puppetmaster
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,658
interesting points in this vid.....election time, statehood?
Last edited:
Gaza under attack by Israel
- Thread starter NOVALibertarian
- Start date
interesting points in this vid.....election time, statehood?
Pauls' Revere
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 11,347
We can thank the British for thier clarity when the ottoman Empire was carved up after WW1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine
In 1916, Britain and France concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which proposed to divide the Middle East between them into spheres of influence, with "Palestine" as an international enclave. (Pappé 1994, p. 3)
The British made two potentially conflicting promises regarding the territory it was expecting to acquire.[citation needed] In the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence of 1915 Britain had promised Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, through T. E. Lawrence, independence for an Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East in exchange for his support, while also promising to create and foster a Jewish national home in Palestine in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in return for Jewish support.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement did not call for Arab sovereignty, but for the "suzerainty of an Arab chief" and "an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the Sherif of Mecca."[12] Under the terms of that agreement, the Zionist Organization needed to secure an agreement along the lines of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement with the Sherif of Mecca.
At the Peace Conference in 1919, Emir Faisal, speaking on behalf of King Hussein, asked for Arab independence, or at minimum the right to pick the mandatory.[13] In the end, he recommended an Arab state under a British mandate.[14] The World Zionist Organization also asked for a British mandate, and asserted the 'historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine'.[15]
A confidential appendix to the report of the 1919 King-Crane Commission observed that "The Jews are distinctly for Britain as mandatory power, because of the Balfour declaration' and that the French 'resent the payment by the English to the Emir Faisal of a large monthly subsidy, which they claim covers a multitude of bribes, and enables the British to stand off and show clean hands while Arab agents do dirty work in their interest."[16] The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement called for British mediation of any disputes. It also called for the establishment of borders, after the Versailles peace conference, by a commission to be formed for the purpose. The World Zionist Organization later submitted to the peace conference a proposed map of the territory that did not include the area east of the Hedjaz Railway, including most of Transjordan. In the Sanremo Conference (24 April 1920) the Mandate for Palestine was allocated to Great Britain. France required the continuation of its religious protectorate in Palestine but Italy and Great Britain opposed it. France lost the religious protectorate but thanks to the Holy See continued to enjoy liturgical honors in Mandatory Palestine until 1924 when the honours were abolished (see: Protectorate of the Holy See).[17]
During and after World War I, Britain made conflicting and shifting commitments regarding the future division and governance of the region, including those announced in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, and the Churchill White Paper of 1922. At the San Remo conference, the boundaries of the mandated territories were not precisely defined.[18][19]
The Palastinians were promised territories for thier efforts in helping the British defeat the Ottomans who were alligned with Germany and Austria-Hungary during WW1. The story of lawrence of Arabia is based on this. They also made promises to Jews in The Balfour Declaration. So, basically Britian screwed the pooch on this one and we are still paying for a mistake made 100 years ago.
Last edited:
Excellent point. I've stopped being surprised by the strange arguments that people use for rationalizing Israel, but it's still confusing to hear people say they support non-intervention on one hand and then demand that the US steal billions and give it to Israel on the other.
Nobody on these forums has said anything like that.
We obviously have a different view of this conflict, but I would say that my main objection is the type of rhetoric people use regarding Israel, not that they criticize them. I don't believe you said anything that I would consider extremely offensive. On the other hand, you see comments like this:
AuH20
Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,739
Bingo. The Palestinians are ruthless murderers as are elements of the Mossad and the IDF. The fact that we are seeing so many people take one side is beyond comical. It's like choosing between Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer.
Last edited:
AuH20
Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,739
If Hamas deploys their chemical warhead arsenal into heavily populated civilian areas, I have no problem with the IDF flattening Gaza. That is the price for escalation. Hopefully, neither side abandons the conventional route. I wonder if Hamas are that shortsighted to do something so incredibly dumb.
Last edited:
libertyjam
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,901
Outrage in Gaza Redux
Posted: November 16, 2012 | Author: Rabbi Brant Rosen
Israel’s military assault on Gaza in 2008-09 represented an important turning point in my own relationship with Israel. I recall experiencing a new and previously unfamiliar feeling of anguish as Israel bombarded the people living in that tiny, besieged strip of land over and over, day after day after day. While I certainly felt a sense of tribal loyalty to the Israelis who withstood Qassam rocket fire from Gaza, I felt a newfound sense of concern and solidarity with Gazans who I believed were experiencing nothing short of oppression during this massive military onslaught.
And now it’s happening again. Only this time I don’t think the term “anguish” quite fits my mindset. Now it’s something much closer to rage.
It’s happening again. Once again 1.7 million people, mostly refugees, who have been living in what amounts to the world’s largest open air prison, are being subjected to a massive military assault at the hands of the world’s most militarized nation, using mostly US-made weapons. And our President is not only looking on – he is defending Israel’s onslaught by saying it has a right to “self-defense in light of the barrage of rocket attacks being launched from Gaza against Israeli civilians.”
Let’s be clear: this tragedy didn’t start with the Qassams. It didn’t start with the election of Hamas. And it didn’t start with the “instability” that followed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.
No, this is just the latest chapter of a much longer saga that began in 1947-48, when scores of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their cities and villages in the coastal plain and lower Galilee and warehoused in a tiny strip of land on the edge of the Mediterranean. By all accounts, most were simply too overwhelmed to realize what was happening. Some tried to return to their homes and were killed on sight. Others resisted by staging raids in the newly declared state of Israel. Sometimes they succeeded, more often they did not. Either way, Israel decided early on that it would respond to each of these reprisals with a overwhelming military show of force. And those reprisals and that show of force have essentially been ongoing until this very day.
I realize, of course, there is plenty of political subtext to this latest go-around. I’ve read the timelines and have formed my own opinions on the latest “who started it?” debate. I’ve also read plenty of analyses by Israeli observers who believe that this was not a response to Qassam fire at all but was very much a “war of choice” waged by an Israeli administration looking to shore up political support in an election season.
I’ve also read a widely circulated article from Ha’aretz about Israel’s recent execution of Ahmed Jabari (the head of Hamas’ military wing). I learned that up until now, Jabari was “Israel’s subcontractor” for security in the Gaza Strip, that Israel has been literally funding Hamas through intermediaries in exchange for peace and quiet on their southern border, and that when Jabari failed to deliver of late, the decision came down to take him out. Another article, written by the Israeli who negotiated with Jabari for the release of Gilad Shalit, revealed that negotiations were still ongoing between Jabari and Israeli officials when Israel assassinated him with a drone strike.
Yes, the wonky side of me has been avidly reading all these analyses. And while I do believe they provide an important counterbalance to the mythic statements by Israel’s Foreign Ministry and the US State Department, the more I read the cynical political subtext for this war, the sicker I get. No, this isn’t about Qassams, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s about elections either. It’s really just the most recent chapter in a much longer litany of injustice – the latest attempt by Israel bring the Palestinians to their knees through the sheer force of their formidable military might.
Of all the analyses I’ve yet read, one of the very few that truly seemed to grasp this truth came from Yousef Munayyer, of The Jerusalem Fund/Palestine Center:
The problem Gaza presents for Israel is that it won’t go away—though Israel would love it if it would. It is a constant reminder of the depopulation of Palestine in 1948, the folly of the 1967 occupation, and the many massacres which have happened since them. It also places the Israelis in an uncomfortable position because it presents a problem (in the form of projectiles) which cannot be solved by force…
Israel has tried assassinating Palestinian leaders for decades but the resistance persists. Israel launched a devastating and brutal war on Gaza from 2008 to 2009 killing 1,400 people, mostly civilians, but the resistance persists.
Why, then, would Israel choose to revert to a failed strategy that will undoubtedly only escalate the situation? Because it is far easier for politicians to lie to voters, vilify their adversaries, and tell them ‘we will hit them hard’ than to come clean and say instead, ‘we’ve failed and there is no military solution to this problem.’
Like last time, I know many in the Jewish community will say it is unseemly of me to criticize Israel this way while Israelis live in fear of Qassam fire out of Gaza. I know there are those who believe that by writing these words, I’m turning my back on my own people in their time of need. But I know in my heart that my outrage at Israel’s actions goes hand in hand with compassion for Israelis – particularly those who know that their leaders’ devotion to the sword is leading them into the abyss.
Additionally, as I wrote under tragically similar circumstances in 2009:
I believe Israel’s response to Hamas’ missile attacks have been disproportionate and outrageous. I believe their actions only further endanger the security of Israelis while inflicting collective punishment and a severe humanitarian crisis upon Gazans. Indeed, just as I cannot understand what it must be like to be a citizen of Sderot, I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to be a Gazan citizen at the moment, living under constant air attack, with no running water or electricity and dwindling food, as hospitals fill up with wounded and corpses lie rotting in the streets because relief workers are unable to reach them.
When will we be ready to accept that this is not a “balanced” conflict or even a “war” by any reasonable definition – and that it never was? When will we face the painful truth that this is not a story about one side versus the other but about one side oppressing the other? Frankly, all the well-meaning liberal comments about “praying for peace on both sides” and leave me cold. Worse, I find them insidious because they simply serve to support the myth that this is a conflict between two equal parties. It is not. And peace will not come until we admit this – until we admit that there is an essential injustice at the heart of this tragedy and that try as it might, Israel will never be able to make it go away through the sheer force of its increasingly massive military might.
Beyond the rage, I’m heartened that this time around there is a growing community of conscience that is speaking out publicly and in no uncertain terms to protest Israel’s latest outrage in Gaza. I am so deeply grateful for my friends and colleagues at Jewish Voice for Peace, who is alone in the Jewish world in condemning this latest assault. I urge you to read JVP’s courageous statement, which I know gives voice to increasing numbers of Jews and non-Jews, young and old, religious and secular, who are coming together through the courage of their conscience.
At this point in my posts I would typically write “click here” to lend your voice to some kind of collective statement. I’m going resist that temptation and urge you instead to take to the streets.
I’ll see you there.
Posted: November 16, 2012 | Author: Rabbi Brant Rosen
Israel’s military assault on Gaza in 2008-09 represented an important turning point in my own relationship with Israel. I recall experiencing a new and previously unfamiliar feeling of anguish as Israel bombarded the people living in that tiny, besieged strip of land over and over, day after day after day. While I certainly felt a sense of tribal loyalty to the Israelis who withstood Qassam rocket fire from Gaza, I felt a newfound sense of concern and solidarity with Gazans who I believed were experiencing nothing short of oppression during this massive military onslaught.
And now it’s happening again. Only this time I don’t think the term “anguish” quite fits my mindset. Now it’s something much closer to rage.
It’s happening again. Once again 1.7 million people, mostly refugees, who have been living in what amounts to the world’s largest open air prison, are being subjected to a massive military assault at the hands of the world’s most militarized nation, using mostly US-made weapons. And our President is not only looking on – he is defending Israel’s onslaught by saying it has a right to “self-defense in light of the barrage of rocket attacks being launched from Gaza against Israeli civilians.”
Let’s be clear: this tragedy didn’t start with the Qassams. It didn’t start with the election of Hamas. And it didn’t start with the “instability” that followed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.
No, this is just the latest chapter of a much longer saga that began in 1947-48, when scores of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their cities and villages in the coastal plain and lower Galilee and warehoused in a tiny strip of land on the edge of the Mediterranean. By all accounts, most were simply too overwhelmed to realize what was happening. Some tried to return to their homes and were killed on sight. Others resisted by staging raids in the newly declared state of Israel. Sometimes they succeeded, more often they did not. Either way, Israel decided early on that it would respond to each of these reprisals with a overwhelming military show of force. And those reprisals and that show of force have essentially been ongoing until this very day.
I realize, of course, there is plenty of political subtext to this latest go-around. I’ve read the timelines and have formed my own opinions on the latest “who started it?” debate. I’ve also read plenty of analyses by Israeli observers who believe that this was not a response to Qassam fire at all but was very much a “war of choice” waged by an Israeli administration looking to shore up political support in an election season.
I’ve also read a widely circulated article from Ha’aretz about Israel’s recent execution of Ahmed Jabari (the head of Hamas’ military wing). I learned that up until now, Jabari was “Israel’s subcontractor” for security in the Gaza Strip, that Israel has been literally funding Hamas through intermediaries in exchange for peace and quiet on their southern border, and that when Jabari failed to deliver of late, the decision came down to take him out. Another article, written by the Israeli who negotiated with Jabari for the release of Gilad Shalit, revealed that negotiations were still ongoing between Jabari and Israeli officials when Israel assassinated him with a drone strike.
Yes, the wonky side of me has been avidly reading all these analyses. And while I do believe they provide an important counterbalance to the mythic statements by Israel’s Foreign Ministry and the US State Department, the more I read the cynical political subtext for this war, the sicker I get. No, this isn’t about Qassams, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s about elections either. It’s really just the most recent chapter in a much longer litany of injustice – the latest attempt by Israel bring the Palestinians to their knees through the sheer force of their formidable military might.
Of all the analyses I’ve yet read, one of the very few that truly seemed to grasp this truth came from Yousef Munayyer, of The Jerusalem Fund/Palestine Center:
The problem Gaza presents for Israel is that it won’t go away—though Israel would love it if it would. It is a constant reminder of the depopulation of Palestine in 1948, the folly of the 1967 occupation, and the many massacres which have happened since them. It also places the Israelis in an uncomfortable position because it presents a problem (in the form of projectiles) which cannot be solved by force…
Israel has tried assassinating Palestinian leaders for decades but the resistance persists. Israel launched a devastating and brutal war on Gaza from 2008 to 2009 killing 1,400 people, mostly civilians, but the resistance persists.
Why, then, would Israel choose to revert to a failed strategy that will undoubtedly only escalate the situation? Because it is far easier for politicians to lie to voters, vilify their adversaries, and tell them ‘we will hit them hard’ than to come clean and say instead, ‘we’ve failed and there is no military solution to this problem.’
Like last time, I know many in the Jewish community will say it is unseemly of me to criticize Israel this way while Israelis live in fear of Qassam fire out of Gaza. I know there are those who believe that by writing these words, I’m turning my back on my own people in their time of need. But I know in my heart that my outrage at Israel’s actions goes hand in hand with compassion for Israelis – particularly those who know that their leaders’ devotion to the sword is leading them into the abyss.
Additionally, as I wrote under tragically similar circumstances in 2009:
I believe Israel’s response to Hamas’ missile attacks have been disproportionate and outrageous. I believe their actions only further endanger the security of Israelis while inflicting collective punishment and a severe humanitarian crisis upon Gazans. Indeed, just as I cannot understand what it must be like to be a citizen of Sderot, I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to be a Gazan citizen at the moment, living under constant air attack, with no running water or electricity and dwindling food, as hospitals fill up with wounded and corpses lie rotting in the streets because relief workers are unable to reach them.
When will we be ready to accept that this is not a “balanced” conflict or even a “war” by any reasonable definition – and that it never was? When will we face the painful truth that this is not a story about one side versus the other but about one side oppressing the other? Frankly, all the well-meaning liberal comments about “praying for peace on both sides” and leave me cold. Worse, I find them insidious because they simply serve to support the myth that this is a conflict between two equal parties. It is not. And peace will not come until we admit this – until we admit that there is an essential injustice at the heart of this tragedy and that try as it might, Israel will never be able to make it go away through the sheer force of its increasingly massive military might.
Beyond the rage, I’m heartened that this time around there is a growing community of conscience that is speaking out publicly and in no uncertain terms to protest Israel’s latest outrage in Gaza. I am so deeply grateful for my friends and colleagues at Jewish Voice for Peace, who is alone in the Jewish world in condemning this latest assault. I urge you to read JVP’s courageous statement, which I know gives voice to increasing numbers of Jews and non-Jews, young and old, religious and secular, who are coming together through the courage of their conscience.
At this point in my posts I would typically write “click here” to lend your voice to some kind of collective statement. I’m going resist that temptation and urge you instead to take to the streets.
I’ll see you there.
Nice, bigoted logic. Actually somewhat of the reverse is true. The majority of "Israel," is complicit with ethnic cleansing & violent actions against Palestinians. I try to stay away from characterizing this as a religious issue, but unfortunately you can also say that the majority of Jews & all Zionist Christians hold similar views. There are certainly terrorist elements within Palestine, but "Israel" by definition is an apartheid, terrorist state.
You have a very short memory. I can recall dozens of threads where posters (trolls?) have said that Israel needs to be exempted from non-interventionism because Israel is "special." Some of the older posters here can verify that, and if it's important I can do the searches. The fact that it's less common these days suggests progress. Thank you for pointing it out.
Note - I tried to do a search on "Israel aid" here and the gave me an error. Possibly there is so much data that searching on such common terms is unpractical.
Last edited:
Looks like the electricity is out in West Gaza...
squarepusher
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 4,940
The Hamas Charter calls for the destrution of Israel
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
So what? Wouldn't you want to destroy the political entity that terrorized you and your family out of your home?
I personally support the destruction of Israel through non-violent means.
During negotiations Hamas has agreed to renounce violence, but has not agreed to recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Israel & Western states demand that Hamas does and would rather propagate more violence on this trivial point.
Even Shimon Peres admits that Israel stands on shaky historical ground. In a debate in Doha he mentioned something to the extent that you can't change history, basically admitting that Israel's history is problematic.
You got to be completely whacked to think that Israel's history is legitimate, even when comparing it to the US's shaky history with Native Americans. In that sense it's a matter of fighting for the very fundamentals of rationality to single Israel out as one of the most problematic entities in recent world history.
Anti-Zionism is a fight for logic & reason. It's a fight for using reason & rationality to settle things as opposed to political propaganda & shear violent force. It's an extremely important fight in that sense.
Here's the Doha statement I was talking about.
http://www.thedohadebates.com/debates/item/?d=14&s=3&mode=transcript
Everybody just "forgive and forget." It's normally advice given by crooks to their victims. Israel certainly doesn't take that advice when hunting down former Nazis. Forgiveness is impossible when the aggressors are continuing their aggression and rejoicing about it.
Last edited:
squarepusher
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 4,940
Hamas fires rockets from densely populated civilian centers, using civilians as 'human shields' so any retaliation will have civilian casualties. Are they not allowed to be faulted for being responsible for the death of their own peoples? Hamas charter says they want to destroy Israel, should Israel not be able to defend itself?
History being as it is, besides the point, Israel built up the area from nothing but a sand dune to a thriving 1st world civilization today. People say Israel stole the Palestinian land but it was nothing before besides dunes and scarce inhabitants. Maybe the 'Palestinians' were there before Israel, but Israel was there thousands of years ago before them. Arguing the 'whos first' point is going to be fruitless as the borders and boundaries change throughout time. That being said Israel has really developed the area into a modern thriving entity, "Palestine" has no industry and is a 3rd world nation with no resources. Why do you support them? If they stopped attacking Israel I bet they would no longer be attacked in retaliation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,474
As opposed to wading full on into debating abortion, building demolition, dead dogs, cross-dressing men in the girl's locker room, circumcision, binders full of women, the Federal Reserve, the Red Cross, the Federal Budget, Al Gore and the manbearpig, drugs, climate change, wars, UFOs, religion, human migration, organic milk, oil spills, silver and gold, Murray Rothbard's favorite bourbon, OWS, who is the purest politician, and the history of the world?
No topic is left undissected and repeatedly examined around here.
What merit does that have to it? There are many places in the world that do not provide industry or anything in trade with world economics. It does not mean it's acceptable to take their land away from them in order to develop it.
You are also forgetting to mention that Israel attacked first, killing a civilian during the attack on the hamas leader, and posted a video of it on youtube. I don't really get the whole "They are using their civilians as human sheilds" argument. If they are doing it to make them look bad to the rest of the world, it is backfiring as the media around the world is playing the whole "hamas are cowards, it's their fault these people are dying". I think they are retaliating but I don't know that firing back with bombs and missles is the best way to take them out.
P3ter_Griffin
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,979
Is this an argument for eminent domain? And, "Palestine"? Is that your way of saying those savages don't deserve statehood, rather they should be subjected rule by a foreign entity? Me thinks we have Bibi visiting us on the forums today.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,474
That's a far too relevant question for this thread...
(It's better than standard eminent domain, as it doesn't require fair payment.)
dannno
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 65,717
From Page 4 of this thread.
http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/11/11/israels-latest-assault-on-gaza-the-lie-of-who-started-it/
Similar threads
