Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News The Triumph of US/Israeli Policy in Palestine

Always?



You will of course provide the appropriate passage from the referenced article. Thank you in advance.

Israeli Siege Leaves Gaza Isolated and Desperate


DAVOS-Palestinians in Gaza suffer record poverty -Abbas


UN warns Gaza poverty may breed more violence



Why can't those pesky Palestinians be laid back and easy-going, eh? What is wrong with them?

OK I had to re-read the article to find out what code words were used but found out you misunderstood the article. It had nothing to do with the innocence of Palestinians or Hamas, or Martians. It was an explanation of current events regrading dissection of political parties in Palestine.

I don;t buy the explanation as it is far too sophisticated for Americans to formulate and I don't believe the Israelis or Americans are serious about finding a solution. So whereas dealing with Abbas may be easier to do, it will not afford a solution as a major component of Palestinian politics was removed.



The MSM has forever only portrayed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the Israeli perspective, in other words we know quite well what Hamas does, however we know almost nothing of the Israeli response which is condoned by the US. What she is saying is to expose all aspects of the conflict brings better understanding of what is happening. What you are apparently saying is by exposing Israeli responses it justifies what Hamas does.

But nothing can be further from the truth. There is no justification for violence from either side but that is not the position Israel takes. From their perspective their response is justified and likewise from the Palestinian perspective their response is justified. Read the history from 1920. Everyone is at fault, so what does that make me? anti-everyone?

I rather suspect what really is happening is we get to see the whole picture i.e both sides are at fault and the US protects one.

Always interested when someone says they are the only ones who know the "real" truth. So you know what the "real" truth is?



I suspected you didn't have a convenient definition to apply to your disdain of everyone anti-anything. So I did some research and found a definition which sounds applicable.



There are probably better definitions but this one seems adequate for our purposes. Thus in your opinion Lowenstein is against characteristics of Graeco-Roman/ancient Israeli traditions embodied in in a religious/political tradition grown over the last say three thousand years.

No where did I read in the article or on her web site that she was against the rule of law or capitalism or individual rights or limited government. No where did I read a rejection of Graeco-Roman or Judeo-Christian principles.

On her web site she contends she is working for peace through reconciliation by rebuilding Palestinian homes destroyed by the State of Israel.



Well if you re-read my solution you will see the the final step is state recognition. That has not been done and therefore my solution has not been used as yet.



No state recognition.



Can't get out of the room until they reach an agreement.



I guess they could try and stab each other with the writing utensils and throw furniture at each other but otherwise they are in a room by themselves.



Apparently someone doesn't but that doesn't apply to my solution. I just invaded them and forced them into a room.

I know you must be thinking those Palestinians don't want to agree so why would they. If you were an Israeli the Palestinians may be saying those Israelis don't want to agree so why would they. Doesn't matter if no one wants to agree. If they want out they will want a solution.

Since 1920 Western colonial powers dictated political solutions in the ME. The League of Nations presented the world with the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine followed shortly thereafter with the idea of a partition. European Jews began the immigration process at levels directly proportional to increasing anti-Semitism which in turn precipitated a directly proportional violent response of Palestinian Arabs to the increasing numbers of European Jews immigrating into their homeland.

I don't care who is to blame for what. 85 years of this crap is way to long. This is an Israeli-Palestinian problem,; they should resolve it to their satisfaction. Outside arbitration will not work. We have seen the results of that for many years now.

As with every hard negotiation no one walks away with everything they wanted but everyone walks away with something they can live with.

As Rodney King might not have said, "isn't anybody even interested in getting along?"

Perhaps some attention might be given to just why that appears to be the case?

As a for instance, I believe that in the partitioning of the old British mandate originally proposed adopted by the UNHCP in 1948, the Arab portion would have been the slightly larger and the Jewish portion would have been gerrymandered into two pieces totally surrounded by the Arab state UN General Assembly (UNGAR 181, 1947) would have given the Israelis 55% of the territory and the Arabs 45%; both areas would have been heavily gerrymandered. Jerusalem, in the Arab state, would be an international city under UN administration. I believe that the Jewish community agreed to this state of affairs but the Arabs refused. IIRC, the Arab position was that there could be no separate Jewish state, only an Arab state which included separate and somewhat autonomous Jewish areas - but absolutely no recognition of an independent Jewish state in what was considered an Arab land.

In fact, has anyone given any thought to the notion that four decades of Arab intransigence on the question of the existence of Jewish state has resulted in the radicalization first of the majority of Israelis? That the Israelis have felt that the nightmarish Arab notion of drowning the land in Jewish blood has left them no choice but to deal with their adversaries as they have?

And why is it that we appear to hold the Israelis to a higher standard than we do the Arabs? Is it something inherently racist on our part? Do we say to ourselves, in some secret compartment of our mind, that, well, after all Israel is a child of the Renaissance and the Reformation and the Enlightenment and is therefore civilized, but the Arabs are just a bunch of bloody wogs at heart and we cannot expect any better of them?

Pace, I am not absolving Israel, nor am I declaring the Arabs anathema; I believe there is enough injustice to go around. Nor do I excuse our own meddling and opportunism.

Finally!:-) I was not sure how long it would take for you to tire of the Socratic thing and say what you have been dying to say all along, rporter314. If it has made you happy, then I am happy -- and all I can say is, good!:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

In America, the action taken by Israel last Monday would be called 'eminent domain', highly despised by many people for many different reasons. But, since Israel is incapable of wrong-doing, we can just call this God's Will.



Shalom.

I think this condition is quite prevalent among advocates (especially 'white' advocates) of group victimhood. And I think that many of them know it, and that is why they go to such lengths to over-compensate for it and atone for their feelings of guilt (they transfer the guilt to those who do not agree with their angst). So, to these folks who secretly believe themselves to be racially or culturally superior, members of a 'victim' group are never to be held responsible for their own actions. The 'victim' group's circumstances are always the fault of the power structure (as long as it is 'white' or has embraced the "white social construct"). The bad things members of a 'victim' group may do is beyond their control because they are simply reacting to a life of oppression and "acting out" that anger. They are not capable of truely functioning like a fully realized human because they have been denied the opportunity by the prevalent power structure to explore higher avenues. etc.


True dat -- if it is a balanced approach to the issue that you are looking for.
Yours,
Issodhos

I love an argument based upon the unsupported assumption of one person then presented as the basis for one's own suppositions and conjectures. It makes following the discussion so, well, hopeless.

I guess I will just be disappointed once again that someone can't answer simple questions.

Always?



Uh-oh. This fatuous claim appeared yesterday, but its claimant has failed to support it. Let's see what other claims he has failed to support:

• obviously an anti-Western ideologue
• The hippies have always rejected any such morality
• heavily invested in hating
• they remain hippies
• a hallmark of the New Left movement that emerged in the 60's.
• socialism’s illegitimate ideological offspring

Strong opinions, strongly expressed, but fundamentally supported by nothing more than marshmallows and air. Comments like these, left without support, seems to arise from nothing more than intolerance and bigotry.