OBAMA, ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE EAST

No we do not. It is only 4th most important.



Carter is a bigot and anti-semite. His role, he thinks, is to trash Israel however he can. Taking advice from him on the Middle East is like asking your barber his opinion on your open heart surgery. A potentially deadly endeavor.

Dr Guy can i ask you a question? (I'll assume the answer is yes :LOL:).

What do you think is the reason for the continued Palestinian populations aggression towards Israel?

 

 

2 Questions for the price of one.

Too long to go into here, but in a nut shell, victimhood. No one wants to believe they are at the bottom, so they have to blame others for their problems, or find a way to elevate themselves above others by virtue of birthright. Palestinians, through ignorance, bigotry (mostly taught by their friendly arab neighbors) and lazines have decided they need someone to blame for all their misfortunes, and it has to be someone not like them (race and religion wise). At hand we have - voila! A scapegoat. Jews and Israel.

Or asking a republican to do something moral.

I do not thhink that Carter is anti semetic just because he is critical of Israeli policy. One can most certainly say, in hindsight, that Carter was not critical during his Presidency and why does he now wax eloquent about Israeli instrangience.

I agree partly that the Arabs were also to blame for what happened in 1948. The Jewish people needed aHomeland, especially after the Holocaust. The real issue is why at the expense of the Arbs when the Europeans especially the Germans were responsible for the crime.

I think the Palestenians are living in horrendous conditions and Israel with its ruthless blockade is not helping. Do you not think that victimhood is created when there is a victim.

You may not, but some of his former advisors do. And it is not his criticism of Israel that earns him the justified condensation, but his other actions in regards to the middle east as well. If you want to defend him, defend all of his "perceived" anti-semetic actions, not just that one.



Victimhood is created when one does not take responsibility for their actions, and instead wants to escape culpability by saying that it is beyond their control. It is not in Palestines case. They have had 60 years to do something about self governance, and instead used it to simply attack Israel. They are living in those conditions not due to any blockade of Israel, but because they would rather expend energy attacking innocent Civilians instead of building a thriving society. I can go into a log litany of crimes, errors and atrocities that the leadership of the Palestinians have committed, but instead of rehashing that which has already been stated on this site, I would suggest you read Leauki's blog. He has it well documented on what, when, who where and how of the situation, along with supporting links. I would merely be re-iterating and quoting him (and reposting his links) to go into it all.

This blog is a good companion piece to the comments in Moderateman's blog on why Blacks Hate whites? (There is a lot more in that one that is nor germaine, but check out the dialog with Cityguy in there).

Just because he says it, don't mean that's what he'll do. What it does mean is he will say whatever it takes to get a vote.

Dr Guy, fail.

I think what the majority of people do not understand is that Palastine is being annexxed by Israel. This is the main cause of the troubles. This annexxation is illegal by international law, it piss's all over the geneva convention and finally gives ammunition to islamic fundamentalists to show that reason and peace talks won't work.

I think we can all agree here that Israel still has settlements in occupied territories. Indeed to this day they are expanding them to this day.

Firstly, you may say that Israel's occupation of certain parts of Palestine is not illegal. Unfortunatley it is, in UN resolution 242, Israel was asked to withdraw from the conquered territories of the west bank, gaza strip and the golan heights. It failed to comply with this, effectivley ignoring international law.

Now why does this piss all over the Geneva convention you may ask? Well the convention clearly states it is forbidden to move citzens of your own population to lands of illegally (see above paragraph as to why they are illegal) conquered territory. Israel has hundereds of thousands of it's citizens living in 'settlements' (you may actually recognise them as neighbourhoods as thats what the US media has to report them as).

So you have an occupation, that is going on despite the rest of the world asking them to withdraw.

Saying their social issues stem from lazyness and them not taking responsiblity of their actions is a perfect example of your ignorance of the situation and a testiment of the work of AIPAC and it's influences on the education of American citizens through the media on the subject.

 

That's not true. Israel has published her official boundires several times (including when accepting the partition plan back in 1948). What you are referring to is that Israel stopped publishing official boundries since 1967.

 

Why would they? Winner keeps the land. Happened to Germany too. I don't see why Israel and Syria should be treated differently.

 

Sheba Farms cannot be "returned" to Lebanon, because there were Syrian. Unless Syria informs the UN that Sheba Farms have been Lebanese (and illegally occupied by Syria before 1967), Sheba Farms were Syrian and are now Israeli.

 

It is not acceptable. If it was, the Arabs would have accepted those borders before 1967 and in 1967 when Israel proposed a peace on those terms.

Also, can you explain why exactly Arabs have a right to control the most holiest of Jewish sites???

 

There is no country named "Palestine" that Israel is annexing. Israel annexed East-Jerusalem (taken from Jordan) and the Golan (taken from Syria).

The "main cause of troubles" is surely the Arab attempt to exterminate the Jews (starting before Israel was founded).

The annexations were NOT illegal by international law. (Statements made by the UN are not "international law". International law is what is written down and valid for everyone.)

I don't know if the Geneva Conventions say anything about annexations.

But which international law says that a country is forbidden from annexing land when winning a war started by the other side???

I suspect that is a law that is only valid for Israel.

Incidentally, the Arabs have made it completely clear that they disregard international law when they attacked Israel in 1948 (and again a few times after that). Why would it suddenly be relevant?

 

If the annexation of East-Jerusalem is illegal, I want Koenigsberg back from the Russians now!

I do NOT accept an "international law" that singles out Israel for its application.

 

 

The "Palestinians" have a higher standard of living than Egyptians and Jordanians. When the border between Gaza and Egypt was open they literally bought the Sinai empty.

The "ruthless blockade" started when Hamas declared war. The border to Egypt was open until Hamas frightened the European border officials away.

Israel didn't force the "Palestinians" to vote for Hamas and war.

 

See why I did not bother? Leauki has gone over this and researched it in depth. I have read his blogs on it, and his supporting sources. I could basically repeat what he has said and do the same research, but everyone that has tried to trump him, and many have been honest in that they have provided sources for their positions, have not done so. I admit that part of my beleif is just that - an opinion formed from reading the facts presented, and not actual facts themselves. But then that is what we all do (or at least most hope to do) - we gather the facts, evalutate competing interpretations, and then form opinions.

My statement earlier of "Victimhood" for palestinians is my opinion based upon what I have learned, read and debated on this issue and others. However, the facts that lead me to that conclusion are unarguable except in the court of world opinion, where facts are not used, just demigoguery.

Dr Guy,

You know I was in Haifa during the Lebanon war. While pundits in Europe and America accused Israel of targeting civilians, I saw both the rockets sent by Hizbullah (they were shot into cities and my university and filled with metal parts that would kill people but not harm buildings much) and the flyers dropped by Israel in Lebanon (that warned the Lebanese that bombing raid would follow the next day, in English and Arabic, and would they please leave the area before then).

Incidentally, while Israel did evacuate the north, despite not being warned by Hizbullah (instead Hizbullah called on all the Jews in the world to come to northern Israel to die), Lebanon did not evacuate the south, despite being asked to do so by Israel before the raids.

The resulting fewer deaths in Israel were then attributed to excessive violence on Israel's side, NOT the fact that Israel moved her civilians to the south and away from the front.

I have seen, with my own eyes (I was an evacuee), what transpired.

And while I was in Jerusalem, away from the danger, I could watch the news and find out that the reason Israel had fewer civilian deaths (that was me, one of them who didn't die) was because of Israel's excessive violence. And I thought it was because I was in Jerusalem and couldn't be hit by Hizbullah.

Kaliningrad was captured by the russians during world war 2 was it not? Shall we class that as an illega war? I'll take your point however.

Well the UN didn't single out Israel, they've made requests to the likes of Iraq (for their invasion of Kuwait), Sudan (for their invasion of Darfur),   It's just that these countries didn't have a hugely succesful lobby in America that allowed it to get away with clearly disregarding the UN.

Either way, to put into context what is happening, let's say Britain and France went to war tomorrow. In a conflict lasting six days, the French forces were pushed out of Normandy before finally sueing for peace.

British forces remainded in Normandy, which you know isn't all that unusal after winning a conflict. Then the French went to the UN asking for Normandy back, and the UN agreed with them. Which in some respects may not of been the right thing to do, whats to say that after giving Normandy back the French just wouldn't have another pop at us? Regardless the UN has voted, it is the closest thing we have to a global democarcy (which i think can only be considered a good thing) and as such should be adhered to.

Britain at this point refuses, and maintains an occupation of Normandy against the will of the French people living there, and the French people in the surrounding area, The French goverment, the UN and international opinion (whatever good that is).

The British then start moving British citizens across onto Main land Europe and settling in Normandy, more importantly removing French families from their homes, bulldozing them and then building a new house on top of it for the new British settlers (All this in the areas with good access to water and other rich resources).

Ask yourself this, if the French in occupied Normandy opted to rebel in this enviroment, would you consider them lazy Dr Guy?

Leauki may contest the issue of bulldozing, as he has previously with me. I've not been to Israel, nor the Gaza strip or the West Bank. I've only information i've obtained from journalists and members of organistations such as the UN.

I spoke to my fathers friend, an expert in peace negotiation for the UN from Northern Ireland. He was in Ramalla and witnessed a Palastinian home having it's occupance evicted and finally bull dozed. Several days later work began on brining in mobile homes for a new Israeli settlement. I believe this happend fairly recently.

The Arabs are not blameless in the history of this conflict, but the more i find out about it, the more i can in the very least understand their contempt for their Israeli neighbours.

Several problems with your analogy. First, palestinians has not created a country. So comparing that to Alsace-Lorraine (a much better comparison IMHO) does not fly.

Second, the Palestinians are not up in arms in the Golan Heights or the Lebanese occupied areas. Because they are not there! They never were part of the "Palestine Homeland" to begin with. Gaza and the west bank are, and if they ever decided to become self autonomous, I am sure that at the very least, the US would force Israel (if Israel did not willingly do so) to negotiate with them for peace and trade. Yet they refuse to do so (hence where the laziness comes in). Even the French, notorious for their laziness, created a government!

The Palestinians are not trying to provide for their people. They are not trying to build a nation. They are just tryuing to kill (this is not saying all Palestinians, but in general it is true). They are not "doing" anything. They are "blaming" everything on Israel. Regardless, until they actually try to be constructive, they are doomed to failure. And because they are accepting no responsibility, they are playing the victim. Not a real victim, just a play one (hence playing).

Laziness is not just a state of idleness. It is also a state of mind. And to answer your question, yes they are being lazy. Running a country is not easy. They have no intention of doing it. They are being lazy.

But to throw it back on you for a moment. Do you believe for one instant that if they were to erradicate Israel, that a grand and glorious nation of Palestine would suddenly spring forth?

We do not even have to guess at the answer. We already say it. Al Fatah and Hamas. Yea, that was very constructive.

What's an illegal war? Germany attacked its neighbours and was defeated.

The Arabs attacked Israel and were defeated.

There is nothing illegal about defeating the attacker.




Kuwait didn't attack Iraq. I am all for annexations resulting from attacking another country for no reason other than greed being illegal.

I am talking about annexations in lieu of reparations, annexations done by the attacked and winning party.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I am all for Russia and Poland keeping parts of Germany even though they won them in a war. And with the same passion I am for Israel keeping East-Jerusalem and Golan.




Ok, good example. So the French decided to attack Britain and exterminate the English. Plus they wanted to make Britain a part of France (or replace it with another French country).

This war follows, of course, two decades of France trying to destroy Britain. Also all ethnic English have been expelled from Europe and settled in England. (Plus, in an earlier war between the two, ethnic Normans in England tried to slaughter their fellow British and then fled to France.)




You see, and that's the part I don't see. Germany didn't get Pommerania back after the war. That's simply not how it's done.

What you are looking for is a way to give an aggressive country no reason to avoid war.



Democracy without a constitution is not a "good thing" and never has been.

What you are talking about is not "democracy" in the sense that we know it but simply a vehicle for anti-Semitism. The UN, with votes per country, will ALWAYS vote against Israel in those situations. What's the point of having the Arabs attack Israel and lose and then ask the Arabs (who have more votes than Israel) whether they should be given back what they lost?

That's like having Germany and Austria attack Poland every now and then and lose (hopefully) and then demand, with two votes against one, that Poland pay reparations.




Perhaps it protects Britain from another French attack?

What if Britain offered to give Normandy back to France in exchange for peace (like Israel did with the territories and Gaza in 1967) and the French refused?




That's what the French wanted to do to the British. I can see how they would hate that.

However, the settlers in the territories were not "moved" there by Israel and (in most cases) build settlements on land that was Jewish before 1948.

You might be surprised to learn that Poles live in Pommerania.




Actually, neither journalists nor the UN made that claim; not that I could find, anyway. My contesting the issue was with YOU making the claim, while the BBC (and the UN as far as I could see) didn't even go that far.

I remember when I asked you for a source, you came up with a BBC article describing the destruction of a police station in Jenin during the war. (I assume we can both agree that the grounds of a former police station in the middle of a hostile city is not a prime location for a "settlement".)



Actually, the Jewish settlement is next to Ramalla, not in Ramalla. What your father's friend saw was very likely the destruction of a home by the police or army. THAT HAPPENS, especially when the house harboured terrorists or was a weapons depot.

It is unlikely that mobile homes would be moved into that same position afterwards, for the simple reasons that there is no benefit in doing so, not even for the greediest and evilest of Zionists.

There are perfectly nice spots to settle that are not located in the most hostile city of the West Bank.

If the "expert" connected the dots in such a way, it suggests to me that he made a colossal mistake that will probably cost lives when it is sold as fact.

Point is, if you claim that Israel (not settlers, but the Israeli government) practice ethnic cleansing, you better have evidence; not a story of a friend of a friend that can mean lots of things, but actual evidence.



Can you find out about my contempt for anti-Semitic lies and the people who propagate them?

When you say "find out about it", better make it "hear stories". You didn't "find out" anything. You read a story of a police station destroyed by a bull dozer and jumped to ethnic cleansing from there.

Yes, I can understand Arab contempt for Israel too. Some simply hate Jews and have hated them before Israel had the power to do anything to anybody. And others, most others I would think, just happen to be fed stories as facts because somebody thinks that hearing a story means "finding out".


From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni):

"Back in the summer of 1940 and again in February 1941, al-Hussayni submitted to the German government a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation, containing a clause:

Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of The Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy"


You still think this has anything to do with Israel bulldozing people's homes?

I want to be honest with you. It's your statement, in the other discussion, I think it was yours:

"Well quite simply because if a foreign government came into my town, bulldozed some buildings and built a settlement I'd be sure as hell willing to fight to take it back."

That statement was probably the most disgusting and anti-Semitic statement I have read in a long time. Most supporters of the "Palestinian cause" (the one launched by the Grand Mufti or the reaction to Israel's reaction) tend to be less direct.

After DECADES of Arabs trying to exterminate the Jews, YOU are finally telling me that this is about "fighting to take it back", that the Arabs are simply defending their homes against destruction?

I've read your post Leauki, i've no time to reply to all of it but i promise after the weekend i will, but please allow me to make one comment on your closing paragraph(s).

 

Why is my statement anti-Semitic? Anti-Semitic would suggest that i dislike Jewish people, would it not? Let's say i am wrong, and that you are right. Why would my misinterpritation of events make me dislike people of a certain faith?

How dare you insult me in such a way, it's like saying i'm a racist because i didn't fully understand the issues surrounding the abbolition of slavery.

 

Interesting how the word Anti-Semitic is used all the time to describe someone thats trying to explain about Israel and Palestine, its almost like an excuse. Gets annoying when you don't see it coming.

Poor form Leauki. Many insults have been hurled to the arab people this thread, and noone has accused anyone of being racist against Arabs. But when Scot made a statement regarding the actions of a STATE (not the people), you use a word that'll only stifle intellectual debate and cause division and anger on both sides to surface.

At any rate, it reminds me of when the war in Iraq was still popular. If anyone criticised it, the 'patriots' would say something like "stop supporting terrorism and start supporting our troops". Nationalism can have a very ugly side, and this thread has confirmed that in more ways than one.

Dr Guy, you make the problem of Palestine all the more irretactable when you say that the Palestenians do not have a homeland. The Balfour Declaration called for a HOMELAND for the European Jewry, but by no stretrch of the imagination can that be equated with a "sovereign" State of Israel as it exists now. The Balfour Declaration did not call for the eviction of Arabs from the lasnd that they had settled on. So the concept of Homeland remains eactly that an undefined concept. It was the horrors of the German sponsored Holocaust that brought about an urgency to the problem rersettling jews. I have stated that the Arab governments did not help the Palestenians one bit 60 years ago and the Arans have no interest in settling or bringing about a just resolution. 1967 boundry with joint control over Jerusalem and a freeze on further settlerments is the beginning toward a solution. There are quite a large number of people in Israel today who have become passionate about the idea of peaceful coexistence with Palestenians.

I think the talk of nukes andthreats from,certain quarters is just not helping.

First, that is a common myth. The declaration has nothing to do with Palestinians creating a country. I have read it. it is only some stuffed shirt brit pontificating on the issue - 100 years ago!

Damn man! How long are they going to use some nobody's opinion (which did not specifically count out ANYTHING) as justification for them doing nothing?

You just proved my point. They are not interested in creating a society, just finding whatever excuse they can come up with not to do a damn thing.

There are factors that one has to consider while dealing with Israel,Palestine and the Middle East in general. You cannot wish away history just because it is inconvinient. Palestine formed part of themandated territories as per the Balfour Declaration and it is well to remember that the "stuffed shirt brits" were not interested in the Palestenians as such. Yet the mention of the word Palestine give international legitimacy to the claims of the dispossessed people. Rthnic cleansing on a scale that inaugurated the birth of the State of Israel is not acceptable to most of the world and hence an honorable settlemrnt has to be made. Some of us feel the 1967 border could be negotiated and it is up to Israel and her superpower handler to ensure that the road map is secure on the road to peace and as I pointed out the road like Paul's passes through Damascus.

All the territories that we call Middle East were part of the Ottoman Empire and it was the defeat of the Ottomans in World War I and the Treaty of San Germain that made all the mess there which is still being sorted out.

Back when the Balfour declaration was written (it was not a law, mandate, or treaty, just a thesis paper), the Brits thought they were gods, and NO ONE was worthy of their attention. Yet look at all the other British "colonies" of yore? While not all are models of greatness, almost all are doing a hell of a lot better than the palestinians.

You keep throwing up red herrings to excuse the laziness of the palestinians. And every excuse is show down with a simple comparison. The Palestinians have had a lot of time, and resources (not an overabundance of them, but sufficient) to create a country. They have not. They have not even started the process of doing anything other than legitimizing their war lords. Think Afghanistan post British rule (the other failure of a former colony).

Dr Guy, Do you have Interviews, Videos, of the Palestinian people? Have you met any of them or even better, been there? I'm not on any side cos it doesn't concern my country but from reading what you've wrote, its really annoying to see someone calling Palestinians lazy when they haven't lived they way Palestinians lived. I would really be interested to read anything to back what you have wrote.

Facts? Sure. Show me the articles of Governance for the Palestinian nation.

You cant? Not surprising. There are none.

Lazy? I make no bones about saying that is my opinion. Lazy is after all a subjective term, not objective. Have I lived there? No, have you? Have I talked to any? Sure have. have you?

YOu can go around and proclaim that Americans are ugly, arrogant and self centered. I will argue with you on all points. And I am sure you can find individuals to back up your opinion, just as I can find ones to negate your opinion. But note the common word there. Opinion. If you want to believe that of Americans, that is your opinion, not facts. Just as mine are stated here. I stated facts when discussing facts - the Balfour Declaration. My opinion of the palestinians (and I use the term lazy in the context of not creating a government - not in all their daily activities) is based upon observable facts. Do you wish to contest those facts? or just my opinion? If the latter, go for it. We will only agree to not agree. If the former, please show me the error of my ways.