Jews must make a choice

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Maybe I'm missing your point, but A: isn't the Jewish faith significantly older and B: I could see why the Seminole and Cherokee descendants would want the land that was there families land a long time ago.

Isn't part of the problem, and pardon my ignorance of it, that for both sides to be "correct" (in their own eyes), the other side has to be destroyed, right? Or something like that.

You are correct in that the Jewish religion has been around for much longer than 1000 years, but they haven't had a significant presence in terms of population in the region for over a millennium. Before the the Balfour Accords, the Jewish and Muslim population lived in peace, though the Jews were a pretty small majority. Palestine (which is a western concept) also had one of the higher per Capita income and literacy rates in the entire Muslim world before the British occupation (which was the start of the Jewish population being provided significantly more power than the Muslim community). Obviously tensions ratcheted up after WWII and massive inflow of people and money from the west. Since then the people that live in the west bank haven't even come close to those levels reached almost 80 years ago. Looking at the big picture it's easy to understand why there is so much anger and resentment but that doesn't excuse the violent behavior by the extremists.

Part B, the Jewish people are on a extremely long list of civilizations and ethnicities who have been moved out of their native land for whatever reason. Should we create countries for all of them?

As for your last point At this point I would say no.....I would bet a majority of the Palestinian people would welcome peace if it came and know that Israel isn't going anywhere. The conflict just keeps on simmering though as Israel kept on expanding and pushing out families that had lived on their land for generations, often through lethal force. The Palestinians are at fault as well as the violence from their side is just as inexcusable as the Israeli's. Overall if Israel stops expanding and makes a good faith effort to make it work some version of a peace could be worked out.
 
Last edited:
You are correct in the the Jewish religion has been around for much longer than 1000 years, but they haven't had a significant presence in terms of population in the region for over a millennium. Before the the Balfour Accords, the Jewish and Muslim population lived in peace, though the Jews were a pretty small majority. Palestine (which is a western concept) also had one of the higher per Capita income and literacy rates in the entire Muslim world before the British occupation (which was the start of the Jewish population being provided significantly more power than the Muslim community). Obviously tensions ratcheted up after WWII and massive inflow of people and money from the west. Since then the people that live in the west bank haven't even come close to those levels reached almost 80 years ago. Looking at the big picture it's easy to understand why there is so much anger and resentment but that doesn't excuse the violent behavior by the extremists.

Part B, the Jewish people are on a extremely long list of civilizations and ethnicities who have been moved out of their native land for whatever reason. Should we create countries for all of them?

As for your last point At this point I would say no.....I would bet a majority of the Palestinian people would welcome peace if it came and know that Israel isn't going anywhere. The conflict just keeps on simmering though as Israel kept on expanding and pushing out families that had lived on their land for generations, often through lethal force. The Palestinians are at fault as well as the violence from their side is just as inexcusable as the Israeli's. Overall if Israel stops expanding and makes a good faith effort to make it work some version of a peace could be worked out.

Both sides would enjoy immediately enjoy peace and prosperity if they would only embrace the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. Their Thetan levels are way too low.
l_ron_hubbard.jpg
 
You are correct in the the Jewish religion has been around for much longer than 1000 years, but they haven't had a significant presence in terms of population in the region for over a millennium. Before the the Balfour Accords, the Jewish and Muslim population lived in peace, though the Jews were a pretty small majority. Palestine (which is a western concept) also had one of the higher per Capita income and literacy rates in the entire Muslim world before the British occupation (which was the start of the Jewish population being provided significantly more power than the Muslim community). Obviously tensions ratcheted up after WWII and massive inflow of people and money from the west. Since then the people that live in the west bank haven't even come close to those levels reached almost 80 years ago. Looking at the big picture it's easy to understand why there is so much anger and resentment but that doesn't excuse the violent behavior by the extremists.

Part B, the Jewish people are on a extremely long list of civilizations and ethnicities who have been moved out of their native land for whatever reason. Should we create countries for all of them?

As for your last point At this point I would say no.....I would bet a majority of the Palestinian people would welcome peace if it came and know that Israel isn't going anywhere. The conflict just keeps on simmering though as Israel kept on expanding and pushing out families that had lived on their land for generations, often through lethal force. The Palestinians are at fault as well as the violence from their side is just as inexcusable as the Israeli's. Overall if Israel stops expanding and makes a good faith effort to make it work some version of a peace could be worked out.

That isn't the history as I know it.

There were always Jews in the middle east, though they were treated as second class citizens by the ottoman empire.

The belfour declaration was basically a promise of a Jewish nation right where it is today. It was the draw for people fleeing horrors in Europe and unwanted by other nations, including the USA.

For every Jew that immigrated to the middle east, an Arab from Egypt or Syria or other surrounding areas moved there as well. Again, Arafat was an egyptian, not a palestinian, the head of the PLO.

The British abandoned their tanks, jeeps, weapons, ammo, when they left and left it for the Arabs.

The Arabs conspired to push the new nation into the sea in 1948, and pressured the Arabs who lived within the Israeli borders to flee, and once the massacre was over they could move back.

The lands Israel has outside its initial borders have been occupied for two main reasons. First, they were captured in the 1967 and 1973 wars, and second they provide a sort of buffer against further hostilities. Israel has ceded back lands it conquered in exchange for peace (Sanai/Egypt).
 
The lands Israel has outside its initial borders have been occupied for two main reasons. First, they were captured in the 1967 and 1973 wars, and second they provide a sort of buffer against further hostilities. Israel has ceded back lands it conquered in exchange for peace (Sanai/Egypt).

So...if I steal $500 from you and kill your family, but later I give you back $100, we're cool?

Right?:cheers:
 
So...if I steal $500 from you and kill your family, but later I give you back $100, we're cool?

Right?:cheers:

Poor analogy.

More like you tried to steal $500 from me and dropped your wallet when you tucked tail and ran.
 
[video=youtube;GVwFzXFsveg]

Hi. :)

Looks like many Israelis are taking Obama's side. Seems like only something the right wing can spin. Israelis are getting sick of the right wing as well, and it is starting to show.

Israel needs to take the U.S. advice for more than just consideration. Obama did the right thing. We don't bow to Israel at all. And being an ally isn't a one way street.
 
Last edited:
The amusing thing is that American conservatives are the most vociferous about being pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian...more so than the vast majority of American Jews and generally moreso than the vast majority of Israelis.
 
The amusing thing is that American conservatives are the most vociferous about being pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian...more so than the vast majority of American Jews and generally moreso than the vast majority of Israelis.

While liberals sometimes do the same, conservatives know whats better for everyone else.
 
There is a lot of hot air coming from that article....most of their conclusions don't make any sense.

I didn't post it for the article, I posted it for the letter. When's the last time 327 Congressmen agreed on anything?
 
I didn't post it for the article, I posted it for the letter. When's the last time 327 Congressmen agreed on anything?

a pay raise?
 
I didn't post it for the article, I posted it for the letter. When's the last time 327 Congressmen agreed on anything?

That doesn't make them right. As described in the above linked video, Israeli's aren't exactly thrilled with how the PM has handled the situation from his side. Israel is putting themselves in a difficult situation as they've pissed of Great Britain as well and This isn't a case of the US having a complete policy shift towards the Israel, it's due of the current Israeli political party in power having a policy shift towards the rest of the world. There was absolutely no need to start construction of new settlements in the disputed area.
 
Last edited:
You should have seen his comments in the other thread... As has been stated many times Israel has illegally expanded (technically invaded because the settlements were outside the initial boundries) it's settlements multiple times through the years the use of lethal force. But hey....since they are our allies who cares.

Your ignorance of the facts throughout this thread is self evident, but you have to be at least called to task on this one. Israel has borders outside of its initial boundary only because of the 6 Day War in '67 when they were attacked by 5 neighbors and beat them all. The expanded boundaries are a result of land captured at that time. And of that land, the vast majority - the Sinai peninsula - was returned in exchange for a peace deal with Egypt.

They retain the Golan Heights because it is a strategic value vis-a-vis Syria, one of the attackers.

As for the Palestinians - if Arafat was a braver man, they could have had 97.5 % of their ancestral homeland as a state, and peace and security, but he turned that deal down at Camp David.
 
On Passover, Israel concerned over world standing

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100329/D9EO89AG0.html
JERUSALEM (AP) - Nearly one out of every two Israelis thinks the country's international standing is poor following Israel's most serious crisis with the United States in decades, according to a poll published Monday on the eve of the Passover holiday.

As Jews around the world were making last-minute preparations for the spring festival - which marks the biblical story of the Hebrews' exodus from Egypt - a poll in the Maariv daily showed increasing concern following the open rift between the governments of the world's two largest Jewish centers.

The U.S. and Israel are at odds over Israeli construction in east Jerusalem, the section of the holy city claimed by the Palestinians. The U.S. is demanding that Israel halt building to facilitate peace talks. Israel says it can build anywhere in the city.

Asked how they would define Israel's international standing, only 14 percent of Israelis said it was good, 37 percent called it reasonable and more than 48 percent called it bad. The TNS/Teleseker survey questioned 500 people and had a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.

Israel has been under fire internationally since last winter's Gaza war, with a U.N. commission accusing it of war crimes. Israel's relations with allies such as Turkey, Britain and Australia have also faltered.

Relations with the U.S. administration has reached such a low point, said an editorial in the daily Haaretz, that Washington has demanded written Israeli commitments, since "the spoken word has no meaning."

The poll came as Israelis were cleaning their houses, cars and offices, and cooking furiously to get ready for the weeklong holiday, in which leavened bread is forbidden and unleavened bread called matzah is eaten instead.

The holiday begins Monday night with a traditional seder meal. Extended families typically gather and retell the story of the exodus.

The biblical story recounts that God killed the first-born of Egypt after the pharaoh refused to release the children of Israel from bondage, but "passed over" the houses of the Hebrews.

After that divine blow, the pharaoh gave in and let the Hebrews go. They were then given the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai and wandered in the desert for 40 years before arriving in the Land of Israel, according to the Bible.

The tradition of eating matzah comes from the Bible's account that the Jews left Egypt in such a hurry that there was no time to allow the bread to rise. It is also considered the bread of the poor, meant to remind Jews of their ancestors' hardships. Leavened bread is banned and burned ceremonially before the holiday starts.

Though only about a quarter of Israel's Jews are Orthodox, most do not eat bread during Passover and hold the traditional meal on the first night of the holiday, according to surveys.

President Barack Obama plans to host a seder at the White House, attended by a group of Jewish aides and other close friends.

The Maariv poll showed that more than 46 percent of Israelis still support a peace deal with the Palestinians that includes the return of almost all of the war-won territory in the West Bank.

Just under 39 percent said they were opposed to such a deal and 15 percent did not respond.


On Sunday, Israel said it was imposing a closure on the West Bank as a security measure for the weeklong holiday. The routine measure, which was to begin at midnight, bars almost all Palestinians from entering Israel.

At the height of Israeli-Palestinian fighting last decade a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up at a hotel seder in 2002, killing some 30 people.
 
Your ignorance of the facts throughout this thread is self evident, but you have to be at least called to task on this one. Israel has borders outside of its initial boundary only because of the 6 Day War in '67 when they were attacked by 5 neighbors and beat them all. The expanded boundaries are a result of land captured at that time. And of that land, the vast majority - the Sinai peninsula - was returned in exchange for a peace deal with Egypt.

They retain the Golan Heights because it is a strategic value vis-a-vis Syria, one of the attackers.

As for the Palestinians - if Arafat was a braver man, they could have had 97.5 % of their ancestral homeland as a state, and peace and security, but he turned that deal down at Camp David.

I apologize for not spelling it out more carefully.....what is Israel getting flack for doing right now? Think about about and come back to me with something else. Oh....and for calling me out you....next time you might want to check your facts. 6 days wars technically started when Israel launched a preemptive attack on Egypt after a period of small skirmishes over water rights. More specifically their incursion into what is now the West Bank was unilaterally deemed as a ridiculously excessive response over some guerrilla attacks that had thought to be originating from there. Do you have any other revisionist history you want to throw out?

You also also not quite right about the Camp David process in 2000. The sticking point was that Israel would only provide 75% of the West Bank. Which was a decrease in the Palestinian territory previously established through international mediation.
 
next time you might want to check your facts...You also also not quite right about the Camp David process in 2000. The sticking point was that Israel would only provide 75% of the West Bank. Which was a decrease in the Palestinian territory previously established through international mediation.

Again, you are amazingly wrong:

From the NY Times, June 27, 2002: "It's really very simple—Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton put on the table during July–December 2000 a historic compromise and the Palestinians rejected it. They concede that Barak's offer at Camp David was "unprecedented" and that the upgraded (Clinton) proposals offered the Palestinians 94–96 percent of the West Bank, 100 percent of the Gaza Strip, a sovereign Palestinian state, an end to the occupation, the uprooting of most of the settlements..."

So, if you got this basic fact wrong, guess what other facts you have wrong...err, all of them?
 
Again, you are amazingly wrong:

From the NY Times, June 27, 2002: "It's really very simple—Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton put on the table during July–December 2000 a historic compromise and the Palestinians rejected it. They concede that Barak's offer at Camp David was "unprecedented" and that the upgraded (Clinton) proposals offered the Palestinians 94–96 percent of the West Bank, 100 percent of the Gaza Strip, a sovereign Palestinian state, an end to the occupation, the uprooting of most of the settlements..."

So, if you got this basic fact wrong, guess what other facts you have wrong...err, all of them?

Actually after digging a little deeper we are both right about this. The 94% you are using would be the result of a 10 year transition of some of the disputed lands with the exception being Jerusalem which had some notable exclusions. The 75% was the starting point for the West Bank. The issue for the Palestinians was that the Israeli's still would control majority of the flow of goods and services between and to a lesser extent within the Palestinian controlled areas. You should now that the percentages being used are in reference to internationally agreed upon boundaries set up during the Oslo accords negotiations (though actions from both sides ended up killing whatever momentum the agreement started.In hindsight, that deal was due in large part to Barak's surprisingly even keeled approach to the conflict. Despite all of his accolades, Arafat bungled a multitude of issues both within the Palestinian community as well as internationally.

The situation right now is completely different as Netanyahu has never really taken the peace process seriously (his first term was evidence of that) when compared to predecessor. Additionally the coalition he pulled together for his second term is very hawkish and can be best described as the Neocons of the Israeli political spectrum.

If you want to read probably the best book I've seen about this topic check out "The Iron Cage" by Rashid Khalidi. While he does have a lot of criticism about the western world's impact on the situation as well as Israel's actions, he repeatedly calls the the Palestinian leadership and the community as a whole for playing the victim card and calls for unification within the very fractured community.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top