Israel and USA

[Cleopatra]

I have been trying to avoid this subject but now I am furious!

I have just read in BBC that USA has vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution denouncing Israel's policy of "removing" Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Read here

While participating in varia fora I have observed that American people have the tendancy to forgive whatever Israel does.

I rarely read a fair criticism for Israel posted by an American.Posters that object to Israel do it for other reasons( antisemitism-- we have a couple of "fruits" of this kind in this forum as well).

Don't take me wrong. As an Israeli citizen I am grateful for the financial, diplomatic and military support USA has provided for us all these years but I strongly believe that it's because of USA that the Middle East problem hasn't been resolved yet.

Or... is it exactly about that?

Is it because USA doesn't want the ME conflict to be resolved?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Don't take me wrong. As an Israeli citizen I am grateful for the financial, diplomatic and military support USA has provided for us all these years but I strongly believe that it's because of USA that the Middle East problem hasn't been resolved yet.

Or... is it exactly about that?

Is it because USA doesn't want the ME conflict to be resolved?

No, the problem is that Israel won't go far enough... and even then it won't be far enough for the Palestinians. And killing or removing Arafat will just make the Intefada all that much worse (see Saddam and Iraq).

What exactly are you suggesting the U.S. should do? If you're going to point a figure of blame, at least have the decency to give your reason for doing so, and how you think we should fix it.

[a_unique_person]

I think the US genuinley wants it resolved, it is just that, as has been shown in Iraq, it is too inclined to think that a military solution is the answer.

As Renata was shocked to find out, there are people there cheering on the debacle as they believe it is a part of the fulfillment of the prophecies for the end of times and the rapture.

Also, don't forget the Jewish Lobby. You regularly criticise the outsiders like me who have an opinion on the issue, but forget that the American Jewish Lobby has a much more powerful weight of opinion and influence. They also do things like financing the extremist parties, including Jews in Australia, who seem to be one of the main causes of all the trouble in the first place.

While I have an opinion, I don't finance settlements or the politics of Israel itself. I leave that to Israel to sort out.

Finally, don't forget that strange mix politcal extremism that any good aspiring Bin Laden would be proud of, the American interlopers like Rabbi Kahane. Mix American enterprise and militarism with Jewish hyperole and mysticism and you get mass violence and racism.

[Cain]

As I noted in an earlier thread, you can find far more criticism of Israeli policies within Israel than inside the United States. Far more. Here people like Paul Wolfowitz get booed for merely acknowledging Palestinian suffering.

But look: We need Israel to fulfill an important Biblical prophecy, thus our uncompromising, blindly idiotic, highly immoral support. God-fearing, upstanding Christians among us can't wait until Jesus comes, kills all the Jews (whew), and reclaims his kingdom. That's gonna happen, uh, really, really soon.

[Cleopatra]

Quote:

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
No, the problem is that Israel won't go far enough... and even then it won't be far enough for the Palestinians. And killing or removing Arafat will just make the Intefada all that much worse (see Saddam and Iraq).

I am not sure I got this. I agree that killing or expelling Arafat if the worst possible idea,It's the first part of the paragraph I don't understand.

Quote:

What exactly are you suggesting the U.S. should do? If you're going to point a figure of blame, at least have the decency to give your reason for doing so, and how you think we should fix it.

Oh I have been through this many times, I just didn't want to repeat myself US that's all

In my opinion a serious part of the problem is that USA openly supports Israeli politicans that they do not wish to negociate with the Arabs. USA supports at any cost--even by chosing to isolate itself in UN -- the destructive policy and the fanaticism of Ariel Sharon.

Sharon is a military with an old mentality. He hasn't realized yet that times have changed and the time to negotiate has come.

USA doesn't pressure him to remove the settlements and they didn't even dare to object to the erection of this outrageous Wall in the West Bank although at the beginning C.Rice expressed her disagreement.

If USA doesn't exercise pressure on Sharon to negotiate, things will become much worse for the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon is leading Israel to destruction and none in the States seems to realize that.

[Some Friggin Guy]

CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT!!!


Totally off the wall theory, admitadly, but sometimes at 3:00 AM, that happens to me. After some sleep, I will probably retract this theory.

Perhapse the US supports Isreal because it knows that eventually, Israel will be over-run. This would give the US the excuse to, essentiall or literally I'm not sure, nuke the entire region, allowing themto then colonize and start drilling.

The above described theory is total codswallop and not based in anything other than sleep deprivation and a broken air conditioning unit, resulting in paranoid delusions and nonsensical ramblings. It is not meant to be taken seriously by anyone with an intellect equivalent to a squash or greater.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am not sure I got this. I agree that killing or expelling Arafat if the worst possible idea,It's the first part of the paragraph I don't understand.

Sorry I usually don't get involved in hot button issues like Middle East peace as my solution is about as simple as it gets - stop killing each other, and start talking. Unfortunately people don't seem to think my solution is worth trying.

To clarify what I said, "No, the problem is that Israel won't go far enough... and even then it won't be far enough for the Palestinians."

What I meant was Israel won't go far enough to create or negotiate with Egypt, Jordan and Syria the creation of Palestine with East Jerusalem as it's capital and even if they were willing to go that far, it wouldn't be enough for the Palestinians who seem to want nothing short of complete destruction of Israel and the expulsion of all Jews.

If you want to hear about it, I have an alternate plan... "Six Flags Over Jerusalem." Take this link if you don't get my joke.

[Cleopatra]

Some Friggin Guy :

Hmmmm...

I think the reason USA decided to support Israel on the first place was exactly to avoid to send troops to the area.

Israel was established in order to play the policeman of the West in the Middle East. Israel was the most convenient solution: Europeans got rid of the Jews and Americans found a nation ready to shed its blood for promoting their interests.

The Arab League is grateful to Israel for its existence, on the other hand. It keeps their people busy, they think that the only problem they have in their lives is Israel and that way, funny ideas [like " What about some Democracy?" or "What about a secular State? "] don't get into their head...

[kittynh]

Im not sure why there is this blind support of everything Isreal does: I cant imagine they approve of all we do

I think the UN thing was a mistake. If we object to Arfat being kicked out , as several top officals have said; then we need to have to vote that way. Some Arabs actually say the US is just a "tool" of Isreal, they tell us what to do....;

[Jon_in_london]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[B
I think the reason USA decided to support Israel on the first place was exactly to avoid to send troops to the area.

Israel was established in order to play the policeman of the West in the Middle East. Israel was the most convenient solution: Europeans got rid of the Jews and Americans found a nation ready to shed its blood for promoting their interests.

The Arab League is grateful to Israel for its existence, on the other hand. It keeps their people busy, they think that the only problem they have in their lives is Israel and that way, funny ideas [like " What about some Democracy?" or "What about a secular State? "] don't get into their head... [/b]

Cleo, I would disagree.... The reason the USA supported Isreal initially was because there was a very powerfull and vocal Jewish community in the US around the end of WWII. Most people felt very sorry for the Jews and not very sorry for the Arabs (who had to a large degree supported the Nazis, the Mufti of jerusalem was an SS officer, unless Im mistaken).

The Palestinian Jews (soon to be Isrealis) mobilised this support and used it to obtain money and arms to be shipped in as soon as the British "papa uncle foxtrot oscared". The British on the other hand were tending to be pro-Arab because 1) A new nation would soon be born and the chances were 10,000:1 it would be run by Arabs not Jews and 2) Britain wanted to get in good with the Arabs as good realtions would mean a good oils supply 3) Many Arab leaders at the time were very anglophile in any case.

As it turned out, the Egyptians and Syrians were so hopelessly incompetent that the Jews knocked the stuffing out of them anyway. The proffesional Jordanian 'Arab Legion' however was well equipped and partly officered by experienced British Sandhurst graduates. This was the army that took over what is now the West Bank and about half of Jerusalem. They would have taken the whole country except 1) the Egyptians kept pinching their ammunition shipments at the Suez canal and 2) The US informed Britian that if it sent any more arms or ammo to any Arab countries they would pull the plug on the financial aid upon which Britain depended at the time. No more arms, no ammunition and the Jordanians ruefully agreed to a ceasfire.

After all that, the whole thing degenrated into a superpower proxy war thingy. The Arabs made the bad mistake of completely alienating the west and toadying up to the Soviets. The current US support for Isreal is simply a legacy of the above events.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Cleo, I would disagree.... The reason the USA supported Isreal initially was because there was a very powerfull and vocal Jewish community in the US around the end of WWII. Most people felt very sorry for the Jews and not very sorry for the Arabs (who had to a large degree supported the Nazis, the Mufti of jerusalem was an SS officer, unless Im mistaken).

According to Finklestein, (No, not him again), the US didn't support Israel at any great extent till after the 6day war. The first fighters in the IDF were German Mescherschmits.

Quote:

The Palestinian Jews (soon to be Isrealis) mobilised this support and used it to obtain money and arms to be shipped in as soon as the British "papa uncle foxtrot oscared". The British on the other hand were tending to be pro-Arab because 1) A new nation would soon be born and the chances were 10,000:1 it would be run by Arabs not Jews and 2) Britain wanted to get in good with the Arabs as good realtions would mean a good oils supply 3) Many Arab leaders at the time were very anglophile in any case.

As it turned out, the Egyptians and Syrians were so hopelessly incompetent that the Jews knocked the stuffing out of them anyway. The proffesional Jordanian 'Arab Legion' however was well equipped and partly officered by experienced British Sandhurst graduates. This was the army that took over what is now the West Bank and about half of Jerusalem. They would have taken the whole country except 1) the Egyptians kept pinching their ammunition shipments at the Suez canal and 2) The US informed Britian that if it sent any more arms or ammo to any Arab countries they would pull the plug on the financial aid upon which Britain depended at the time. No more arms, no ammunition and the Jordanians ruefully agreed to a ceasfire.

After all that, the whole thing degenrated into a superpower proxy war thingy. The Arabs made the bad mistake of completely alienating the west and toadying up to the Soviets. The current US support for Isreal is simply a legacy of the above events.

I think it was the Soviets who courted the Arabs, who were pretty pod that GB had betrayed them after the end of WWI.

[Cleopatra]

I do not want this thread to be turned into a hatred thread as every thread about Israel becomes by the moment you decide to step your foot in, Unique.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I do not want this thread to be turned into a hatred thread as every thread about Israel that you decide to step your foot in Unique.

In what way. Mr F just had some interesting views of the internal politics of the Jews that I found interesting. None were libellous. I have tried to confine myself to the topic at hand. If you can point me to where I have erred specifically, please do so.

[Cleopatra]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


In what way. Mr F just had some interesting views of the internal politics of the Jews that I found interesting. None were libellous. I have tried to confine myself to the topic at hand. If you can point me to where I have erred specifically, please do so.

Really?

In the thread about Finkelstein you suggested that he wasn't discussing this issue.How did you change your mind here.

If you want to defend Finkelstein go to the thread you started about the only book you have read in your life about Holocaust and Middle East.

Stop trolling!

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Really?

In the thread about Finkelstein you suggested that he wasn't discussing this issue.How did you change your mind here.

If you want to defend Finkelstein go to the thread you started about the only book you have read in your life about Holocaust and Middle East.

Stop trolling!

I am honestly not trolling. I don't recall saying he did not not discuss this issue. The first part of the book is mostly made up of that, the politics of the USA and Israel. It is entirely relevant to this thread. However, if you like, I will not refer to it again here.

[Cleopatra]

No no no...

You can refer to it it as much as you wish. It's me that I won't reply to Finkelstein's arguments at all in this thread.

I intend to answer to Jon analytically when I will return home later in the day.

Jon touches in his message a couple of serious issues that have to do with the Political History of Europe and USA ( as The Balfour Declaration for example the role of Soviet Union-- we have discussed this before but it worths another discussion)

[a_unique_person]

Well, it is your thread.

I think I see what your objection to the book is now. It is not so much what he says, which I believe you would actually find interesting if you read it dispassionately, but rather the hyperbole he uses.

This was indeed one of the criticisms of the book that I saw in a review, and thought that it did hit home. Finklestein is an angry man, and it shows. However, his hyperbole is something that I think you often see used in Jewish political debates. It would aid his cause if, when he attacks it, he does not use it.

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Cleo, I would disagree.... The reason the USA supported Isreal initially was because there was a very powerfull and vocal Jewish community in the US around the end of WWII. Most people felt very sorry for the Jews and not very sorry for the Arabs (who had to a large degree supported the Nazis, the Mufti of jerusalem was an SS officer, unless Im mistaken).

Not true on more than a couple counts.

First--the US supported Israel, sure, but most of Israel's support came from Britain--until 1967. Israel's essentially a European colony in the Middle East and was treated as such. After 1967, the US really began funnelling money to Israel once they figured out they could use Israel as leverage against Soviet influence in the region.

Second, regarding Arab "Nazi support"--the Mufti wasn't an SS officer. The SS would never allow a non-white officer in its ranks. There was some collusion, mostly of a opportunist nature--the Mufti wanted to use the Nazis to get rid of the Zionist settlers, who were making life hell for the Palestinians, and the Nazis wanted to use the Palestinians to make life difficult for the British.

Quote:

The Palestinian Jews (soon to be Isrealis) mobilised this support and used it to obtain money and arms to be shipped in as soon as the British "papa uncle foxtrot oscared". The British on the other hand were tending to be pro-Arab because 1) A new nation would soon be born and the chances were 10,000:1 it would be run by Arabs not Jews and 2) Britain wanted to get in good with the Arabs as good realtions would mean a good oils supply 3) Many Arab leaders at the time were very anglophile in any case.

Not entirely true either. The British were neither pro-Arab nor pro-Jewish in the region--they were trying, quite consciously, to play the two against each other. The main thing Britain was concerned with during this period was keeping the Empire. They wanted to maintain their control over the region, and would play their cards as pro-Arab or pro-Jew as the situation called for in order to do so.

Quote:

After all that, the whole thing degenrated into a superpower proxy war thingy. The Arabs made the bad mistake of completely alienating the west and toadying up to the Soviets. The current US support for Isreal is simply a legacy of the above events.

I think that's part of it, but I think the real reason the US is supporting Israel is because doing so serves US interests in the region. The US is just as concerned about money and power as Britain ever was--only, not being a kingdom (for now), it goes about it slightly differently. Usually, rather than dominating a country with a colonial force, the US tries to dominate the politics through financial, political, and as a last resort, military, means. (The Pinochet coup didn't happen out of love for the Chilean people.)

The US really doesn't have a lot of influence in the Middle East. Yeah, there are military bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but these governments aren't particularly friendly to the US. (The reasons for that go in a different post.) So the US has to be behind Israel--the only Middle East country that the US controls lock, stock, and barrel. (Doubt it? Think about it--what would happen if the US started to give Israel the same amount of aid, per capita, as it gave, say, Zimbabwe?)

[Jon_in_london]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


According to Finklestein, (No, not him again), the US didn't support Israel at any great extent till after the 6day war. The first fighters in the IDF were German Mescherschmits.



I think it was the Soviets who courted the Arabs, who were pretty pod that GB had betrayed them after the end of WWI.

Well I dont think there was direct US government support for the Isrealis until '67 but the money to buy the arms that formed the nascent IDF came from US Jews. Up to '67 the anti-semetic lobby in the US was denouncing Isreal as commnist. Of course it was hard to keep up this pretence when thousands of detroyed communist built tanks and aircraft littered the region.

My enemy's enemy is Isreal.

Certainly the Soviets did court the Arabs but it men like Nasser who fomented anti western 'anti-imperialist' rage amongst the mob who really poisoned the west against them. He did this to remain in power, give the mob someone to hate and they will forget that you are a corrupt despot and that the country is falling apart at the seems. Had Nasser been wiser, he could have had the best of both worlds but he saw it as essential to spout vitriolic rhetoric at the west................... the soviets were only to happy to funnel as much arms into Egypt as they could, whether or not the Egyptians could even maintain this hardware let alone use it effectively in battle is something else........

[Jon_in_london]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
First--the US supported Israel, sure, but most of Israel's support came from Britain--until 1967. Israel's essentially a European colony in the Middle East and was treated as such. After 1967, the US really began funnelling money to Israel once they figured out they could use Israel as leverage against Soviet influence in the region.

In addition to post above: Isreal's relationship with the UK has always been somewhat ambiguous. In the last months of the Palestinian mandate, the British were happy to turn a blind eye to any Arab walking around with grenades and ammo-belts slung over his shoulder. The Jews had to smuggle bullets about one at a time because the British were so strict... The British rarely did anything to help if a Jewish conoy came under attack from Arabs.
I find this a bit shamefull to tell the truth........... Nonetheless, a quite a bit of British military hardware found its way into Isreali hands by '67 (centurion tanks) and Isreal's air force was laregly made up of French Mirages.

Post '67, the whole thing had become a cold-war proxy stand off.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
Second, regarding Arab "Nazi support"--the Mufti wasn't an SS officer. The SS would never allow a non-white officer in its ranks. There was some collusion, mostly of a opportunist nature--the Mufti wanted to use the Nazis to get rid of the Zionist settlers, who were making life hell for the Palestinians, and the Nazis wanted to use the Palestinians to make life difficult for the British.

Maybe so. I may be wrong about the mufti being in the SS but you would be suprised how many non-whites were in the German forces.

http://www.holocaustchronicle.org/StaticPages/365.html

Quote:

Husseini recruited thousands of European Muslims for service in the Waffen-SS. He escaped trial for war crimes, and after 1946 he spent the rest of his life entertained in various Middle Eastern capitals.

Im sure some Arab big-wig around that time was an SS officer, but I no longer have the source book I got that info from
Its very hard to get good sources for this from google on account of the massive volume of hate-sites from both sides on the web.

http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/normandy/...omposition.htm

Quote:

By the beginning of 1944, the Wehrmacht had "volunteers" from France, Italy, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Asian Russia, North Africa, Russia, Ukraine, Ruthenia, and even some Muslims and Indians.

Quote:

Not entirely true either. The British were neither pro-Arab nor pro-Jewish in the region--they were trying, quite consciously, to play the two against each other. The main thing Britain was concerned with during this period was keeping the Empire. They wanted to maintain their control over the region, and would play their cards as pro-Arab or pro-Jew as the situation called for in order to do so.

I disagree. The British knew their control was slipping and they aimed to have a pro-British Arab world when it had slipped for good. Theres no other way you can explain the biased behaviour of British security forces to the Arabs and Jews (see above) and ther desire Britian had to keep the Arab armies well supplied with ammunition in 1948.

Quote:

The US really doesn't have a lot of influence in the Middle East. Yeah, there are military bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but these governments aren't particularly friendly to the US. (The reasons for that go in a different post.) So the US has to be behind Israel--the only Middle East country that the US controls lock, stock, and barrel. (Doubt it? Think about it--what would happen if the US started to give Israel the same amount of aid, per capita, as it gave, say, Zimbabwe?)

Cant argue with that one! IMO, this is why the US is the focus of Arab terrorists.

[Mike B.]

Correct me if I am wrong.
Did not the Soviets support Israel very early, like in 1948?
The reason being that one of their main enemies, Great Britian was assumed to control the Arabs. They supported Israel as a counter-weight, and to hopefully plant Communism there.

[Jon_in_london]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike B.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Did not the Soviets support Israel very early, like in 1948?
The reason being that one of their main enemies, Great Britian was assumed to control the Arabs. They supported Israel as a counter-weight, and to hopefully plant Communism there.

Yes, intially the Isrealis recived support from both sides but with the development of the cold war, things naturally got v.polarised.
Im not sure about those reasons you site though....

[Cleon]

Quote:

Maybe so. I may be wrong about the mufti being in the SS but you would be suprised how many non-whites were in the German forces.

http://www.holocaustchronicle.org/StaticPages/365.html

At the risk of getting into a "racial" discussion, Muslim != Arab. European Muslims are, for the vast majority, white.

The Nazis didn't give a damn about religion, their hangup was race.

Many people involved in Palestine at the time--yes, that includes Zionists as well--tried to deal with the Nazis. (In fact, some of the militaristic Zionist movements of the time were openly fascist--such as Betar, a group Ariel Sharon was a member of as a youth.)

Quote:

I disagree. The British knew their control was slipping and they aimed to have a pro-British Arab world when it had slipped for good. Theres no other way you can explain the biased behaviour of British security forces to the Arabs and Jews (see above) and ther desire Britian had to keep the Arab armies well supplied with ammunition in 1948.

The Zionist militias got their share of weapons, too. They didn't just "find their way" into Israeli hands. They also got plenty of cash from Britain, too.

Remember, since the Balfour declaration of 1917 the British had committed themselves to the idea of a Zionist state in Palestine. It specifically declared "sympathy for Jewish Zionist aspirations." (You can google it and find the exact text--it doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.)

So the British wanted Israel from the get-go--it's just a question of on what terms. After Ben-Gurion announced the state of Israel, the Palestinians rebelled and were supported by neighboring states--Israel simply could NOT have fought them off without British aid. ("Israelis" were outnumbered by Palestinians by a factor of 3 to 1 or so at the time.)

Britain played both sides to get what it wanted...Which I think it did in the end, but Israel attaching itself to the US rather than Britain, like many other things it didn't save the Empire.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

Quote:

think the reason USA decided to support Israel on the first place was exactly to avoid to send troops to the area.

There was no prospect of US troops being sent into Palestine. The main reason for US support was a feeling that the Jews deserved a homeland after what they'd just suffered - no deeper or more conspiratorial a motive than that. The policy went ahead because nobody opposed it with any great force. In the end the matter - like Wilson's endorsement of the Balfour Declaration - was not considered terribly important, and might be worth some votes. After all, the reason that Mandate Palestine is now such a shambles and political hotpoint is the creation of the Jewish Homeland. Otherwise it would probably be a rather interesting and prosperous place with a large Jewish population.

Russia's support is generally attributed to the problems Nationalist Zionism caused for Britain. Again, they didn't think it a big deal at the time.

There are a lot of popular and simplistic misconceptions about what happened in 1948-49 and often no conception at all about what happened before then. The idea, for instance, that the British troops were allowing random Arabs to wander around armed rather ignores the guerilla war the Arabs were fighting against the Brits - who were, true to type, fighting back. The Brits were also being attacked by the Hagganah and Irgun, and were glad to get out. Nationalist Zionism wasn't smuggling in the odd round, they had well-established armouries of the important weapons (small-arms, machine-guns and mortars) for the war they launched. The Arab Legion of Jordan never attacked across the Green Line - the line drawn by the UN partition resolution that Israel rejected - but defended Jerusalem against furious assaults. (Not East Jerusalem, the actual Jerusalem. "West Jerusalem" had nothing to do with Jerusalem, it was just a name that was given to an area of Zionist settlement to the west.) The Syrian and Egyptian armies were indeed pretty inept, but given that each country had gained it's independence a year or two before its not terribly surprising. The Syrian army, for instance, comprised about 4000 trained and armed men who had some successes before they ran out of supplies, money and orders and went home. Many Egyptians grunts went into battle thinking they were on manoeuvres.

The US has gradually got itself caught up in this whole fiasco, to the extent that the Israeli tail is now wagging the American dog. The US administration doesn't even seem to notice the insults that are handed out to them so regularly. They're just too polite themselves to realise that people are making fun of them.

[CapelDodger]

From jon_in_london:

Quote:

Up to '67 the anti-semetic lobby in the US was denouncing Isreal as commnist.

Oddly enough, this is the same class of people that is so pro-Israeli now. (I don't think that means they've stopped despising the Christ-killers, though.) It's remarkable how the US is so committed to a thoroughly socialist state like Israel.

Quote:

Of course it was hard to keep up this pretence when thousands of detroyed communist built tanks and aircraft littered the region.

What pretence? To these people Clinton was a communist.

One thought: how long will it be before the fundie Zionists in the US start asking why some Jews aren't going back to their own country? Given that the return of the Jews is part of the whole Revelations gig, might it not be another example of Jewish intransigence if they prefer to stay in the US? God's will might require that they be forced back. A policy that would be warmly endorsed by Sharon.

[CapelDodger]

From Cleon:

Quote:

So the British wanted Israel from the get-go

The Balfour Declaration was strongly opposed at the time it was issued, but in the end the matter was not thought important enough to stop. The British Cabinet did force Balfour to clear the idea with the US, which at first dismissed it (as its opponents had expected) then suddenly reversed their view. The Declaration itself wasn't binding on British policy in the future, and there was constant division in the Establishment over the whole "Jewish Homeland" idea. During WW2 the Brits had a completely pragmatic policy in the region, which came with a recognition that a Jewish Homeland was a recipe for unending conflict. (Not proved wrong yet.)

[CapelDodger]

From Cleon:

Quote:

After Ben-Gurion announced the state of Israel, the Palestinians rebelled and were supported by neighboring states--Israel simply could NOT have fought them off without British aid. ("Israelis" were outnumbered by Palestinians by a factor of 3 to 1 or so at the time.)

It isn't numbers that count, it's such things as a unified command and strategy that win such wars. "Arab nation" sounds like a powerful thing, but remember that these countries were under colonial rule until a year or two before the conflict. The Nationalist Zionist strategy had been evolving since the 1920's - when it became clear that most Jews had no interest in Palestine- and worked rather less well than might have been expected. The Jordanians (with the only effective army) undertook not to cross the Green Line, and occupied Jerusalem to support the UN resolution. The Palestinian resistance was fractured and the best it could do was hold out against the Israeli onslaught in a few areas. And, of course, most Arabs didn't get involved in matters that they assumed were not their affair (they learned better, but too late).

[Cleopatra]

Hi AN@S

I am glad to see you back

How did the exams go ? As you see, the bleeding hearts of Middle East have the courage to start controversial topics


Capel Dodger, thanks for posting here

[AN@S]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Some Friggin Guy :

The Arab League is grateful to Israel for its existence, on the other hand. It keeps their people busy, they think that the only problem they have in their lives is Israel and that way, funny ideas [like " What about some Democracy?" or "What about a secular State? "] don't get into their head...

Hi Cleopatra..
As an Arab, I do not accept all of your ideas of course, but I am agree with you about your point. Arab leaders want to keep their people busy, in thinking about (How to destroy Isreal), so Arabs forgot any other problems like the lack of democracy in the Arab world.
Israel is a big problem not only for Arabs but also for the whole world and for the humanity . Arabs have a lot of problems to resolve before resolving the problem of Israel

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by AN@S



Israel is a big problem not only for Arabs but also for the whole world and for the humanity.

[Cleopatra]

Tony, AN@S is a civil fellow poster, I'd very much appreciate if you treated him with some respect, he has never insulted anybody in this forum.

[renata]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

As Renata was shocked to find out, there are people there cheering on the debacle as they believe it is a part of the fulfillment of the prophecies for the end of times and the rapture.

When was I shocked to find that out? I am not naive about Christian extremists using Israel for their means. Please refrain from ascribing opinions to me I do not hold in threads I choose not to participate in.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Tony, AN@S is a civil fellow poster, I'd very much appreciate if you treated him with some respect, he has never insulted anybody in this forum.

Thank you, Cleopatra. Tony is like one of those young boys watching a standoff at lunchtime at school, trying to encourage a fight for his own amusement.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Sharon is a military with an old mentality. He hasn't realized yet that times have changed and the time to negotiate has come.

Cleopatra,

I'm curious. What makes you think now is the time to negotiate? What has changed from before?

[peptoabysmal]

I just read the minutes of that UN session where the resolution was voted down. Here

I'm curious, it is really illegal for Israel to deport Arafat?

As an American, I would like nothing more than to have the Mideast crisis resolved. But, I have very little political clout

For myself, I won't be too critical of Israel until the Palestinian terrorist activities stop. I don't care about the history of the region or the conflict, if you want my support as an American; stop the suicide bombings and the terrorist activities.

If the Palestinians and their supporters were being peaceful and "Ghandi-like", I would be hopping mad at what Israel is doing. But, if I were in Israel's shoes right now, I feel as if I might be doing the same as they are.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I just read the minutes of that UN session where the resolution was voted down. Here

I'm curious, it is really illegal for Israel to deport Arafat?

As an American, I would like nothing more than to have the Mideast crisis resolved. But, I have very little political clout

For myself, I won't be too critical of Israel until the Palestinian terrorist activities stop. I don't care about the history of the region or the conflict, if you want my support as an American; stop the suicide bombings and the terrorist activities.

If the Palestinians and their supporters were being peaceful and "Ghandi-like", I would be hopping mad at what Israel is doing. But, if I were in Israel's shoes right now, I feel as if I might be doing the same as they are.

These are the same Americans who are very protective of their second amendment and their right to bear arms and resist with arms any invaders or tyrannical governments?

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


These are the same Americans who are very protective of their second amendment and their right to bear arms and resist with arms any invaders or tyrannical governments?

The gun-owning Israelis protect themselves from the bomb-wearing Palestinians.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


These are the same Americans who are very protective of their second amendment and their right to bear arms and resist with arms any invaders or tyrannical governments?

The very same. I live in California, are you saying I should be out shooting Mexicans?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


The very same. I live in California, are you saying I should be out shooting Mexicans?

All I am saying is that Americans reserve the right for violent resistance, and this right is enshrined in their constitution.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


All I am saying is that Americans reserve the right for violent resistance, and this right is enshrined in their constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say that we have the right to strap on bombs and go kill civilians from the invading country?