1) In this case the proverbial 'we' was a response to a 'we' quoted by Mr. C, but in fact it was a Un action, largely sponsored by the US, and with the Uk having nominal control, but they had made it plain to all and sundry that they wanted it out of their hands. 2) There were some Jewish settlements, but they were a vast minority, and the rezoning you allude to was, in fact, just what you say it wasn't: the Un coming in and telling Palestinans who had been living in the region for thousands of years to move over for the new state of Israel. The fact that there were Jewish settlements in the region in itslef precludes the argument that the Arab 'hatred' of Jews is an irrational emotion of long standing which was only given an excuse with the creation of Israel. 3) I totally, completely, and absolutely blame 'us' for the Palestinian/Israeli problem, much more than either of the parties directly involved. Out of WWII guilt, the last vestiges of colonial thinking, and a beilief that we could, due to our power, redraw the maps of the world ( as we did with the creation of Yugoslavia, for example) irrespective of the issues of the people affected, we thrust two peoples into a situation where each had to fight for the same land or risk ceasing to exist as a people/culture. Then we aggravated the cituation by attempting to cover our mistake by finding legal semantics to ignore the Palestinians plight/righteous argument, and now we act like they are irrational people for resorting to terrorism in order to be heard. By 'us' I mean, in the first place, the powers that be after WWII, and in the latter two cases largely the US.
This is just a horrible situation. Whether a terrorist bombs a bus or an Israeli Jet levels a building, both are horrendous acts that are wrong. There is no justification for any action of this sort. The only thing I hope is that with the bomb in Iraq and Israel that it wasn't a coordinated Al-Queda attack or smaller parts to something bigger. It seems that all that society has become more 'civilized' the more dangerous we have become to ourselves.
MacBeth, I'm not a history guy like you. So I don't pretend to know more than you. What I've always understood about that piece of history is that the establishment of Israel was a gradual thing rather than a sudden guilt-driven decision after the holocaust. Zionism started way before even WWI, with many Jews settling in Palestine. But under the UK occupation after WWI, that was when the real big settlement waves came in. My understanding is that as the Jewish population grew, the hatred against them also grew and conflicts were increasingly serious. By the time of the wake of WWII, the UK changed their policy and greatly restricted Jews from entering the land so much so that many of the Jewish refugees from Europe were turned away. That, I believe, was where the "guilt trip" coming from. Anyway, my point is that the zoning was intended to separate the two people in order to reduce conflict. (By that time, to kick out the Jews who had already settled wouldn't be right either. The Arabs had always hated the Jews (and vice versa), even before Israel came into being. The only reason why Jews from all over the world came to settle in the land was the rise of Zionism (the belief that Jews should go back to the "homeland") in the late 19th century. There was no other reason to move into a place where all your neighbors hate you, especially in light of the general well-being of Jewish people in other countries before WWII. So, if you want to place blame, I would blame the UK for encouraging the settlement waves between the two world war. And I would think that had the Arabs not reacted so negatively against the zoning, Jews and Palestinians might have coexisted peacefully.
Times like this I want to say that you are freaking sick. Kids were just killed by an extremist madman and all you can say is "if you want to fight forever to annex territory.. blah blah poor palestinians blah blah they can't do any wrong.." If you said this to my face I swear you'd have a few teeth missing.
Israel should not and will not give them their land, as they have offered multiple times, until the scum of the earth terrorists are wiped out. How can you make peace with scum who teach their kids to blow themselves up from day 1?
There will be peace when I'm president of the US. You figure out when that is. Think real hard. It's really not even worthy of debate any more because nothing ever changes over there. If anyone had an answer from the many debates over the topic, then the problems would have been solved years ago. The basics of the situation is you can't have peace while both sides continue to be on the offensive when their supposed to be on a peace roadmap. Israel kills a militant group's leader and militant group responds by murdering 20 civilians. This is the beginning of the end of the supposed peace road map. Oh...but the cease fire is still on. Uh huh. I'm just counting down to when Israel goes back to what they were doing in full force and we take a back seat again(as if we ever left the back seat). I bet their convening right now formulating their retaliatory response. It's all pretty damn predictable.
MacBeth has this COMPLETELY wrong. After violence of the late 40s, Israel was comprised of land procured in the following manner- 15% legally bought by Zionists 70% legally deeded by the UN through the UK and the Turks 15% conquered land from a war Virtually all of today's major nations secured their borders through war. 85% of Israel was procured legally, through land deeded or bought. MacBeth also conveniently forgets about the 800,000 Jews who were forced from their homes in what are now Arab countries, and had their possessions and money stolen from them after the creation of Israel. That is called "selective historical memory". It was an even swap in my view, and if you really are a historian, then you will realize that great wars have always produced massive population migrations. If you claim that "we" helped steal land from Arabs, then you must also admit that "we" helped steal land from Jews. It is time to build an wall around the West Bank, and force the Palestinians to go to Jordan for work until they learn to police their own.
First of all they aren't treated well by their ARab neighbors. They aren't treated worse. Secondly Many Israelis seek to remove all of them from the area. They've sought to do so before Israel was a state. The desire to remove one people from the region goes both ways, and many of the first leaders of Israel including their first prime minister were supporters of that tactic. It wasn't just because of Israel getting it's on state that caused the turmoil. I do agree that terrorist attacks are horrible, criminal, and the wrong way to address their legitmate concerns.
Lol! Good to have you back, john. Okay...the problem, of course, is with the 70%. Yeah, it was in the nominal control of the British...under what we conceded were outdated colonial ideals. They also got out of India at the time, but had they given it to the Spanish, I don't think that we would have said "well, that's legal." And more over, the land the British gained in the Arab world were leargely gotten by the Arabs themselves, and the Arabs were told that their fighting for the British would ensure their control if the land post war...which, of course, the British backed out on. We were saying that Imperialsim was wrong out of one side of our mouth, while simultaneously approving the transfer of occupied land to another people on the grounds that it had been colonail territory under the British Empire. Everywhere else in the world, the Empires were dissolved simply by the occupying power leaving and the native inhabitants taking control of their own land...excpet with the formulation of Israel. There, somehow, Imperial rules still applied. Second point....great wars always cause massive migrations? What great war were the Arabs involved in that caused this migration? And your basic premise has not been true since the rise of Nationalism. Third point...What land did we help steal from the Jews? The fact that Arab countries reacted to the original stealing of land by evicting people from their countries in no way equates with our taking land that belonged to people and giving it to someone else for our own reasons which had nothing to do with them. And your last point was pure unadulterated johnheath. No point in arguing with it, it's just you being you.
Your point here is well intentioned, except that is ignores REALITY. The majority of Israel was LEGALLY given to the Jews by the UN with the support of the world. To argue now that this land transfer was "wrong", despite the fact that no Arab possessed legal title to the land in question, is silly. The lines on the map will not change, so your attempt to justify violence over this issue is a non starter. Upon the birth of Israel, there was an exodus of Arab people from new Jewish nation. They left their homes for different reasons, and the Arab armies attempted to destroy Israel. This was the original migration of Arabs out of the disputed area, but you knew this already. The Arab people consider themselves one nation in relation to the Israeli/Arab problem. Why don't you care about an equal number of Jews that were forcibly evicted from their homes? Tell me why you object to a wall? Tell me the last time you have heard about a suicide bomber from the Gaza Strip (where a wall protects the Israelis)? The fact is that if a wall is built, then the suicide bombings will stop, and the Arabs in the West Bank will lose their only playing card in this mess. I have never been so disappointed in President Bush when he fell for the emotionally bankrupt argument against a security wall to keep Israeli children from being murdered.
Simply put, re-read my post. I admitted it was 'legal', but that it was wrong. It would have been 'legal' under the outdated rules of Imperialims for Britain to have given India to the Brazlians, but would it have been right? No one is dusputing this on the paperwork, no one is even saying that most of the world didn't approve at the time. What we are saying is that it was wrong, and that we screwed the Palestinians big time. Pa Parallel example, and it happened all the time, and it has been admtted to be wrong: 16th or 17th, 18th or even 19th century...European shows up to some previously 'unsettled' part of the Americas...where natives have been living for hundreds of years. Says, with interpreter, " Nice place you've got here. Got a deed of ownership?" Native person responds " Whazzat?" European goes back to the European settlement, and gets a deed written whereby he now "owns" the land. Legally. Because, according to the standards of those who came, no one "owned" it previously. Newly enshrined land owner now goes onto his land, and after being a bit patient, eventually asks the native squaters to cease and desist from tresspassing. The natives say " Whazzat?", and refuse to leave their ancestral lands, unaware, as they are, that the newcomers have pieces of paper which mean that newcomers own the land. Eventually the army might be brought in to 'protect' the legal land owners from the encroachment of the savage redskin...You see the difference between " legal" and "right" when you are applying the standards of one culture to another?
I understood your point about the "morality" of the land transfer that occurred generations ago, and that is why I said you are not being realistic. 1. The land will never be given back, so why debate this subject? Israel will not be dissolved, and they have the second most powerful military in the world to back up their claims. 2. Will you argue for the return of North American lands to be consistent, or is there a statute of limitations on your morality?
Johnheath, I understand that the land will never be returned to the Arabs. Still, we must fully appreciate the irony of all this calamity in the Middle East. I believe that MacBeth is correct on his history. The Palestinians backed the British occupation because they didn't want to be occupied by the Turks. After the war was over, Palestinians were supposed to get the land back. After the war, the British didn't have the resource to control their imperial property. I believe it was the newly immigrated Jewish immigrants that smuggled in arms for the Jewish population in the region during Exodus. I don't know how drastic this is, but I was told that they used terrorist tactic to kick the Brits out. Eventually, the British conceded, and the UN gave the territory to the Jews. Also, while Israel has a formidable military, they don't have the manpower of the Arabs. If it wasn't for the intervention of the U.S., I believe the Arabs stand a chance of winning a long drawn out war of attrition.
Old man, I never contradicted MacBeth concerning any of the historical points you mention, so what is your point here? Also, there will never be any "war of attrition" between Israel and the Arabs. Israel has 400+ nukes with state of the art delivery systems. Israel will survive, or every Arab country will be toast.
While U.S. is on Israel's side, I don't think the U.S. will permit Israel nuking the entire Arab world.
Speaking of 400+ nukes... wonder what it'll look like after the Battle of Megiddo? They'll wish they had "nukes." When the blood of the enemies of the God of Israel is up to the horses' eyeballs, and the flesh of millions is devoured by birds of prey... well, let's just say if you believe the Biblical prophetic account to be accurate, it would take a "nuke" to get rid of the stench. There will be peace... but sorry friends, it'll be after much, much worse than what the world has ever seen. And it will happen in front of the worlds' eyes. "Nukes? Israel don't need no stinkin' nukes!"
Bernie, you brought up the scenario in which the Arab nations attempt to destroy Israel through a war of attrition. If that happens, how could we stop Israel from defending herself? We couldn't, we wouldn't, and we definitely shouldn't.
Wow, heavyweight comes in and I'm pushed aside. My point was that the zoning was the most reasonable thing to do to deal with the conflicts at that time. If the Arabs hadn't reacted so violently, there might not even be an Israel. Part of the reason for granting statehood to the Jews was so that they could amass a legitimate military to defend against their neigbors. It's the same reason for the Bush administration to push for a Palestinian state right now. So, MacBeth, I don't see how you can blame the US and the UN for the ME problems. BTW, if you want to put historical blame, why stop there. How about blaming the early Muslims for taking over the region and turning Jerusalem one of their holy places to start the antagonism between the Arabs and the West? How about blaming the Romans for destroying Jerusalem in the 1st century and scattering the Jews from Palestine?
Maybe Abbas is the real deal... Palestinian Leader Orders the Arrest of Islamic Militants 52 minutes ago Add Top Stories - The New York Times By JAMES BENNET The New York Times JERUSALEM, Aug. 20 The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, ordered Palestinian security services today to arrest militants responsible for a suicide bus bombing on Tuesday night that killed at least 18 people. "There are clear instructions to security forces to follow these people, find them, put them under arrest," the Palestinian Authority (news - web sites)'s information minister, Nabil Amr, told reporters in Ramallah. "We have to use our authority to contain this tough situation and to stop the negative developments." At least until now, Mr. Abbas and his minister of security, Muhammad Dahlan, have resisted taking action against militants, seeking instead to persuade them to abide by a unilateral suspension of attacks on Israelis declared on June 29. Reacting to the Palestinian Authority's vows to hunt down the militants behind the bombing, David Baker, an official in the Israeli prime minister's office, said: "It's not a matter of just disassociating. It's a matter of dismantling. That is what they must do, and they must do it now.` According to Israel radio, Israeli security forces have already arrested 17 suspects in a raid in Hebron, the hometown of the bomber, who detonated an explosive packed with ball bearings aboard a city bus crowded with families, some of them returning from the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site. Also today, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) of Israel convened a meeting of top security aides to discuss their plan of action following Tuesday's attack. The bombing has prompted Israel to break off security talks and freeze all contacts with the Palestinian leadership. A senior Israeli official said late Tuesday that Israel would move to seal Palestinians into their cities and towns again today, reimposing tight travel restrictions that had been loosened somewhat as the peace effort took hold in recent weeks. The blast on Tuesday night resounded across Jerusalem as it peeled up the roof of the bus and blew out its windows, smearing human remains on a preceding tour bus and opening a deep wound in the American-backed peace effort. More than 100 people were reported hurt, many seriously, in one of the deadliest attacks in almost three years of conflict. Men carrying blood-spattered children raced toward approaching ambulances. On a street strewn with broken glass and bloodied sheet metal, a man knelt near the shattered bus to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on a toddler. Later, in a hospital here, Yaacov Bahar, 35, held his hands in the air in front of him, as though he were still carrying an infant, as he described helping bring four children from the bus. "In my eyes, I'm still seeing the nightmare," said Mr. Bahar, who was being treated for shock. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by members of both Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The Israeli police said the bomber was from Hamas. Palestinian and Israeli officers had been discussing how Palestinian forces would assume responsibility from Israel for policing two West Bank cities, continuing an exchange of control called for by the peace plan, known as the road map. But Israeli officials reacted to the bombing with fury and expressed frustration toward a peace plan they said was endangering their security. "Israel cannot be the perpetual testing ground for peace proposals that the Palestinians fail to implement," Dore Gold, an adviser to Mr. Sharon, said on Tuesday night. In Gaza City after the blast, Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister, told reporters, "I declare my strong condemnation of this horrible act that doesn't serve the interests of the Palestinian people." Mr. Abbas said he offered "my real sorrow" to the families of the victims. Israeli officials noted that Israel had recently softened its own demands on the Palestinian leadership, insisting only that it supervise the people Israel considers terrorists and prevent them from committing new attacks, rather than putting them in jail. The bombing occurred as Mr. Abbas was meeting in Gaza City with leaders of Islamic Jihad in an effort to extend the cease-fire, which was to last three months. Mr. Abbas was scheduled to meet today with leaders of Hamas, but he canceled that meeting after the bombing. Since June 29, Hamas has claimed responsibility for only one other lethal suicide bombing, killing one Israeli a week ago in stated retaliation for Israel's killing days earlier of two Hamas militants. Saying that terrorists are using their declared cease-fire to re-arm, Israel has continued to raid Palestinian towns and cities in recent weeks for what it says are wanted terrorists. In a videotaped statement, the bomber who committed the attack on Tuesday night attributed it primarily to an incident that took place before the cease-fire was declared, the army's killing in June of a local Hamas leader in Hebron. Fireworks burst over Hebron on Tuesday night as Palestinians there celebrated the bombing. Militants from Islamic Jihad and Hamas submitted competing claims of responsibility for the attack. Although political leaders of Hamas in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites) denied any link to the bombing, the Israeli police, which recovered an identity card of the bomber at the scene, said he was connected to Hamas. "He's identified as Hamas," said Superintendent Gil Kleiman, a police spokesman. He said it was possible the two groups were acting together. Israel killed a leader of Islamic Jihad last week in Hebron and the group has vowed to avenge that death. In the West Bank city of Hebron, a Hamas cell released a printed statement claiming the attack, as well as a videotape of the man that Israel said carried it out. In the videotape, the man identified as the bomber, Raed Abdul Hamid Misk, 29, appeared with a rifle in one hand and a Koran in the other. "We are proud to offer ourselves and our lives and our houses as a present to this religion," he said in Arabic. Switching to English, he said, "The people of Palestine commit themselves to cease-fire, but the criminal Sharon refused this commitment and killed many people in Palestine." Mr. Misk was working toward a master's degree from An-Najah university in the West Bank city of Nablus, his family said. Mr. Misk left behind two children and a wife, Arij Joubeh, in the sixth month of pregnancy. She said of her husband, "All his life he was saying, `Oh God, I wish to be a martyr.' " Members of Mr. Misk's extended family were hastily removing possessions from their family home on Tuesday night in anticipation of its demolition by Israeli forces, a standard Israeli reprisal for suicide attacks. Mr. Misk detonated his explosive about 9:15 p.m. local time on Tuesday near the middle of the articulated No. 2 bus. The bus had just crossed the boundary from east Jerusalem, which Israel occupied in the 1967 war, and had entered the west Jerusalem neighborhood of Shmuel Hanavi, home to devoutly religious Jews. On March 2, 2002, a suicide bomber struck about a block away, killing nine Israelis, including six children. There were many children aboard the bus on Tuesday night, survivors said. Zvi Weiss, 18, a seminary student from Borough Park, Brooklyn, said he was sitting in the second row, squeezed in with three children. One of the children had been left in a vacant seat by his mother, who then pushed the baby carriage toward the back of the bus, he said. "His mother was in the back, so I think I don't know what to think," Mr. Weiss said. He said he leaped through a window and ran as the explosion enveloped him in "smoke, noise, the smell of fire." He was being treated in Bikur Holim hospital for shrapnel wounds to his arms, which had stained his white shirtsleeves crimson. He was having trouble hearing, a common difficulty of bombing victims. Yehiya Luria, 38, said the bus was "so full that you couldn't have put a pin in there." He said he was seated at the far back, and also escaped through a window. "There was a lot of blood on me blood, bits of flesh, teeth, hair," he said. He was being treated for shock. "It was a miracle," he said of his survival. "I prayed at the Western Wall today." Nearby, a 2-year-old boy lay in another hospital bed, holding a white blanket and a foil bag of snacks as he sucked on a red pacifier and silently watched the bustling ward. His aunt said he had been riding in a sedan that smashed into the back of the bus, and that he was slightly wounded. She said his name was Abraham. Initial reports by the authorities said five children were among the dead. The police reported removing 18 bodies from the bus. The bodies and body parts were enclosed in black or white plastic bags, which were placed in a traffic circle among three small trees. Investigators opened the bags to take photographs of the dead to identify them. Generators hummed as emergency workers in the harsh white glare of portable lamps scoured the red-and-white bus for the remains of the dead. In the shadows, hundreds of young men in the white shirts, black coats and broad-brimmed black hats of the devoutly religious gathered on the sidewalks and rooftops, outside a police cordon, to survey the scene. Three hours after the bombing, a spokeswoman for another hospital, Hadassah Ein-Kerem, said no one had claimed a month-old baby boy brought from the scene, raising the possibility that his parents had been killed. "He is a very sweet 4-week-old baby boy," the spokeswoman, Yael Bosem-Levy, told Israel Radio. "He has light injuries. He has impact wounds to his stomach, and the entire time he has been here he didn't cry even once."
