminal gangs. Further descent into lawlessness is not going to help the day to day life of ordinary people living there. This is all for show, and likely to do more harm than good.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
I do not believe there is a right of Palestinians to a sovereign state. There are many states that are primarily or completely Muslim and many of those Muslim states are predominantly Arab. But, historically, there has never been a state or nation called Palestine. During the Ottoman empire the area in question was part of "southern Syria". People have a right to some reasonable amount of autonomy and representative government, but that does not necessarily mean statehood. Just ask the Kurds. Finally, why is our State Department so committed to sovereignty for Palestinians, when sovereignty implies the ability of the state to exert control over its territory, something no group in the current Palestinian Authority is able to do? This will turn into just another failed state, host to various terror groups, al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda wannabes, and various criminal gangs. Further descent into lawlessness is not going to help the day to day life of ordinary people living there. This is all for show, and likely to do more harm than good.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Douglas in Connecticut writes:
No. None of the "land-for-peace" concessions that the Israelis have given the Palestinians in the past (e.g., withdrawing Israeli troops from Gaza and southern Lebananon) have been reciprocated. On the contrary, the Palestinian Arabs view every Israeli concession as proof of the inevitable triumph of the Arabs and destruction of Israel, leading to more violence and attacks on Jews.
My prediction: this so-called summit meeting will end with Palestinian Arab emotions inflamed and a renewed outbreak of Palestinian Arab violence and terrorism. Sec. Rice should stay home and stay out of it.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
No. None of the "land-for-peace" concessions that the Israelis have given the Palestinians in the past (e.g., withdrawing Israeli troops from Gaza and southern Lebananon) have been reciprocated. On the contrary, the Palestinian Arabs view every Israeli concession as proof of the inevitable triumph of the Arabs and destruction of Israel, leading to more violence and attacks on Jews.
My prediction: this so-called summit meeting will end with Palestinian Arab emotions inflamed and a renewed outbreak of Palestinian Arab violence and terrorism. Sec. Rice should stay home and stay out of it.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Robert in Illinois writes:
It is feasible, but only if all the Arab countries agree to recognize Israel and stop funding the terrorist groups whose goal is to eliminate the State of Israel and the Palestinians themselves give up that goal.
Israel has demonstrated by action (e.g., the Camp David Accords) that it can be responsive to sincere, demonstrable peace arrangements from the Arab world. The Palestinian Arabs and a number of Arab (or Muslim) countries have yet to offer such sincerity.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
It is feasible, but only if all the Arab countries agree to recognize Israel and stop funding the terrorist groups whose goal is to eliminate the State of Israel and the Palestinians themselves give up that goal.
Israel has demonstrated by action (e.g., the Camp David Accords) that it can be responsive to sincere, demonstrable peace arrangements from the Arab world. The Palestinian Arabs and a number of Arab (or Muslim) countries have yet to offer such sincerity.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Brandon in California writes:
How do you make peace with a group of people who believes that at some time in the future that Israel will be wiped off the map by thier messiah (The Madih). If you study the eschatology of the Quran you find that it is thier vision to rule the world and all those who don't submit are to be beheaded. Check it out this is what they beleive. At some point you have to step back and realize peace with this so called religion of peace will not happen. Any self delusions that this is so is merely a pipe dream.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
How do you make peace with a group of people who believes that at some time in the future that Israel will be wiped off the map by thier messiah (The Madih). If you study the eschatology of the Quran you find that it is thier vision to rule the world and all those who don't submit are to be beheaded. Check it out this is what they beleive. At some point you have to step back and realize peace with this so called religion of peace will not happen. Any self delusions that this is so is merely a pipe dream.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Ariel in Massachusetts writes:
Is it feasible? Yes. They have a certain amount of land loosely under control and could, if they so desired, call it a state at any point. (Part of the problem is that they do not actually desire a state. Under either of the Clinton proposals, they could have had a state and rejected it.)
Is it desirable? No. Does anyone at the State Department remember that Palestinians murdered a couple of your folks who were looking to hand out Fulbright scholarships a few years ago? The State Department recently revealed that Arafat was the ultimate actor behind the murder of American diplomats in Khartoum.
Moreover, I would commend you to read "Red Horizons." The author documents how the Palestinians were coached to set up a more extreme group as a foil to show that the PLO was the less extreme and more reasonable group. Hamas has played this role remarkably well, fooling everyone into thinking that the PLO is moderate. They are not. You need go no further than read the weekly khutbas from Palestinian territories, understanding that they have no freedom of speech and their religious leaders are appointed by the "government". The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is a subset of the Fatah organization. Fatah means Conquest in Arabic, suggesting something about their intentions.
At an even lower level than creating a state, you might consider why a "confidence-building measure" entails the release of numerous terrorists. If the release of terrorists bolsters the position of the PLO, doesn't that say all that needs to be said about the PLO's positions and desires?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Is it feasible? Yes. They have a certain amount of land loosely under control and could, if they so desired, call it a state at any point. (Part of the problem is that they do not actually desire a state. Under either of the Clinton proposals, they could have had a state and rejected it.)
Is it desirable? No. Does anyone at the State Department remember that Palestinians murdered a couple of your folks who were looking to hand out Fulbright scholarships a few years ago? The State Department recently revealed that Arafat was the ultimate actor behind the murder of American diplomats in Khartoum.
Moreover, I would commend you to read "Red Horizons." The author documents how the Palestinians were coached to set up a more extreme group as a foil to show that the PLO was the less extreme and more reasonable group. Hamas has played this role remarkably well, fooling everyone into thinking that the PLO is moderate. They are not. You need go no further than read the weekly khutbas from Palestinian territories, understanding that they have no freedom of speech and their religious leaders are appointed by the "government". The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is a subset of the Fatah organization. Fatah means Conquest in Arabic, suggesting something about their intentions.
At an even lower level than creating a state, you might consider why a "confidence-building measure" entails the release of numerous terrorists. If the release of terrorists bolsters the position of the PLO, doesn't that say all that needs to be said about the PLO's positions and desires?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Edward in New Jersey writes:
Hmmmmm.
1. *shrug* can Palestinians handle what they have now?
And if they cannot, without trying to murder every jew *or* American in the world, then this question pretty much answers itself.
2. I'd suggest that the more America appears to want a Palestinian state, more unlikely it will ever happen. Fact is that the Palestinians rely heavily upon America's involvement to rip from the Israelis what the Palestinians themselves could never accomplish on their own.
When America finally tells the Arab world that we really don't give a damn about the Palestinians and that we give up and *never* will argue for a Palestinians state, then they'll grow up. Otherwise we'll have to deal with the indefinite Arab/Palestinian political childhood.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Hmmmmm.
1. *shrug* can Palestinians handle what they have now?
And if they cannot, without trying to murder every jew *or* American in the world, then this question pretty much answers itself.
2. I'd suggest that the more America appears to want a Palestinian state, more unlikely it will ever happen. Fact is that the Palestinians rely heavily upon America's involvement to rip from the Israelis what the Palestinians themselves could never accomplish on their own.
When America finally tells the Arab world that we really don't give a damn about the Palestinians and that we give up and *never* will argue for a Palestinians state, then they'll grow up. Otherwise we'll have to deal with the indefinite Arab/Palestinian political childhood.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Jim in Tennessee writes:
We should let Israel make their own decisions. How would we accept them telling the U.S. what to do or what not to do? Maybe the State Department should study on what Hduna means.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
We should let Israel make their own decisions. How would we accept them telling the U.S. what to do or what not to do? Maybe the State Department should study on what Hduna means.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Gerald in Israel writes:
When the Palestinians (read "Arab Countries") stop issuing ultimatums and diktats regarding any kind of peace with Israel it will be time to start talking of a Palestinian State.
As long as that is happening, it is just blowing smoke.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
When the Palestinians (read "Arab Countries") stop issuing ultimatums and diktats regarding any kind of peace with Israel it will be time to start talking of a Palestinian State.
As long as that is happening, it is just blowing smoke.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Carole in Texas writes:
There will never be peace with the Palestinians, much less a "Palestinian State." They are hated wherever they go, even among the Arabs themselves, because of their inability to be reasonable, thoughtful, articulate, tolerant, educated and trustworthy. The U.S. should stay completely out of this so-called "peace" negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians or anyone else in the Middle East for that matter. We are the ones who suffer the most when we interject ourselves in that region.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
There will never be peace with the Palestinians, much less a "Palestinian State." They are hated wherever they go, even among the Arabs themselves, because of their inability to be reasonable, thoughtful, articulate, tolerant, educated and trustworthy. The U.S. should stay completely out of this so-called "peace" negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians or anyone else in the Middle East for that matter. We are the ones who suffer the most when we interject ourselves in that region.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Dennis in New York writes:
Since Palestine existed before the current Isreali State would not the correct word be "Re-establish"?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Since Palestine existed before the current Isreali State would not the correct word be "Re-establish"?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Greg in Canada writes:
What's the point of negotiating with an entity (Fatah) that doesn't control any territory? It seems like a recipe for failure. I can't understand why Secretary Rice has embarked on such a quixotic mission.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
What's the point of negotiating with an entity (Fatah) that doesn't control any territory? It seems like a recipe for failure. I can't understand why Secretary Rice has embarked on such a quixotic mission.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Zena in Illinois writes:
You're kidding right? This is a group of people who openly teach genocide of the Jews. Their whole existence has been created in order to put an enemy at Israel's doorstep.
The fake photograhy, the teaching of children from a small age that martydom is something to strive for.. Billions of aid siphoned off to the corrupt thugs that have been given control of the territory. The Palestinians have no desire to have peace with Israel, merely to be close enough to be more effective in their killing methods. Since when do we enable terrorism by legitimizing with a state? What have they done to improve the lives of the Palestinians with all that aid? Zip, zilch, nada.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
You're kidding right? This is a group of people who openly teach genocide of the Jews. Their whole existence has been created in order to put an enemy at Israel's doorstep.
The fake photograhy, the teaching of children from a small age that martydom is something to strive for.. Billions of aid siphoned off to the corrupt thugs that have been given control of the territory. The Palestinians have no desire to have peace with Israel, merely to be close enough to be more effective in their killing methods. Since when do we enable terrorism by legitimizing with a state? What have they done to improve the lives of the Palestinians with all that aid? Zip, zilch, nada.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Gabriela in Spain writes:
Excuse me, but Presidente Hugo Chavez is indeed a despot. My husband is from Venezuela and I lived there for almost a year, and I witnessed how he's been concentrating all power around himself and weakning the independence of the Parliament, judges and state owned companies. That is indeed an autocratic and populist government. That does not mean U.S. should invade it or anything similar, but please let's not make a hero out of a dictator just because he rivalizes with President Bush. They can be both very bad leaders at the same time.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Excuse me, but Presidente Hugo Chavez is indeed a despot. My husband is from Venezuela and I lived there for almost a year, and I witnessed how he's been concentrating all power around himself and weakning the independence of the Parliament, judges and state owned companies. That is indeed an autocratic and populist government. That does not mean U.S. should invade it or anything similar, but please let's not make a hero out of a dictator just because he rivalizes with President Bush. They can be both very bad leaders at the same time.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Hesham in Louisiana writes:
A Palestinian state is feasible only if the United States's decision is based on the best interests of the United States. As it stands today it is not. Palestinian land looks worse than swiss cheese you can't get sliced American cheese out of swiss. The U.S. doesn't have the will nor the mean to establish a viable Palestinian State. The establishment of a Palestinian "State" under current conditions will guarantee a Palestinian civil war like you never seen before. This conference is the last nail in the Palestinian coffin.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
A Palestinian state is feasible only if the United States's decision is based on the best interests of the United States. As it stands today it is not. Palestinian land looks worse than swiss cheese you can't get sliced American cheese out of swiss. The U.S. doesn't have the will nor the mean to establish a viable Palestinian State. The establishment of a Palestinian "State" under current conditions will guarantee a Palestinian civil war like you never seen before. This conference is the last nail in the Palestinian coffin.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Ralph in Greece writes:
I believe with most that creating a Palestinian state would create a temporary peace in the region. Why don't the Arab countries give up a small part of their territory for the Palestinians. Their citizens seem to be very interested in this cause, so why not make the kind gesture. The sad truth is that many Arab countries treat Palestinians as second class citizens and only use their plight to further their own agendas. I don't think most Arab nation governments truly want an end to the Palestinian issue, because then they will have no more sound bytes for their biased medias to stir up anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
I believe with most that creating a Palestinian state would create a temporary peace in the region. Why don't the Arab countries give up a small part of their territory for the Palestinians. Their citizens seem to be very interested in this cause, so why not make the kind gesture. The sad truth is that many Arab countries treat Palestinians as second class citizens and only use their plight to further their own agendas. I don't think most Arab nation governments truly want an end to the Palestinian issue, because then they will have no more sound bytes for their biased medias to stir up anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Ron writes:
Is the creation of a Palestinian state feasible? Are you kidding? The short answer: Yes, it is feasible.
Should the U.S. play such a major role in its establisment?
Again, ar you kidding? The short answer: Yes.
The long answer: Considering the fact our U.S. Congress has been funding and arming Israel's forty-year illegal occupation of Palestine,thereby co-sponsoring Israel's decades long systematic abuse of the Palestinian people, the U.S. government should immediately begin following our U.S. laws and constitution regarding Israel and Palestine.
Namely, ending the flow of U.S. tax dollars and American-made weapons to serial abuser Israel. Our U.S. Arms Export Control Act forbids our government from arming any nation who uses our weapons in an offensive capability. Our own State Dept. (just ask'em) has already sanctioned Israel multiple times for multiple violations of this act.
The ugly facts remains:
1.) As long as our Congress funds and arms Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, that's how long America will continue to be the target of Muslim terrorism.
2.) As long as our U.S. military continues to occupy Muslim land, that's how long America wiwll be the target of Muslim terrorism.
Despite what Bush & Cheney says, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with hating our freedoms, hot dogs, apple pies and Chevrolets.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Is the creation of a Palestinian state feasible? Are you kidding? The short answer: Yes, it is feasible.
Should the U.S. play such a major role in its establisment?
Again, ar you kidding? The short answer: Yes.
The long answer: Considering the fact our U.S. Congress has been funding and arming Israel's forty-year illegal occupation of Palestine,thereby co-sponsoring Israel's decades long systematic abuse of the Palestinian people, the U.S. government should immediately begin following our U.S. laws and constitution regarding Israel and Palestine.
Namely, ending the flow of U.S. tax dollars and American-made weapons to serial abuser Israel. Our U.S. Arms Export Control Act forbids our government from arming any nation who uses our weapons in an offensive capability. Our own State Dept. (just ask'em) has already sanctioned Israel multiple times for multiple violations of this act.
The ugly facts remains:
1.) As long as our Congress funds and arms Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, that's how long America will continue to be the target of Muslim terrorism.
2.) As long as our U.S. military continues to occupy Muslim land, that's how long America wiwll be the target of Muslim terrorism.
Despite what Bush & Cheney says, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with hating our freedoms, hot dogs, apple pies and Chevrolets.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
The U.S. and its surrogates must have no role in the creation of a Palestinian State. If the world has learned anything, it is do not trust the U.S. Look what the U.S. did in Vietnam after it got involved there. Can we the free peoples of the world, trust a nation of corporate imperialists? Certainly not!
The Europe Union must distance itself from the U.S., by creating a European Army that will not be used by the U.S. as in the bombing of Serbia or any other country. The U.S. is not an ally, but a user. The sooner the U.S. is kicked out of Europe, the better. Europe does not need the U.S. There has to be a point when U.S. forces are withdrawn from European soil, the sooner the better.
Neither Afghanistan, nor Iraq were European issues. They were issues of U.S. greed, to get its hands on Iraqi OIL.
But the worst part is how this U.S. thinks it can invade Venezuela and take over its oilfields. Of course they must first attack its President Hugo Chavez Frias, and make him look like a despot, while the real despot lives in the White House, Washington,DC
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
The U.S. and its surrogates must have no role in the creation of a Palestinian State. If the world has learned anything, it is do not trust the U.S. Look what the U.S. did in Vietnam after it got involved there. Can we the free peoples of the world, trust a nation of corporate imperialists? Certainly not!
The Europe Union must distance itself from the U.S., by creating a European Army that will not be used by the U.S. as in the bombing of Serbia or any other country. The U.S. is not an ally, but a user. The sooner the U.S. is kicked out of Europe, the better. Europe does not need the U.S. There has to be a point when U.S. forces are withdrawn from European soil, the sooner the better.
Neither Afghanistan, nor Iraq were European issues. They were issues of U.S. greed, to get its hands on Iraqi OIL.
But the worst part is how this U.S. thinks it can invade Venezuela and take over its oilfields. Of course they must first attack its President Hugo Chavez Frias, and make him look like a despot, while the real despot lives in the White House, Washington,DC
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Mohamed in Texas writes:
Yes, give the Palestinians their own free State & you take away 99.9% of the Arab street grievances against the West. However, do you think that the Arab dictatorial regimes actually want a free State for the Palestinians? The answer is a surprising 'NO'...because over the decades, these Arab dictators have been hiding behind the unfortunate plight of the Palestinians & directing the anger of their citizens towards the West; claiming that the West is responsible for the Palestinian plights. It�s therefore in the best interest of these dictatorial Arab regimes to dissipate any agreement between the Israelis & the Palestinians by ensuring that the Palestinian negotiators stick to unattainable demands!
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Yes, give the Palestinians their own free State & you take away 99.9% of the Arab street grievances against the West. However, do you think that the Arab dictatorial regimes actually want a free State for the Palestinians? The answer is a surprising 'NO'...because over the decades, these Arab dictators have been hiding behind the unfortunate plight of the Palestinians & directing the anger of their citizens towards the West; claiming that the West is responsible for the Palestinian plights. It�s therefore in the best interest of these dictatorial Arab regimes to dissipate any agreement between the Israelis & the Palestinians by ensuring that the Palestinian negotiators stick to unattainable demands!
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Andrew in Ohio writes:
@ Ronnie in North Carolina -- Ronnie's comments resemble what many American's believe about Israel and Palestine in that it IS a religiously perceived issue. According to the Pew Forum's Religion and the Public Life Survey in 2003, 44% of people in the survey believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, while a smaller but similar number think that the state of Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. This same survey revealed that most people’s opinions on the issue weren't necessarily constructed upon their religious beliefs, but rather from other sources such as the media and education.
This is no doubt a largely existential issue, both in America and in the Middle East. If Palestinians continue to believe that America’s religious understandings guide their policy, they (especially those Palestinians who are vociferously opposed to Israel) may continue to be forced into knee-jerk hostility toward American mediators.
Has the administration done enough for the people in Palestine to communicate to them and those around them of our secular justifications for concern in the region? Has it explored the religious sentiment in our country enough to truly understand the resolve that can be expected (and how it can be influenced) if America will once again begin to put a lot of weight into bringing peace and stability here?
@ Richard in Louisiana -- Like Richard implied, a first step for the Palestinians will need to be the recognition that some external powers have their best interest in mind. A new dialog with intentionally secular undertones may be the key to this change.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
@ Ronnie in North Carolina -- Ronnie's comments resemble what many American's believe about Israel and Palestine in that it IS a religiously perceived issue. According to the Pew Forum's Religion and the Public Life Survey in 2003, 44% of people in the survey believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, while a smaller but similar number think that the state of Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. This same survey revealed that most people’s opinions on the issue weren't necessarily constructed upon their religious beliefs, but rather from other sources such as the media and education.
This is no doubt a largely existential issue, both in America and in the Middle East. If Palestinians continue to believe that America’s religious understandings guide their policy, they (especially those Palestinians who are vociferously opposed to Israel) may continue to be forced into knee-jerk hostility toward American mediators.
Has the administration done enough for the people in Palestine to communicate to them and those around them of our secular justifications for concern in the region? Has it explored the religious sentiment in our country enough to truly understand the resolve that can be expected (and how it can be influenced) if America will once again begin to put a lot of weight into bringing peace and stability here?
@ Richard in Louisiana -- Like Richard implied, a first step for the Palestinians will need to be the recognition that some external powers have their best interest in mind. A new dialog with intentionally secular undertones may be the key to this change.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Jordan in Illinois writes:
The creation of a sovereign Palestinian state is the only truly feasible solutions that will lead to peace in the region. The United States should play play such a major role in its establishment becuase the U.S.A. has much to offer by way of solutions for establishing practical and functional democratic institutions and systems of government.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
The creation of a sovereign Palestinian state is the only truly feasible solutions that will lead to peace in the region. The United States should play play such a major role in its establishment becuase the U.S.A. has much to offer by way of solutions for establishing practical and functional democratic institutions and systems of government.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Joao in Brazil writes:
The creation of a sovereign Israeli state was feasible? Did the United States play a major role in its establishment?
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
The creation of a sovereign Israeli state was feasible? Did the United States play a major role in its establishment?
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Les in Washington writes:
No, no--different cultural views of the world.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
No, no--different cultural views of the world.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Jared in Indiana writes:
At this point, I do not think that it is feasible. While it is encouraging that the Israelis seem willing to compromise on Jerusalem, I think the Palestinian instance on a return to pre-1967 borders (which I support), which would entail a removal settlements and I believe a removal of the security fence for the West Bank and Gaza makes any deal either a non-starter or a very tough sell for the Israeli leadership. This gets even lower marks if the return to pre-1967 borders includes the Golan Heights.
Not even to mention the fact that the creation of a Palestinian state would have to include Hamas dominated Gaza. It seems almost too soon to be talking about a Palestinian state when the Palestinians themselves are still living in a sharply divided society. Of course is the Palestinians were granted a sovereign state with an end to the Israeli occupation support for Hamas might wane.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
At this point, I do not think that it is feasible. While it is encouraging that the Israelis seem willing to compromise on Jerusalem, I think the Palestinian instance on a return to pre-1967 borders (which I support), which would entail a removal settlements and I believe a removal of the security fence for the West Bank and Gaza makes any deal either a non-starter or a very tough sell for the Israeli leadership. This gets even lower marks if the return to pre-1967 borders includes the Golan Heights.
Not even to mention the fact that the creation of a Palestinian state would have to include Hamas dominated Gaza. It seems almost too soon to be talking about a Palestinian state when the Palestinians themselves are still living in a sharply divided society. Of course is the Palestinians were granted a sovereign state with an end to the Israeli occupation support for Hamas might wane.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Richard in Louisiana writes:
Of course the Palestinians should have their own homeland. The question is, which Palestine would it be?
Clearly, those running Gaza at the moment could never be accepted as a legitimate government, under any circumstances. They are committed to wiping Israel off the face of the earth and have not wavered from that stance. As such, Israel will never permit their control of a sovereign state, with all of its inherent power and influence. Any practical solution will start from that premise.
Palestinians have been shamelessly used by other regional Arab powers for decades to fight their proxy war with Israel. As noted, why is it that Palestinians are unable to obtain citizenship in Arab countries, which profess such concern for their welfare, while thousands of Palestinians have been openly accepted into western countries and awarded full citizenship?
When the Lebanese and Palestinians wake up and realize that they are only being used to further the agendas of radical religious and military states, the region will see a drastic change for the better. Palestine and Lebanon will one day be the economic engines of the Middle East, if they throw off their yokes.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Of course the Palestinians should have their own homeland. The question is, which Palestine would it be?
Clearly, those running Gaza at the moment could never be accepted as a legitimate government, under any circumstances. They are committed to wiping Israel off the face of the earth and have not wavered from that stance. As such, Israel will never permit their control of a sovereign state, with all of its inherent power and influence. Any practical solution will start from that premise.
Palestinians have been shamelessly used by other regional Arab powers for decades to fight their proxy war with Israel. As noted, why is it that Palestinians are unable to obtain citizenship in Arab countries, which profess such concern for their welfare, while thousands of Palestinians have been openly accepted into western countries and awarded full citizenship?
When the Lebanese and Palestinians wake up and realize that they are only being used to further the agendas of radical religious and military states, the region will see a drastic change for the better. Palestine and Lebanon will one day be the economic engines of the Middle East, if they throw off their yokes.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Ronnie in North Carolina writes:
Over the past several centuries,the definition of "peace" between these two peoples has always been "we will never see eye to eye"...the definition of security is "self preservation"...
It is commendable Secretary Rice is going thru the motions of her duties, but she should waste her time doing something more concrete.
The solution governing Israel and the Palestinians is solely a "Spiritual Matter" and only God himself will eventually give "peace and security" in the Middle East.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Over the past several centuries,the definition of "peace" between these two peoples has always been "we will never see eye to eye"...the definition of security is "self preservation"...
It is commendable Secretary Rice is going thru the motions of her duties, but she should waste her time doing something more concrete.
The solution governing Israel and the Palestinians is solely a "Spiritual Matter" and only God himself will eventually give "peace and security" in the Middle East.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Page 1 of 1 pages