Recognising a Palestinian State?

[Symmetry]

Dude, my original question was not to prove a point about historical legitimacy, so your point is not related to my previous point, so there will be no dodging, just a reminder that your response did not follow mine, according to me.

I understand why you and others are over-defensive on this issue, which makes you assume I was trying to be anti-Palestine, when really I only wanted to know so I could bring it up to my friend at work the next day.

I think historical legitimacy is more a positive then a negative for one who wants statehood. Relevance is debatable, but that was never my point anyways so, been fun.

Fair enough- you have my answer for your co-worker- It exists, just like Taiwan exists, and the current arguments are over recognition, and what kind of recognition it should receive. I think you've found your answer- historical legitimacy is not really a negative, though it can be a positive.

I apologise for being defensive. The thread was kind of going off topic with some of the ad hominems against me. Perhaps I unfairly tied you to a group of posters to which you do not belong. Anyway, thanks for the contributions.

[DangerBoy]

As for Dangerboy, I would bet the point he was trying to make is also attributed to your ardent support of homosexual rights, yet he wonders why you are so hard up for Palestine when it should be clear that homosexual marriage will not be allowed and homosexuality will probably be punished, and in fact will be a million times worse for gays, especially with Iran having more of a say then ever. I'm sure at that time however you will still be making threads about the tyranny against gays in America.

Pretty close, Scotty. It's hypocritical for these people to be so gung ho about support for a state that would not only be against homosexuals marrying, but proactive in their physical persecution. If the Palestinians want to be tolerated shouldn't they extend toleration to others? I'm not saying I agree with liberals who redefine tolerance that way. It's just pointing out hypocrisy on the part of lefties.

But then again, it's like when liberals preach tolerance on race but then vote for klansmen and segregationists. I guess the ideology of increased government control to force their views of economic fairness on everyone are more important.

[saxitoxin]

The Zionists recently discovered that a kindergarten building may have been acting in an Anti-Semitic fashion toward them, or the building architecture was Anti-Semitic, or something of that nature, whatever. Therefore, the building will be demolished. The kindergartners are SOL. After the Bedouins have been chased away like rodents from the ruins of their kindergarten, wealthy Zionist squatters from the U.S. and Europe will be allowed in to build palatial homes for themselves.

• Note that the kindergarten is a kindergarten of a local Negev Bedouin tribe, not Palestinian, so no children "are being radicalized." But they will now.

Israeli Occupation Forces troops accompanied by staff from Israel’s Civil Administration raided Friday Tuyour al-Jannah kindergarten at the Bedouin complex of the Anata village in the Jerusalem district, and gave the residents of the complex a notice that the kindergarten will be demolished within a week.

The officials took photos of the kindergarten and six houses around it on the pretext that there was no planning permission for the building.

The kindergarten was established in 2009 in a Bedouin community in ‘Anata village northwest of Jerusalem city and serves 45 children.

The director of the Jerusalem Bedouins Society, Muhammad Kreishan, said: “The soldiers and Civil Administration staff came by foot, they raided the kindergarten, photographed it and the homes around it, then they handed the Bedouin community a demolition order for the kindergarten within a week,"

He added that the community was asked to demolish the kindergarten themselves within a week or it will be demolished by the occupation authorities and the community will have to pay the cost of its demolition.

Separately, in a report, Israeli rights group Peace Now said the IOA expropriated an area of more than 100 hectares in the northern West Bank for the interests of two unchartered Jewish settlements.

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/defa ... jiBPEaM%3D

[PLAYER57832]

Nope, there has never been a nation called Palestine. There have been a lot of empires and kingdoms that ruled that land, but usually they ruled a lot more land too (see Ottoman Empire, UK, Romans).

True, but irrelevant, particularly when it is people of the US and Canada speaking.
Also, the link between the Israel of ancient times and today is tenuous at best... and the current state is not truly tied to it, except that both were partially Jewish.

wtf? Didnt you give me a completely different answer the same question?

I asked if Palestine ever existed...and you are all "WRONG!"

Now are you saying "true" that Palestine never existed?

It exists now, and has done for some time. The question is whether it should be recognised. What are your feeling on Taiwan, another unrecognised state that has existed for a similar period of time, but whose recognition gets vetoed by China?

Taiwan is in dispute. Don't get this all twisted, I just asked if Palestine existed at any time in history because I heard someone at work say it and I didn't want a wiki answer. Here I am just telling Player she has said 2 different things. Player and I have a hard time communicating but I am trying again. There will be lots of confusion in these exchanges so don't let it throw you off.

I'm just here to learn on this one, because I I have not made up my mind about the Israel/Palestine thingy.

The problem is it depends on the definitions you want to use, and the context. As I said, the technical, very simplistic answer is "no", but outside of "Jeopardy" type trivia questions, the better answer is "yes". The reason is that Israel has persisted in the fiction that there were no independent people, culture, etc there while at the same time claiming that a handful of Jews that resided in the general region give instant rights to all Jews to "return". Yet, there has not been an independent nation of Israel since about 600 BC/BCE. The region was essentially emptied of Jews around 200 AD, though there is evidence that a small remnant might have persisted. To contrast, descendents of the people who now call themselves Palestiniens have lived there pretty continuously. Ironically, many have far closer genetic and even cultural ties to the ancient Jews than most modern Israelis.

In that context, the greater truth is that Palestine as it exist now, really, has a far better and longer modern "historical root" . Israeli's claim is ridiculous, unless you want to go ahead and say (as I indicated before), for example, that Native Americans have right to get back US and Canadien territories, etc. There are other examples in most of the world, but that is the most obvious. Few nations have existed in continuity for 2000 years.

In further irony, the first declarations that gave rights to Jews to create their own state referred to "Palestine", not "Israel". Israeli history says that Jordan was created out of that original British agreement, but ignores anything to do with a nation called Palesine or Palesiniens. The truth is that denying Palestiniens exist is very central to their claims. Again, if they had to acknowledge that there actually were people living there for generations prior to the influx of new Jews (as opposed to the remnant that historically persisted in the area, then they would have to acknowledge that they flat out stole the land, with the blessing of Europe.

In modern times, Palestine was not recognized officially because the Arabs who were to have created the government denied Israel's right to exist and attacked Israel. Israel has since used that attack and any additional violance to justify continued occupation and denial of most basic rights to the people who call themselves Palestinien. However, they have operated as a unit, had their own culture, etc. If this were not fully true at the time of Israel's inception, it is absolutely true now.

Also, Palestine legally declared itself to be a nation a few decades back. They just have not been recognized officially and, up until now, have not pressed for true international recognition.

[PLAYER57832]

As for Dangerboy, I would bet the point he was trying to make is also attributed to your ardent support of homosexual rights, yet he wonders why you are so hard up for Palestine when it should be clear that homosexual marriage will not be allowed and homosexuality will probably be punished, and in fact will be a million times worse for gays, especially with Iran having more of a say then ever. I'm sure at that time however you will still be making threads about the tyranny against gays in America.

Pretty close, Scotty. It's hypocritical for these people to be so gung ho about support for a state that would not only be against homosexuals marrying, but proactive in their physical persecution. If the Palestinians want to be tolerated shouldn't they extend toleration to others? I'm not saying I agree with liberals who redefine tolerance that way. It's just pointing out hypocrisy on the part of lefties.

But then again, it's like when liberals preach tolerance on race but then vote for klansmen and segregationists. I guess the ideology of increased government control to force their views of economic fairness on everyone are more important.

What is hypocritical is to insist that a country ostentiably based on freedom for all is identical to a nation established from essentially a "single" cultural unit (though perhaps no group of people can truly be called a "single" unit). Also, that a nation that claims independence of religion should use religous debates to deny some people rights. (BUT.. that actual debate belongs in another thread)

The question here is whether Palestiniens truly deserve to be treated as they have been by Israel for over 60 years. When a roof is ready to collapse, you need to shore up the roof, not worry about redecorating the kitchen. The kitchen comes after. Since the US has refused to help or even recognize Palestine, we have pretty much given up any right to dictate how they structure their government or laws. Rather sad, really. After all, it was the US who ensured that Japanese women would gain rights.

[Symmetry]

Might be time for a reset:

1) The Palestinian state exists, and is recognised by most of the world.
2) This thread is about whether that state should be recognised by the UN.
3) Gay marriage, persecution of homosexuals, active or passive have no relation to statehood. The UN contains plenty of recognised nations that do any or all of those things.
4) Taiwan is not recognised by the UN, Iran is.
5) I'd like to hear from someone who voted "never". The two state solution is kind of the holy grail for most serious minded folk. The "Never" option would suggest that that peace is off the table.

[Phatscotty]

I am the only "I dont know" vote, thanks to BBS

[BigBallinStalin]

Might be time for a reset:

4) Taiwan is not recognised by the UN, Iran is.

Taiwan was recognized back in the day (mid or late 1970s) when the People's Republic of China pressured the US to accept their UN recognition as the ruler of "China," but that technically didn't change much because the US basically signed a defensive military pact with Taiwan afterward. Also, this was a mutually beneficial deal for both US and China, which roughly 5-10 years later shifted toward a market economy under Deng Xiaoping, thus contributing to vast economic growth for China and around the world, and yada yada.

Besides, Iran is its own sovereign country which fought a civil war against the Shah in 1979; Taiwan lost all of mainland China in 1949 at the "end" of that civil war.

What's interesting is that the hostilities between China and Taiwan largely ended when China was recognized as the rightful ruler of China. However, I'm not sure if a UN-recognized Palestine could lead to the same results, but it's worth considering. But still, when a country is opened to more trade, the opportunity cost for disrupting trade (by engaging in border skirmishes) increases since there's much more at stake to lose.

Another thing is sovereignty, i.e. the autonomy to rule one's own country as the rulers see fit, and... I don't think Israel could enforce embargoes against another state as easily if Palestine were to be recognized. So there's that...

[Ray Rider]

1) The Palestinian state exists, and is recognised by most of the world.

Exists more as a territory than as a state, I would argue. I mentioned it in the other "Palestine" thread:
"As this article in the Palestine Chronicle points out (which I do not entirely agree with, but makes some good points), the PA doesn't fulfill three of the basic conditions of statehood: national unity, economic viability, and security."

4) Taiwan is not recognised by the UN, Iran is.

I'm not sure what Iran has to do with anything. Taiwan has much more reason to be recognized as a state because the country is unified nationally, strong economically, and peaceful on the world stage (not continuously firing rockets at--and suicide bombing--the civilians of the nation next door). The main point against it is that it might cease to exist if the US wouldn't stand up for it all the time. China would be more than happy to reclaim its "wayward child" and I doubt the Taiwanese could stand on their own.
Edit: BBS fastposted me and knows more about it than I...

5) I'd like to hear from someone who voted "never". The two state solution is kind of the holy grail for most serious minded folk. The "Never" option would suggest that that peace is off the table.

I must say I was planning to vote for "Not now, but possibly in the future," but I saw the "Never" category dominating and thought I'd join the winning side lol It doesn't accurately portray my view, however.

As long as Hamas and Fatah, the two governments of the Palestinian territories, refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, why should Israel in any way endorse the PA's bid at statehood? Without the West Bank, Israel is 9 miles wide--hardly a defensible position. And why would Israel's allies, such as the US, endorse such a plan? Netanyahu has made it clear that he's willing to recognize the Palestinian statehood, but only after peace is achieved. Sounds reasonable to me. "The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. But I also want to tell you this. After such a peace agreement is signed, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. We will be the first."

The fact is, the Palestinians are there in the land, and aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Israel cannot and would not kick them out to retake the entire Palestinian territories. The territories' pre-67 occupiers (Jordan and Egypt) don't seem to have much interest in the them, plus I doubt Israel would allow control to revert back to them since they didn't do a good job of keeping the peace either (recall the early Palestinian fedayeen from Egyptian-controlled Gaza). International peacekeepers have already tried and failed to keep the peace in the region before, so that option is out the window.The PA doesn't deserve to be an independent state as long as they refuse to recognize their neighbors and continue to espouse terrorism against civilians. Therefore in the mean time I don't see how anything will turn for the better unless real positive change happens on the ground between Israelis and Palestinians. In the mean time, the UN bid is merely a distraction from what really needs to be done.


tl;dr Rough Summary:

The PA doesn't stand up to basic criteria for statehood.
It is unreasonable of the PA to expect Israel and the US, among others, to recognize their statehood as long as their governments of Hamas and Fatah refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Even were the UN to recognize Palestinian statehood, it would do virtually nothing to change things on the ground (I didn't talk about this, but it seems fairly obvious).
Conclusion: the UN should not recognize Palestinian statehood, although in the future once peace is achieved, that would be possible and most probably beneficial.

In advance, don't be surprised if I don't keep up with the debate here. I pop in here now and again but generally read without posting.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you want to use the criteria of "national unity, economic viability, and security," then Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more should have their UN-recognition revoked.

[BigBallinStalin]

I am the only "I dont know" vote, thanks to BBS

You're one step farther from being a pawn of mainstream media and political rhetoric.

With uncertainty and lack of knowledge, it's best to err on the side of caution; otherwise, we get situations like the time when 60% of Americans were screaming for war against Iraq 2003.

[saxitoxin]

The Zionist snake Ben Stein calls Dr. Ron Paul an Anti-Semite for denouncing Israel and the United States as occupiers -

FF to 6:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLnRtBDn ... re=related

Ron Paul exposes Nancy Pelosi as an agent of the Zionists -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdJIWsbX ... re=related

[Pope Joan]

1) The Palestinian state exists, and is recognised by most of the world.

Both are questionable statements. Does it exist in 1947, 1967 or 2011 borders?

Recognition is a funny statement too because most of the countries recognised in 1988-89 among the general feeling that the problem was about to be solved. It is not clear that all will reconfirm the recognition when pressed now. Besides, who cares about recognition by the likes of Tuvalu? Out of 5 permanent members it is recognised by 2, this is the number that counts!

BTW, I voted "kittens" because the question is ill-posed.

2) This thread is about whether that state should be recognised by the UN.
3) Gay marriage, persecution of homosexuals, active or passive have no relation to statehood. The UN contains plenty of recognised nations that do any or all of those things.

Yes, but when it comes to UN, the positions of the 5 big boys matter. As between 1 to 3 of them are against, it obviously should not be recognised. Maybe, a better question is would it better for everyone if the UN recognised.

4) Taiwan is not recognised by the UN, Iran is.

So what? It goes back the the 5 big boys... More interesting is Kosovo. All it needs to get recognised is a nod from Russia and the other big boys can get it easily. I wonder why they don't try

5) I'd like to hear from someone who voted "never". The two state solution is kind of the holy grail for most serious minded folk. The "Never" option would suggest that that peace is off the table.

Solution for what? Obviously a better solution for Israel is to annex the West Bank and create the Palestinian State in Sector Gaza. Geopolitically and strategically it is so much superiour. On the other hand, for Palestine a better solution would be the destruction of Israel, or "return of refugees" how it is called politely...

[The Krel]

I'm looking at an old school Atlas (where the latest UK census was 1924), and it clearly shows an area marked Palestine. There is no area marked Isreal. But then again, Isreal didn't come into exsistance until 1948.

At the point when this map was produced by John Bartholomew, Palestine was province and part of Arabia - along with Jordan, Iraq, Qatar and half a dozen other latterday states - including eventually Isreal. It's also fair to mention that Lebanon was part of Syria and Iran was Persia.

All these provinces later attained recognition bar one - Palestine. Which was sliced into two by the British Government, (The dominant military power in the region following WWII) to create Isreal.

Personally, I have no problem with a Jewish state and homeland. But it is about time someone realised the method used to create Isreal was both brutal and by current international law - illegal. (The Palestinians were denied representaion or recognition on the basis that Palestine was not a state, therefore it had no citizens to consult. How convenient!)

The events of 1948 saw post-war near-bankrupt Britain, bowing before US colonial pressure - pay-back for saving the UK from the Nazis. That a few hundred thousand "dirty Arabs" got moved on was considered a small price to appease the US. After all, everyone knew Arabs were nomadic, so they need only be nomadic somewhere else. The US Jewish lobby were happy. The Brits were happy. And the soon to be Isrealis were happy. Who gave a shit about the Arabs!

And 60 years on, Palestinians continue to be forcibly evicted from their homes at gunpoint - nothing has changed.

Living in Palestine, makes internment at Gitmo look like a holiday camp. It is the worse abuse of human rights since the Nazis and the Holocaust. Ironic then that the Isrealis are the Prison Guards!

Give the Palestinians a break - they deserve it. It's no wonder why so many Arab nations resent the US and UK. In their eyes we're no different from the bloody Nazis.

[radiojake]

I'm looking at an old school Atlas (where the latest UK census was 1924), and it clearly shows an area marked Palestine. There is no area marked Isreal. But then again, Isreal didn't come into exsistance until 1948.

At the point when this map was produced by John Bartholomew, Palestine was province and part of Arabia - along with Jordan, Iraq, Qatar and half a dozen other latterday states - including eventually Isreal. It's also fair to mention that Lebanon was part of Syria and Iran was Persia.

All these provinces later attained recognition bar one - Palestine. Which was sliced into two by the British Government, (The dominant military power in the region following WWII) to create Isreal.

Personally, I have no problem with a Jewish state and homeland. But it is about time someone realised the method used to create Isreal was both brutal and by current international law - illegal. (The Palestinians were denied representaion or recognition on the basis that Palestine was not a state, therefore it had no citizens to consult. How convenient!)

The events of 1948 saw post-war near-bankrupt Britain, bowing before US colonial pressure - pay-back for saving the UK from the Nazis. That a few hundred thousand "dirty Arabs" got moved on was considered a small price to appease the US. After all, everyone knew Arabs were nomadic, so they need only be nomadic somewhere else. The US Jewish lobby were happy. The Brits were happy. And the soon to be Isrealis were happy. Who gave a shit about the Arabs!

And 60 years on, Palestinians continue to be forcibly evicted from their homes at gunpoint - nothing has changed.

Living in Palestine, makes internment at Gitmo look like a holiday camp. It is the worse abuse of human rights since the Nazis and the Holocaust. Ironic then that the Isrealis are the Prison Guards!

Give the Palestinians a break - they deserve it. It's no wonder why so many Arab nations resent the US and UK. In their eyes we're no different from the bloody Nazis.

Nicely summarised -

and just to re-interate the point - Being anti-zionist does not equate to being anti-semetic - I am definately the former and most definately not the latter -

[Pope Joan]

Why use the green?

Living in Palestine, makes internment at Gitmo look like a holiday camp. It is the worse abuse of human rights since the Nazis and the Holocaust. Ironic then that the Isrealis are the Prison Guards!

Are you delusional? Certainly, the human rights are abused there but it is by far not the worst abuse of human rights since Holocaust: it fades away compared to Rwanda or Cambodia or several other modern countries. In fact, IMHO, during the periods of peace, Palestinians may have more human rights than Arabs in places like Saudi Arabia or Iraq...

Give the Palestinians a break - they deserve it. It's no wonder why so many Arab nations resent the US and UK. In their eyes we're no different from the bloody Nazis.

On what basis do they deserve a break? A break from what, from living on the same land with another nation with which they are at war with? You cannot really get a break from being yourself...

IMHO, most Arabs resent Palestinians as well because Palestinians are not "real" Arabs, religionwise, half of them are Ahmaddis anyway. What is definite is that this part of the world is pretty messed up but it does not justify your obsession with Nazis

[The Krel]

Hi Pope Joan,

In direct response to your message.

Why green? - why not? It's enviromental! I love this planet.

Am I delusional? - I don't think so. You're right, there have been terrible human rights abuses since 1945. Rwanda and Cambodia being excellent examples.

Rwanda was undoubtedly an attempt at genocide - although thankfully a failed one. Cambodia, and the events in that whole area - were truly awful. But as with so many ideologcal experiments - what is most dreadful is the brutality of implmentation. Thankfully, most people rejected the ideology.

Beyond that, the atrocities in Rwanda and Cambodia have now consigned to the history books. Whereas, Palestine's suffereing is still happening today.

Furthermore, Rwanda and Cambodia are both examples of a nation turning on its own. In the case of Palestine, it is not a civil crisis that has caused so much human suffering. No, Palestine is a nation under occupation.

If you like - you could argue that Palestine is one giant concentration camp. One where the occupants are without rights or recognition. One were as long as the people merely exsist and nothing else, they are tolerated. But they are starved, impoverished and in constant fear for their lives.

I agree with you - if you were attempting to make this point - the death toll in Palestine is small when compared to some other modern-day atrocities. But in reply I would say - name one other modern-day example of an agressive occupation lasting over 60 years?

This is the real crime. That the situation has lasted so long - whilst the World has looked the other way - constantly.

With regard to Palestinians not being real Arabs. What do you mean? "Not real Arabs" - don't be silly. The term "Arab" is merely a generic term for nomadic people of the region. These tribes (or families) are connected only by geography - as each with its own distinct identity. Most are intolerant of other Arab tribes - until united against a common foe. Arab tribes have populated the region for thousands of years. They are all different, yet the same as well. Independent, but with much in common. Palestinians are as Arab as any other tribe, even the best known of all Arab tribes - the Jews.

For thousands of years the Arabs tribes have vied for supremacy. And in that time, some have dissappeared altogether. But this is a modern age - where we allow these once nomadic Arab peoples to have a homeland to call their own. Why have we singled out the Palestinians as unworthy?

I agree - this part of the world is VERY messed up. Maybe now is the time to un-mess it up. As I said before, I have no problem with the Jewish people having a homeland - quite the opposite. I merely think that the Palestinians deserve equal recognition and respect.

Hence my belief that recognition of a Palestinian homeland is long overdue.

Finally, I am not obsessed with the Nazis - I think that is a Jewish obsession. I do however think that a nation so violated by the evil of the Nazis, would be mindful of others suffering a similar fate.

[saxitoxin]

Super-well summarized, TK, however, on this point ...

The events of 1948 saw post-war near-bankrupt Britain, bowing before US colonial pressure - pay-back for saving the UK from the Nazis. That a few hundred thousand "dirty Arabs" got moved on was considered a small price to appease the US.

... I'm not sure the U.S. had much interest one way or the other in regard to a Jewish so-called homeland in 1948.

Recalling that the U.S. established its post-war dominance by deciding to oppose France, UK and Israel in the Suez Crisis, leading to the humiliating defeat of those three countries by a third world sheikdom, Egypt. The U.S. also led economic sanctions against Israel until it agreed to withdraw from Gaza.

• It was after Suez that the Zionists realized Europe was a relatively worthless patron and they started bribing U.S. politicians instead (AIPAC was incorporated less than 10 years after the end of hostilities).

ed. - spelling

[Pope Joan]

Why green? - why not? It's enviromental! I love this planet.

It is not. It is just difficult to read.

I agree with you - if you were attempting to make this point - the death toll in Palestine is small when compared to some other modern-day atrocities. But in reply I would say - name one other modern-day example of an agressive occupation lasting over 60 years?

Kurdistan (and no left wing EU softies care an inch about kurds)...

Palestinians are as Arab as any other tribe, even the best known of all Arab tribes - the Jews.

You really have no idea what you are talking about here. There were Arab Jewish tribes, indeed, but not all Jews are of the Arab origin. As far as Palestinians are concerned, technically they became Arabs around 7th century when they switched the language from Aramaic to Arabic...

Finally, I am not obsessed with the Nazis - I think that is a Jewish obsession. I do however think that a nation so violated by the evil of the Nazis, would be mindful of others suffering a similar fate.

Off course, you are. Why would you mention them otherwise as they bear no relevance to the Palestine-Israel conflict?

[saxitoxin]

The Palestinian Chronicle recalls Gen. Eisenhower's attempts to castrate the Zionist state:

Noting the "control the Jews have over the news media," [CIA Director] Dulles complained that "The Israeli Embassy is practically dictating to the Congress through influential Jewish people in the country."

"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews," he told Luce, but "I am going to have one. I believe in what George Washington said in his Farewell Address that an emotional attachment to another country should not interfere."

Eisenhower agreed. On Feb. 11, 1957, he sent another message to Ben Gurion, offering to guarantee Israeli access to the Gulf of Aqaba but demanding "prompt and unconditional withdrawal" from Gaza. Ben Gurion again refused, replying that "there is no basis for the restoration of the status quo ante in Gaza."

At that point, instead of an Obama-style cave-in, Ike decided to take the gloves off. On Feb. 20 he sent another cable to Ben Gurion threatening to support a UN call for sanctions against Israel and warning that such sanctions could to Israel's lifeline at the time, tax-deductible private donations and the purchase of Israel's bonds. That same evening the president went on national television specifically to address the dispute with Israel. "We are now," he told the American people, "faced with a fateful moment as the result of the failure of Israel to withdraw its forces behind the Armistice lines, as contemplated by the United Nations Resolutions on this subject."

Ben Gurion's initial response was continued defiance, but with no indication that Eisenhower would back down, and the General Assembly about to vote for sanctions, he had no choice but to capitulate.

http://palestinechronicle.com/view_arti ... p?id=15749

The last time the U.S. exercised a forthright and commendable foreign policy before the claws were sunk into its back.

[The Krel]

Sorry guys - I'll have to come back to this tomorrow. Great talking with you.

But one last thought - the situation with the Kurds is also pretty messed up I agree. However, the situation there is very different. In that the Kurds lay claim to land that crosses several international borders. Also the Kurds have not faced a sitaution where they are confinded to a single area - like the Palestinians.

However, if the Kurds demanded a unified homeland, I would certainly listen to their opinion - and try to find a workable solution.

[PLAYER57832]

and just to re-interate the point - Being anti-zionist does not equate to being anti-semetic - I am definately the former and most definately not the latter -

You can include a fair number of Jews in that anti-zionist bit.

Sorry guys - I'll have to come back to this tomorrow. Great talking with you.

But one last thought - the situation with the Kurds is also pretty messed up I agree. However, the situation there is very different. In that the Kurds lay claim to land that crosses several international borders. Also the Kurds have not faced a sitaution where they are confinded to a single area - like the Palestinians.

However, if the Kurds demanded a unified homeland, I would certainly listen to their opinion - and try to find a workable solution.

They do, in fact want one.. ergo the PKO (but that's another thread).

[PLAYER57832]

Super-well summarized, TK, however, on this point ...

The events of 1948 saw post-war near-bankrupt Britain, bowing before US colonial pressure - pay-back for saving the UK from the Nazis. That a few hundred thousand "dirty Arabs" got moved on was considered a small price to appease the US.

... I'm not sure the U.S. had much interest one way or the other in regard to a Jewish so-called homeland in 1948.

This is untrue. The fact is that a lot of Jews had already migrated to the US during or following the war. There was great fear/prejudice against more, but of course, the holocaust ensured that this sentiment could not be voiced too loudly or prominently. Israel provided a wonderful solution.. for both the US and the rest of Europe that really had no great desire to house the surviving Jews.

[PLAYER57832]

Palestinians are as Arab as any other tribe, even the best known of all Arab tribes - the Jews.

You really have no idea what you are talking about here. There were Arab Jewish tribes, indeed, but not all Jews are of the Arab origin. As far as Palestinians are concerned, technically they became Arabs around 7th century when they switched the language from Aramaic to Arabic...

The fact that not all Jews are of Arab or even Aramaic origin is one reason why claiming a direct tie to Jerusalem, outside of the Bible is ridiculous.

And that is what presents the huge problem. Most countries, today, like to maintain the fiction of being secular or at least treating other nations with respect, not like African or Native American tribes ready for exploitation. If they DO that, then the "respectable" reason is to do so for profit/gain. Religion is "not supposed" to be a part of it.

Yet, when it comes to Israel, it is. Add in that while the Jewish presence (and therefore power) in the US is stronge (thanks to the holocaust stronger here than anywhere outside of Israel), the Christian influence and presence is far stronger. Christians have always been somewhat conflicted about Israel and Judaism.

Finally, I am not obsessed with the Nazis - I think that is a Jewish obsession. I do however think that a nation so violated by the evil of the Nazis, would be mindful of others suffering a similar fate.

Off course, you are. Why would you mention them otherwise as they bear no relevance to the Palestine-Israel conflict?

Nazis absolutely DO have bearing on the Israel-Palestinien conflict. It is the Nazis, more than any other group, that allowed the formation of Israel. YET... here is the irony, all of the anger of the Jews is put onto the Palestiniens, not Germany, not the rest of Europe, not even the US who turned away boatloads of Jews even while knowing the death camps existed.

No, their anger is turned at people who had the "audacity" to have lived for hundreds, even thousands of years on the land the Jews wanted... and to think that that occupation might give them a claim to that land.

[saxitoxin]

Super-well summarized, TK, however, on this point ...

The events of 1948 saw post-war near-bankrupt Britain, bowing before US colonial pressure - pay-back for saving the UK from the Nazis. That a few hundred thousand "dirty Arabs" got moved on was considered a small price to appease the US.

... I'm not sure the U.S. had much interest one way or the other in regard to a Jewish so-called homeland in 1948.

This is untrue. The fact is that a lot of Jews had already migrated to the US during or following the war. There was great fear/prejudice against more, but of course, the holocaust ensured that this sentiment could not be voiced too loudly or prominently. Israel provided a wonderful solution.. for both the US and the rest of Europe that really had no great desire to house the surviving Jews.

That's a good point and I misspoke. I meant to say there was no intrasigent alliance nor strategic interface between the US and Israel in the 40s and 50s as I construed Krel's post to indicate. Only after the Zionists determined the UK was no longer a useful patron due to weakness and France outlived their usefulness by giving the Zionists the atom bomb, did Israel's claws and bribery turn to the U.S.