And Now the Truth Becomes Clear: Hilary Clinton Announces that the Palestinians are the Obstacles to Peace

Hugh G. Reckshen

You are trolling which is a violation of the NV COH. In this case posting the identical comment in more than on seed (3 for this one thus far). This would indicate that you are not responding to the seeded article but to your own agenda, which in this case is to be inflammatory..

Hugh G. Reckshen

I see no humor in your intentions and I don't mistake it as such.

That is an old joke. It's from a scene in Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Charles Durning said, "It behooves both the Jews and the A-rabs to settle their diffences in a Christian manner."

Each and every US administration comes to this conclusion - no matter what Israel wants, no matter what the entire Western world wants - it's not up to them. Arabs don't want peace. Period. They just keep making excuses to avoid it.

I also believe and have seen and read, that, sadly the Palestinians do not want Peace, they just want to get "rid" of Israel and they want the world to feel sorry for them as if they are the "victims". The real victims are Israel and all who truly want Peace! It's the Palestinians who embrace a terrorist,hateful violent group like hamas into their government.

ANNA NYC

Actually every US President since the 1970's supports the cessation of settlements.

STATEMENTS OF U.S. PRESIDENTS

WASHINGTON POST
Sunday, May 24, 2009

"Our position on the settlements is very clear. We do not think they are legal, and they are obviously an impediment to peace."

-- President Jimmy Carter, April 12, 1980
Total settlement population: 61,500

"The immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel."

-- President Ronald Reagan, Sept. 1, 1982
Total settlement population (1983): 106,595

"My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it's firm, which it is."

-- President George H.W. Bush, March 3, 1990
Total settlement population: 227,500

"The Israeli people also must understand that . . . the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise."

-- President Bill Clinton, Jan. 7, 2001
Total settlement population: 387,859

"Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338."

-- President George W. Bush, April 4, 2002
Total settlement population: 414,119

"Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward."

-- President Obama, May 18
Total settlement population (2008): 479,500

Sources: Foundation for Middle East Peace, B'tselem and Washington Post research. Population figures are for West Bank, East Jerusalem and (until 2005) Gaza Strip.

Also, to supplement what Unclemike said, what Secretary Of State Clinton actually stated is just reiterating long standing U.S. policy towards the settlements since the settlements are not legally recognised internationally and no US administration has been for them since Lyndon Johnson in the late '60's...

For years, the official U.S. position was that the settlements were illegal under international law because they violated the Fourth Geneva Convention, on protection of civilians in time of war. That document, adopted in 1949, specifies: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The application of this article to Israel was endorsed by the administrations of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

An emphatic statement of the U.S. view that settlements were illegal came from George H.W. Bush in 1971, when he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "We regret Israel's failure to acknowledge its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as its actions which are contrary to the letter and spirit of this convention."

Israel's position was that the West Bank was not "occupied" but rather "administered" territory whose pre-1967 status had been unclear under international law. Jordan had ruled the West Bank from 1949 until 1967, but most nations hadn't recognized its sovereignty. To complicate matters further, the Israeli Supreme Court has described the West Bank as "under belligerent occupation."

President Ronald Reagan stopped the characterization of Israeli settlements as "illegal" when he took office in 1981, but he opposed the expansion of them. That position has been maintained by subsequent administrations, which have termed the building of new settlements "an obstacle to peace" and said that the status of existing settlements should be resolved in peace negotiations. Israel has steadfastly refused interim attempts to curtail its settlements, including announcing a specific reservation to the 2003 "road map" for peace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303241.html

Unclemke - these are their "opening statements", except Carter, of course. Once they get deeper into the essence of conflict, they understand - the ball is in Palestinian/Arabs corner.

Indeed, what can reasonable person say about "stopping settlements" after Israel's pull out of Gaza?

Not just they "stopped" any settlement activity, but completely vacated this land. And the result, that any reasonable person would expect (considering settlements to be the major obstacle to peace) - ever lasting peace, right? Or at least beginning of some peace process?

Yeah, right! Not with Arabs.

The re-establishment of israel is like the Native Americans retaking Manhattan. No wonder the Palestinians are revolting. Who gave Lord Balfour the right to take someone else's land and give it to the Jews??

Who gave Lord Balfour the right to take someone else's land and give it to the Jews??

Why not ask the Muslims/Arabs that since they originally stole it from the Jews, forced them into exile, kicked them out, had them enslaved by Egypt, they were without home, forced to Europe, where then oh Hitler had fun with them.

IT IS NOT PALESTINIAN LAND.

Who gave Lord Balfour the right to take someone else's land and give it to the Jews??

England was in possession of the land at this time - remember? It was when nobody even heard about "great Palestinian nation" - time when they where just regular Arabs who happen to live in this area of British Empire.

I see no humor in your intentions and I don't mistake it as such.

If you can't see the humor in post #1.1, then maybe YOU need to lighten up some and relax. Personally I thought is was pretty dammed funny....................

Good One Hugh......................

"not with Arabs" makes your position clear. What can I say.

"just opening statements". Does that mean the the first sentence of every major policy statement can be deleted from history?

Anna, your acrobatics with logic never cease to amaze.

these are their "opening statements

Nope, they're a lot more than that. But you can believe whatever you want.

Not just they "stopped" any settlement activity, but completely vacated this land.

Except for the fact that Israel started increasing settlement activity in the West Bank after the unilateral disengagement from Gaza. And Israel is still refusing to halt settlement activity.

England was in possession of the land at this time - remember?

That's the essence of imperialism. A foreign country taking over land that doesn't belong to them. Are you going to tell me that the British would have the right to give India to another group of people?

It was when nobody even heard about "great Palestinian nation" - time when they where just regular Arabs who happen to live in this area of British Empire.

Authors Kimmerling and Migdal point to the 1834 revolt as the first formative event of the Palestinian people. Nationalism can exist before the state.

No wonder the Palestinians are revolting.

Well-- let's not stereotype all Palestinins. I'm sure there are many who are decent human beings-- just ordinary folks who want to live their lives in peace.

But- there are some who revolting indeed-- such as this lovely lady who explains what she truly wants for a her son: A Mothers' Love

Who gave Lord Balfour the right to take someone else's land and give it to the Jews??

If you are referring to Gaza-- it was Egyptian when control passed to the Jews--- and the West Bank was part of Jordan. Neither were any imaginery country called "Palestine".

Hi squid

Even BenGurion called it Palestine. He was frustrated that the right wing planned to extend the borders to include Golan and the West Bank even then. He also believed the the achievemnts of 1947-8 were enough. However he also knew that Israel would have difficulty surviving without the Golan watershed. His ideal of citizen parity fell to the wayside. And 1967 sealed the deal with the "annexation" of the West Bank and Jerusalem in clear violation of international law.

The obvious intentions of Israel's right wing did not escape Palestinians or international observers. Yet we are led to believe that Palestinians' efforts to retain their personal property and to expect basic human rights (water, power, food) are indications of intransigence and unwillingness to negotiate.

I have long supported Israel and am perplexed that there is so much disbelief that dispossession can lead to resentment and violence. As we watch families and their property dumped on the street as immigrants are lodged into the homes their families have owned for generations, we can wonder in disbelief how this can be justified. If people are treated as less than human, their natural response is to protect what is theirs and to protect their families.

I have many issues with rights transgressions in Arab and Persian countries but even Israel has denied linkage between its actions and Arab terrorism. If there is no two-way street, no linkage, then every country must be evaluated on its own merits or failures, including Israel. Too many valid observations of Israel's activities are met with "well, look how the Arab countries act."

If Israel wants a one state solution, it will need a constitution and full citizenship for all its residents. Otherwise total divestment of the West Bank is the only other solution. In this I am assuming that the ill-conceived plans for "transfer" are off the table.

I have long supported Israel

Readers of this column:

I have a bridge I want to sell you!

You see Uncle Mike, you can't support and criticize. Just like American's can't criticize our leader's policy and still be supportive of our country... if we are not blindly following our leaders than we are anarchists.

krishna

Not really fair to those in and out of Israel who question whether this is the best path for security and peace and security for Israel. Our frustration with human rights abuses are reflected in the efforts of many peace organizations within Israel. B'tselem provides many balanced critiques of events in Israel and Palestine which are endorsed by many Israelis. A single perspective will not solve this issue.

It's funny, as soon as I wrote of my support for Israel, I knew that some wag would respond in such a manner. I decided to leave it, wondering where it would lead. I am disappointed.

No nation can survive without examining its actions in light of its principles. Perhaps I expect much of Israel, many of us do. I am a US citizen and have watched and protested and voted my concerns over many of our policies. The last eight years have tragically lowered our standing in the world's eyes and more tragically caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Some calculations put the number over 600K. I am amazed that this has been treated so lightly in the press but we Americans are not very good at looking back, especially at our darker mistakes.

There are two paths. One State or two States. Each presents its own problems but my personal preference as you can see is the two State solution. I don't see it happening without a firm international presence monitoring the peace. And the likelihood that neither Israel nor Palestine would find such monitoring palatable, actually encourages me tho think it is the only path.

concerned

Yeah, I guess I am a bad citizen for criticizing W and his Constitution-shredding hamsters. At least I hope they were hamsters, I'd hate to think that humans could justify the slaughter of 200K Iraqi civilians.

Laura says that W is happy riding his bike (really! this is what she said when asked what he was doing LOL) At least he can't do much damage with a bicycle............then again, who knows.

On a more serious note, I am deeply saddened when the discussion sinks to the inevitable refuge of personal and ethnic attacks. This won't bring peace just more suffering.

Great posts Unklemike and Concerned Citizen.

if we are not blindly following our leaders than we are anarchists.

I know a lot of people who oppose many of Obama's policies-- but none of them are anarchists...

squidward

tough crowd, though. LOL!

Does that mean the the first sentence of every major policy statement can be deleted from history?

Umm... People change their minds, once they know more about the subject. And Hillary is known as one of the strongest Palestinian sympatizers. So, for her to say something like this... It means volumes.

That's the essence of imperialism. A foreign country taking over land that doesn't belong to them. Are you going to tell me that the British would have the right to give India to another group of people?

For gazillionth time - when was "Palestine" a country? You should know the history of this region by now.
About India - no. That's why they did not give it to another group of people. But if there were another group of people who could claim part of India for their statehood - maybe they could. After all British created the whole bunch of Middle Eastern "independent, souvereign"countries - starting with Jordan and going to Iraq .
Why should India be any different? Or Israel, for that matter?

So, for her to say something like this... It means volumes.

No, it means, like I said in post #11.1, a reiteration of long-standing US policy towards the settlements that has been in effect for over 4 decades.

Umm... People change their minds, once they know more about the subject.

Then why has this policy not changed in over 4 decades?

tough crowd, though. LOL!

if it wasn't it'd be boring!

For gazillionth time - when was "Palestine" a country?

It's not about Palestine being a country. It's that Britain had no moral right to make decisions regarding the people who lived on the land of Palestine. You can debate and discuss the moral right, but this is my opinion.

Then why has this policy not changed in over 4 decades?

Exactly.

And Hillary is known as one of the strongest Palestinian sympatizers

To you, perhaps. Certainly I wouldn't call the Republican with the liberal costume on a Palestinian sympathizer.

It's not about Palestine being a country.

Try telling that to the Palestinians!

So they are Palestinians?

It's that Britain had no moral right to make decisions regarding the people who lived on the land of Palestine.

How about Britain's moral rights to make decisions regarding people who live in Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and so on? You don't seem to mind that much her decisions about these places.

So they are Palestinians?

Yes. This is what they call themselves since 1967 (?). You can also call them Arabs/Muslims, residents of former part of British empire named Palestine:

Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל‎, Ereẓ Yisra'el; formerly also פלשׂתינה, Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) is a conventional name used, among others, to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.^[1]

Actually it's what BenGurion called them.

The Palestinians got involved with a nationalist movement long before 1967.

Try telling that to the Palestinians!

By they have had a nationalist movement for a long time and they deserve a state.. And their land is being currently occupied. Gaza and West Bank isn't Egyptian, Jordanian, or Israeli...it's Palestinian.

It is interesting, however, that Ben Gurion recognized Palestine as an Arab COUNTRY:

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

I'm sure that quote disappoints Krishna and Anna.

Certainly I wouldn't call the Republican with the liberal costume on a Palestinian sympathizer.

There are differing opinions on the matter.

I'm sure that quote disappoints Krishna and Anna.

When did he say that? I assume some time ago. Isn't it time for Palestinians to change their minds, to understand that Israel is there to stay, that nobody goes back to Europe or Yemen, or Iran, or Egypt, or any other country from which Jews were expelled?

Palestinians deserve their own state - fine. But is it what they really want?

Let me put it this way - what do they want more - their own state or distraction of Israel?

Their own state.

Oh and don't forget what he goes on to say:

"We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return... The old will die and the young will forget."

And also,

"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." (Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983)

Or

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." (Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio)

Anna, you amaze me. We have discussed your creative interpretations of history and language before, but dismissing BenGurion? His vision was clear, he was a realist and quite honest in his evaluation of human hopes and expectations.

As for the Palestinians, they want what every human wants....to live in dignity, to own and use their property, to have water and food, to see their children achieve their potential through education and work, to enjoy equal rights, to live without the anticipation that tomorrow is another day when they might be kicked out of their family homes and farms. If that is more than any human should hope for....well, from your posts I get the impression that you believe that Arabs are less deserving of dignity than other humans.

One State with a Constitution, or two States monitored by an international force for a minimum of ten years. Enough have died already.

As for the Palestinians, they want what every human wants

That..is a generalization.

Some want that-- others have other priorities.

The generalizations of Palestinians and what they want have dominated this discussion. Perhaps if we eliminate the plural in all of the discussions about Israel and Palestine and view each person as a generalized version of basic human psychology, it would be more fair.

Of course that is not realistic. So we often rely on the loudest voices to serve as our proxies.............but these "proxies", leaders, appointees, elected officials, self-appointed mouthpieces and a few belligerant sociopaths often have objectives that have nothing to do with recognizing basic human rights.

If there is a perception that Palestinians deviate from the basic norms of human psychology, it is wrong. Humans are remarkably similar from culture to culture. And research in human and primate psychology demonstrate universal reactions to to obviously biased distribution of rewards and property. Frankly, the idea that any human group is inherently less, is just indefensible.

their own state or distraction of Israel?

Their own state. Either one separate of Israel...or all Arabs and Jews coexisting in one state. Really, the choice is more Israel's than anything. They can push for the two state solution now, a fair two-state solution, or they can wait until the only possibility is a one state solution.

Their own state. Either one separate of Israel...or all Arabs and Jews coexisting in one state. Really, the choice is more Israel's than anything. They can push for the two state solution now, a fair two-state solution, or they can wait until the only possibility is a one state solution.

I disagree in one respect-- IMO it doesn't matter what the Israeli position is (or, for that matter, what the Pali position is)-- peace and a settlement of the problem is just not possible now or in the near future.

Their own state.

I have different impression. But then simple question - why they (Palest.) don't want to start negotiations? Why do they put all these numerous "pre-conditions"? why not to put their demands on a table?

The settlements aren't really a precondition, they are a clear violation of international law. For instance, if recent immigrants hired a private security force , forcibly removed you from your family home and illegaly installed themselves in your property while you sit in the street, how would you react. Read the statements quoted from BenGurion in this discussion, he clearly understood.

Israel has violated every law and agreement by confiscating and building in the West Bank and Gaza. The "preconditions" of previous agreements to which Israel is a signatory have been violated by Israel. The settlements were a land grab that unless resolved will destabilize the Middle East for the rest of the century.

If you think otherwise, then perhaps you will see the justice of someone giving you three hours to vacate the premises.

Anna, you perplex me. You consistently expect others to act or react differently than you would. Try to understand, do your best. If the only resolution to this problem is yours, then there will be nothing but tragedy. I think there has been enough on both sides.

Two States.

Israel has violated every law and agreement by confiscating and building in the West Bank and Gaza.

WTF!?!!??

Nice try...

They left Gaza way back in 2005-- there are no more settlemetns there-- not a Jew left in the entire place.

WTF!?!!??

Exactly. It's especially funny to hear from a person who just stated:

If the only resolution to this problem is yours, then there will be nothing but tragedy.

You consistently expect others to act or react differently than you would.

Unclemke - do you understand "others"? How would you react if you left Gaza and then receive more violence in return?

Just don't say that Israel did it "unilaterally" and should not expect any gratitude for this.

I am asking - would you be willing to give more concessions?

Israeli settlers never should have been in Gaza in the first place. Just as they should never have been installed in the West Bank. Why were they there?

I still wonder how you would respond if you were removed from your home and had no legal recourse in the Courts. If the Israeli government finally decides to vacate the settlements in the West bank, how will the settlers feel? How will they react if they are given the choice to leave or become citizens of Palestine?

Colonial powers have always faced the hard truths of cause and effect. What do they leave in their wake? What responsibility do they have for the results of their intrusion?

I still wonder how you would respond if you were removed from your home and had no legal recourse

I would remind myself how it all started - the entire Palestinian refugee thing.

They should've recognized Israel back in 1948 instead of attacking newly created Jewish state.

They should've recognized Israel back in 1948 instead of attacking newly created Jewish state.

To expect them to agree to an unjust partition of their land is absurd. But of course, in the minds of Krishna and Anna, Israel never makes mistakes, it's all the Arabs' fault.

Just don't say that Israel did it "unilaterally"

And why not? That detail is a significant one.

Why do they put all these numerous "pre-conditions"?

Numerous? There's one. To freeze settlement activity. If Israel was serious about peace, they would. But if they won't even stop settlement activity, I wonder exactly if the negotiations would be actual negotiations, or the usual Israel and the US dictating what the Palestinians should do even if it goes against Palestinian rights....

How would you respond to being dispossessed? Now or in 1948.

To expect them to agree to an unjust partition of their land is absurd.

So, here we go again. Why is it unjust? what would be just - according to Arabs? Is it possible to reverse? No? So, what is the reason to go again and again to "unjust partition"? How will it help the peace process?

How would you respond to being dispossessed? Now or in 1948.

You know - I actually was dispossessed twice in my life - that is I had to leave everything I've earned and start afresh. So, it's not "would" - I did - started a new life and spent as little time as possible looking back and feeling sorry for myself. I would advise Palestinians to do the same - but I am pretty sure they would not change in a foreseeable future - there are too many people who support and encourage them in their lifestyle of perpetual victims.

Too bad for Palestinians. We only have one chance on this Earth to be happy.

So if Israelis are removed from the settlements, from your point of view, they should not look back. If you want to share your experience of dispossession, it would give us a picture of your position. Many of us have lost everything at some point in our lives but in America our culture supported a certain mobility. I some societies, less so.

I explain the situation to my evangelical parents like this (and be in no doubt that policy over the last few years has been along biblical lines).. Imagine one day you are living in your multi million house enjoying your sea views and running your business...it is decreed that a new state will be created for all Catholics (we are from Northern Ireland) - due to the harshness of their treatment under British rule (famine etc) you have to make way...so we will move you out of your house and the land of your ancestors and we will put you in the local council estate (project)... then we will build a big wall to stop you getting out...then we will cut off your supplies to water electricity and ways of making money....and then they decide they want half of the council estate as well....what would you do? How would you react? I know that I would do and it probably wouldn't be peaceful negotiation....just saying.....

To expect them to agree to an unjust partition of their land is absurd

Its not their land.

So, here we go again. Why is it unjust?

Why's it unjust to give a majority of the land to a minority of the people?

there are too many people who support and encourage them in their lifestyle of perpetual victims.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the siege on Gaza, the deprivation of water, the continuous complacency to settler violence, the settlements, the occupation, the apartheid in the West Bank. Nothing at all. (/sarc)

Its not their land.

Only according to the people that stole it.

Soph

Put that way, I am surprised that it is so hard for some to understand.

Trust me I work for a very liberal Jew and I have very evangelical parents and their views are completely myopic and coincide! ....can i just say aaaaagh

So if Israelis are removed from the settlements, from your point of view

Israelis were removed from the settlements - remember Gaza - it only happened several years ago. Now it's time for Arabs to do something to show that they want peace.

Right now I see no evidence for it.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the siege on Gaza, the deprivation of water, the continuous complacency to settler violence, the settlements, the occupation, the apartheid in the West Bank. Nothing at all. (

Exactly - all of these just excuses, excuses, excuses - nothing more. And Palestinians just enjoy it.

And they will continue to enjoy it until there will be at least one person who would listen to this bullsh**t. And given amount of Anti-Semitism in a world - they will have no problems to find a listener.

alas, - this is the life they've chosen.

Israeli settlers never should have been in Gaza in the first place. Just as they should never have been installed in the West Bank. Why were they there?

Because they replaced the Egyptians occupying Gaza and the Jordanins who had annexed the West Bank-- both of whom had no business being there in the first place!

LOL? You are kidding, right?

LOL? You are kidding, right?

Nope.

You seem like a nice guy-- and well-meaning and sincwere. I don't question your intentions. But you have fallen for a lot of propaganda-- and falsehoods.

From your comments over time, its obvious you know little of the actual history of the area.

Fact-- a new Arab state, to be called "Palestine" was to be formed out of part of the British Mandate.

But it never was-- because when it was to become independent-- Egypt invaded Gaza and occupied it-- not permitting the Arabs to form a "Palestine" there. It became occupied Gaza-- occupied by the Egyptians.

The West Bank was to become the other part of "Palestine"-- but the Jordanians invaded and occupied it, not allowing th"Palestinians" to form a state-- in fact, the Jrdanians later turned Jordanian occupied Gaza into part of Jordan-- actually annexed the West Bank and made it part of Jordan-- not letting the Palis have a state.

Many people in the West who are unaware of the history falsely believe Israel took over a country called Palestien-- but it never existed. When Israel tok over the West Bank , it was part of Jordan. And Gaza was not a "Palestien"-- it was occupied by Egypt.

Here's an animated presentation that explains what actually happened: History in a Nutshell.

f you want to-- by all means spend some time googling for links to attempt to refute it-- but you'd be wasting your time, because what I posted are facts....

Right now I see no evidence for it.

Surprise, surprise. Try taking the blinders off.

And they will continue to enjoy it until there will be at least one person who would listen to this bullsh**t.

It's no bull@!$%#. A lot of them are really suffering. And a lot of the suffering is caused by Israel. Of course, it's bull@!$%# to you, because Israel can do no wrong...to you. Blaming the victims, that's what your into. But don't think I won't call you out on it.

alas, - this is the life they've chosen.

They didn't choose to be put under siege, get occupied, get their land stolen, or get killed. Israel did that to them.

krishna

I've seen you post that version before and it conveniently omits a great deal of information from the beginning through today. In fact, even if I accepted this particular spin, I'd still be unwilling to accept the human rights violations of that last years. Denying food, water, medicine and housing is indefensible and ultimately against Israel's legacy.

Here's an animated presentation that explains what actually happened: History in a Nutshell.

Superb link as always, krishna! Keep presenting the truth- it will be ignored by the apologists, but those who come to get smarter will recognize your truth!

In fact, even if I accepted this particular spin

Ok-- I'll bite.
Specifically-- what facts presented there do you challenge? :)

In fact, even if I accepted this particular spin

Ok-- I'll bite.
Specifically-- what facts presented there do you challenge? :)

In fact, even if I accepted this particular spin

Ok-- I'll bite. Specifically-- what facts presented there do you challenge? :)

It's like I said. It's completely one sided and omits information. It is propaganda. Sort of like saying "he stabbed me" but omitting the fact that you shot him first.

If I can make it clearer, this is like something out a readers digest history of the world. Actually, not even 10th grade level stuff. "And then the whole world understood who was good and who was bad, so we could all get together and beat them up and take their stuff, and the get a good night's sleep." Guys, you are kidding, right?

If I can make it clearer, this is like something out a readers digest history of the world. Actually, not even 10th grade level stuff. "And then the whole world understood who was good and who was bad, so we could all get together and beat them up and take their stuff, and the get a good night's sleep." Guys, you really are kidding, right?

Ok-- I'll bite. Specifically-- what facts presented there do you challenge? :)

Looks like he presented nothing specifically, unsurprisingly.

Are you guys ten or 90? That link wouldn't even pass a fifth grade book report. Good Lord, read something. I guess I am faced with the same old conclusions here....there are people on this earth who live in an echo chamber and they cannot visualize a future for themselves without engineering someone else out of existence. It is a very empty place. They believe it to be a place of power but that is a condition where you diminish yourselves.

Israel doesn't want a one state solution, they don't want a two state solution,....and the Palestinians are the impediment to peace? If the strategy is attrition, it is a complete success.

It's like I said. It's completely one sided and omits information. It is propaganda.

Again-- you refuse to answer the question.
What specifically do you feel is untrue? Calling something 'propaganda" is a silly argument-- I could turn around and engage in empty name calling as well-- I could say that your comments and links are "propaganda"-- "one-sided"-- "omits information"--its silly-- and meaningless.

There are probably some, but they are silent or forced to be silent.

History has shown us that Arab peacemakers get assassinated by their own. Silence becomes a means to survive.

Hmmm, Rabin comes to mind.

Jerusalem is the main thing they want it is their most precious and holy city, Palestinians or Muslims only claim Jerusalem purely as a political and revenge tactic. They have no claim to the city.

I would argue a religious claim to land is just as useless as a vengeful claim to it.

I would argue a religious claim

Try historic claim.

I'll add historical to my list as useless things as well. For instance, I don't see too large a movement to give America back to the aboriginals.

prompt--

Normally the term would be Native Americans, but whatever.

Well then the Native Americans would need to give back the land to the people BEFORE them.

However, in the US amends have been trying to be made because ya know what Native Americans still exist, they do live on reservations or in neighborhoods, they have not all been killed off, nor constantly attacked, nor are they being denied living and having land.

So what were you saying?

I'm sure if the international community granted Lithuania the state of Connecticut all of the Americans on the East Coast would be willing to work towards a compromise where the Lithuanians are not displaced.

Nice try-- but no cigar!

No soup for you!

And if the "international Community" (btw-- who is that anyway?) granted the Ugandans part of Mongolia...or if the "international Community" granted Paraguay the state of Oregon...or if my computer were a tunafish sandwich...your comment not only makes no sense...but its really rather evanescent...this sort of nonsense is really rather...well, silly.

You win the silly goose award for the week!

Congratulations! 8-)

Analogies are hard, which is why we don't ever use them to illustrate a concept. In our culture, you never really see them outside of the S.A.T., am I right?

Here's one for you. Imagine the UN giving back Manhattan to the Native Americans. What happens next?

Here's one for you. Imagine the UN giving back Manhattan to the Native Americans. What happens next?

It would prbably mesan the end of the UN occupation..well, of the piecwe of Manhattan where their HQ's are.

End the illegal, immoral and war-crimes apartheid genocidal baby-murdering occupation of Indian lands by the U.N. class whores, zionist poodles!

Analogies are hard, which is why we don't ever use them to illustrate a concept. In our culture, you never really see them outside of the S.A.T., am I right?

Nope.

Here's one for you. Imagine the UN giving back Manhattan to the Native Americans. What happens next?

This one is quite good. I'm going to use it in the future.

Here's one for you. Imagine the UN giving back Manhattan to the Native Americans. What happens next?

Nothing.

The UN is a bunch of mainly dixtatoprships--- with zero power-- who love to thear themselves talk. Impotent is an understatement.

Here's one for you-- Imagine the UN wanted to stop a genocide in Rwanda.

What happened next?

Good points, demo scout.

And all jews are the invaders into Arab lands.

Miami is an "Arab land"?

Who knew! :-)

New York is Jewish lands...Who knew! :-)

The Jews stole Manhattan Island from the Indians!

/sarcasm

Oh, and turkey is sliding away on his watch, too.

lol

your right on with the turkish slide. they are starting to align with iran and pulling away from secular government. that is why you hear about "deep state" and ergenekon.

I wonder why Iran hates up, must be that Vacuum again?

And hate up they are!

(More HERE)

he Obama administration's position on settlements is clear, unequivocal and it has not changed

Hillary is a delight-- always good for a laugh :-)

She may the Obama administration's most potent weapon-- although there is always the question of whether sending her into some of these countries might be "a violation of 'international law'" (whatever that is).

Warning: Do not click on the following link if you have something in your mouth-- you may splatter it all over your computer screen! U.S. Condemned For Pre-Emptive Use Of Hillary Clinton Against Pakistan

Marked as no value. Try to add something to the discussion next time.

Perhaps you should read a book.

No thanks, I'll read much more than just one.

Perhaps you should as well =)

Concerned Citizen-1303521--

Um what VERY Concerned-1409238 said was true with this

I agree, Palestine had never existed, and the Arabs do not want them back in their own lands. Too many to support, and it's easier to keep them fighting with Israel.

So how is it of no value?

Already addressed, same reason I didn't respond to your individual posts (sorry, I'm just not in the mood to repeat myself).

Because that is not where the Holy Land was.

Ok-- I'll bite.

Where was it-- in your opinion?

IMO? The entire region with Jerusalem as the center. Of course, I'm replying as a Christian. You have a different version, I'm sure. ;0)

IMO? The entire region with Jerusalem as the center. Of course, I'm replying as a Christian.

I would imagine that not all Christians have exactly the same opinions on this matter...

You have a different version, I'm sure. ;0)

It would appear that you are making the assumption that I am not a Christian...and therefore don't fit your stereotype of what all Christians believe about this :^)

Concerned Citizen-1303521--

Man you can't even address anything, you simply said no value try adding to the discussion, when they DID. You drop your comments as if they are gospel truth and accurate then tell people their comments are no value or they lie.

You can't and won't respond the posts because you are indeed dead wrong. You make no sense.

You should change your name from Concerned Citizen to One Sided Citizen.

I wasn't aware I was addressing you. I would stay away from personal attacks.

As I said, I really am not in the mood to repeat myself. You did not fully read my response in the first place before responding and then have the audacity to say I am not taking part in a discussion. Thank Kshark, but no thanks.

then have the audacity to say I am not taking part in a discussion.

And where did I say this?

I would stay away from personal attacks.

What personal attack? And telling people their posts are of no value and to try adding something to the discussion next time isn't an attack?

In your 12.1 you outright say to that person You're Lying. Then you turn around and get all defensive saying you are being called a liar.

Not fully read your responses? Like hell I didn't. If I didn't I would NOT have responded to your posts. I asked you a simple basic question regarding Palestinian leaders, you wouldn't even answer that.

You have basically made it out that ONLY you know everything and everything YOU say is the absolute truth.

That is quite a farce indeed.

That simple question could have been answered with better reading comprehension (the reason I didn't take you seriously in the first place). See, I never mentioned the formation of the PLO (the year was a reference to someone's death) in my response, neither did he in the original statement that I was responding to. So you jumped in the middle of a "conversation" and asked a pointless question, then get mad at me for not taking the time to address you personally, how very mature.

12.1 read the sentence after. I basically said that it was pointless to say things like that ("there I guess we can go back and forth like that all day"... it was my intent to demonstrate the futility of the original statement and the statement I was mirroring in the post before).

Back to my original response, my intro talks about the faulty logic of asking the questions he asks in the first place. I still chose to answer the questions, but I never took back my reasons for devaluing them in the first place, I merely demonstrated that answers existed to the questions he asked (read his again, he assumes there weren't)

Like hell you didn't? Right.

Not only me, but certainly not you.

That simple question could have been answered with better reading comprehension (the reason I didn't take you seriously in the first place). See, I never mentioned the formation of the PLO (the year was a reference to someone's death) in my response, neither did he in the original statement that I was responding to. So you jumped in the middle of a "conversation" and asked a pointless question, then get mad at me for not taking the time to address you personally, how very mature.

Oh this is priceless, you have too high a regard for yourself, those who are like that are knocked down easily, as that has been shown all through this seed.

So now I am "mad" and "immature" because OH NO how dare I actually ask a question, you couldn't answer. Oh yeah I'm the immature one, no wait opps that is actually you.

Pressing on

12.1 read the sentence after. I basically said that it was pointless to say things like that ("there I guess we can go back and forth like that all day"... it was my intent to demonstrate the futility of the original statement and the statement I was mirroring in the post before).

You whole MO of discussion is "my way or the highway" That is precisely how you operated.

So do provide your sources would you please, I mean after all you quoted such information without a link, plagiarism. I really would like to see your "source" link.

This is the conversation, the REAL conversation you have in the #12subthread

You: (starting at #10.1) with your interpretation of the "facts" False information

BM at 12: Countering your posting with the REAL facts that anyone can actually look up, to where you didn't properly

THEN you chime in call him a liar and that you tell the truth. You then go on saying I am right you are wrong, I know all you know nothing, I spoke the truth you are a liar, i won't continue with this discussion becuase I don't want to be shown I am wrong, I want to stick with my pretend safety blanket of truth.

That is how it all really went. We all can see it we are not blind.

You're simply playing the avoiding game.

I read your responses that is why I am laughing, because they are a joke.

So now please do provide your link of information, where you were able to post all that you did in that 10.1.

Everyone has countered, you, EASILY. I have no idea where you matriculated from with the "history" you think you have, but bloody hell everyone has corrected you that easily. It is more funny than anything and you remain so steadfast and serious and attacking everyone else for actually correcting you.

Yeah that is mature all right. LOL

Ha, this is rich. Of course, you don't want to consider what I said (you even deleted what I referred to when you originally quoted me... how very convenient.... and I am the one accused of "my way or the highway"?)

A question I couldn't answer? You mean didn't answer you right away because I could tell that you weren't worth the time. Again this is due to your lack of reading comprehension, because (again) you ignore what I wrote. There you sit, feeling entitled to personal attention.... though I guess I have myself to blame, because here I sit, giving it to you (hoping you will wake up... knowing you will not)

The fact that you need me to verify some of the information I posted is at the same time laughable and so very sad (I suppose I should congratulate you on the paradox). What do you want me to verify, the Balfour Declaration? The League of Nations? You need me to help you open a book? I am sure even Google can help you there. You really are ignorant of this whole affair. Where/when did you start learning about this issue? Yesterday?

Please, tell me what your definition of "REAL", I have a feeling that it is different than the definition of "real".

You were immature because the question showed you were not following the discussion between us, and like a child you interjected yourself and demanded attention.

"Everyone has countered, you, EASILY" - ah, the mark of desperation. Again, read what I wrote, then come back and discuss.

As to why I have a high regard for myself... yes, I do regard myself in a good light... I wouldn't like myself otherwise... do you think of yourself negatively? But you and VC make it too easy for me not to think of myself well. I will try harder to think less of myself (but again, you will have to try to not make it so easy)

Marked as no value. Try to add something to the discussion next time.

What-- a comment-- in a discussion on NV-- that has..no value?

I am shocked-- shocked I tell you!

and therefore don't fit your stereotype of what all Christians believe about this :^)

I said replying as a Christian. Not all Christians believe the same. I really don't care what your religion is. That's entirely your business as my religion is mine.

I really don't care what your religion is. That's entirely your business as my religion is mine.

What-- that's good to hear!

Its always nice to meet a really tolerant person...especially here on the 'Vine! :-)

:-)

Why were Brian McCallister's comments deleted????

Why were Brian McCallister's comments deleted????

If one or two comments by a person are deleted, it usually means those comments were a violation of the COH. But since all of his were, it probably means his account was closed completely.

If one or two comments by a person are deleted, it usually means those comments were a violation of the COH. But since all of his were, it probably means his account was closed completely.

I had that suspicion which is a shame since obviously his posts were proper here. At least the deletion of his posts got rid of the other gunk too. Ah well.

His posts were over the top. Too bad about the loss of other comments when this happens. It was a new member but his style seemed familiar and the vine is getting tougher on posters with multiple identities.

Notice it says "in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

Actually the Brits gave the bulk of the British Mandate of Palestine to the Arabs-- to form a new country called the Hahsemite Kingdom of Jordan (its now Jordan-- a country of Palestinians + soMe Hashemites).

The smaller part was supposed to be divided yet again-- into a Jewishh and Arab state. But 5 Arab countries invaded, and therefore a new country of "Palestine" was never created. Rather-- the Jordanians occupied the West Bank...and Egypt occupied Gaza-- so a "Palestine" was never created...(later Jordan annexed the West Bank...)

"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

Dropped the ball a little, I'd say.

The problem here is wading into genetic ownership. Residents of Israel and Palestine have several thousand years of regional mingling in their genes so the idea of denying the existence of people based on a political affiliation infringes on human rights.

People generally don't like being told that they don't exist. Marginalizing people based on nationality, "race"(which is an artifact of European discrimination), religion, economics, color, etc has a long history misery brought upon those discriminated against and ultimately upon the discriminators.

If "Palestine" were to be included in a single state of Israel, the new state will have to have a Constitution with equal protections for all. I doubt that such a utopia is possible and the demographics would eventually weaken the idea of a Jewish State. The resilience of both sides leaves only one solution...two states based on 1967.

Every US President since Carter has come to the same conclusion. The clock has run out. Neither side will be completely satisfied but that is the nature of peace.

History books.

Ummm...could you cite a specific source? That's about as useful as defending an argument by saying "everyone knows.."

The joke is kinda lame but there is general agreement that Abraham did come from Mesopotamia, likely bringing with him oral and literary traditions that were the basis for many of the beautiful Biblical stories. The Garden, the Flood, the baby in the rushes and parts of what we recognize as the Creation story itself.

History books.

Ummm...could you cite a specific source? That's about as useful as defending an argument by saying "everyone knows.."

Ummm could you get off your ass and do your own research.

Nope.

its up to the person who makes the claim to defend it...

Forgive my whining LOL, Chris, all I said was that your joke was lame. Other than that I filled in the blanks for Krishna. You're welcome. And the joke was lame but not so bad as some of my occasional flops.

And Krishna, I know by now that you can, on occasion, demonstrate some knowledge of history. In that respect I can understand some (but certainly not all) of the frustration at disingenuous protests like "Source?" If you want to antagonize the critters in the newsvine zoo, get in the cage instead of throwing empty peanut shells at them.

Of course the first, best reference of Abraham's birthplace is Genesis. The most likely descendants of the first inhabitants in the region are in Lebanon but at this point it doesn't matter. We are genetic and cultural hybrids, we are all humans.

Chris

Okay, I see your point and if you could see me while I am reading the vine, you might occasionally see the steam coming out of my ears.

I live in perpetual amazement that humans can justify behavior that would infuriate them if they were on the receiving end. Apparently, walking in another's shoes is an alien concept.

Just goes to show how our efforts to police ourselves on an international level fall very short of expectation. Rwanda being the worst in recent history. The thought that enabling another crisis of ethnic abuses is acceptable to so many almost leaves one to despair.

The US and the UN can't pretend that the status quo will lead to anything but enormous human suffering and loss of life.

We love America, We love Americans,...we hate your government.

I've heard the same thijg.

It seems the Obama administrations' attempts to gain approval are not all that sucessful.

That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.

You are correct. However Barry's Cairo speech (subservience)got the ball rolling and this then became a blocking issue vis a vis peace talks.

There are at least three new "legal settlements" since 1993. The parties also agreed the avoid actions which endanger the peace process. Actually Oslo is either conveniently adhered to or conveniently ignored by both sides. It had no teeth. Any new agreements will require international monitoring. Though neither side trusts the impartiality of any monitors, prolonging the status quo will lead to regional war.

It is interestoing that Abbas has announced that he will not run for another term. This leaves the door open for more disillusion and desperation of the kind that led to the Hamas victory. Who will be next Erekat, Hamas?

The one state solution is center stage again. I don't like it. Demographically it will weaken the Jewish State. But it won't happen without a Constitution that guarantees equal rights for all inhabitants of Israel. The only other solution is "transfer" a very ugly concept that would dump millions of refugees in other states....that is a terribly disturbing prospect that will undoubtedly lead to war.

As for "Barry's" speech, it is a restatement of ideas expressed by American Presidents for forty years. Given the blunder of invading Iraq and at least 200K (some put it as high as 600K) dead civilians, millions of refugees and the destruction of Christian and Jewish communities in Iraq, the US had a lot of fences to mend.

The US cannot protect Israel without maintaining decent diplomatic ties in the region. And because of the Iraq War the US has to renovate our considerable economic and military relationships in the region.

As for talks, the only real impediment is the issue of settlements. The map of the West bank settlements and communities, roads and the wall make a fairly clear picture of Israel's intentions for the last forty years. They are a violation of international law, it is really quite simple except that the laws obviously have no realistic method of enforcement.

Iraq, and other Islamic areas, isn't showing any signs of wanting to make peace yet they constantly demand respect, it seems pointless we waste our time with them.

You are correct. However Barry's Cairo speech (subservience)got the ball rolling and this then became a blocking issue vis a vis peace talks.

Yeah-- but even that wasn't received with the degree of enthusiasm reported in much of the mainstream media:

Barack Obama draws tough crowd in Cairo

"When Obama quoted the Koran — or praised Islam — he got applause. But other lines, such as when Obama vowed to protect the American people from violent attack, were met with stony silence.

(Read it all)

Well, we don't have a good track record there.

W entered Iraq on trumped up BS from the "office of special plans" and managed to kill a minimum of 200K civilians. That won't be easily swept under the rug and countries in the region aren't likely to forget the dead because of a speech. The last administration's idea of protecting us from violent attack is seen by many as a war crime. The Arab countries have little reason to believe that a hundred years of US meddling in their oil supplies and politics will evaporate by the words of one President.

BTW, please don't tell me that everybody believed that there were WMD. I know enough people in the DIA and the CIA who knew that our best intelligence showed no WMD in Iraq. In one administration the US became war criminals, so if there was silence at Obama's remarks, it has to be understood in the context of a century (and one outlaw administration) of American double standards.

The last administration's idea of protecting us from violent attack is seen by many as a war crime.

>Many who? and BTW - it worked. Yet this year along there were more terror plots discovered then for 8 years prior combined. Note - I am not a fan of Bush W. whatsoever.

The last administration's idea of protecting us from violent attack is seen by many as a war crime.

>Many who? and BTW - it worked. Yet this year along there were more terror plots discovered then for 8 years prior combined. Note - I am not a fan of Bush W. whatsoever.

Actually, IMO, the Israelis could say the same thing:

The last administration's idea of protecting us from violent attack is seen by many as a war crime.

Of course, just about anything that Israel does in self-defense is seen by the Arab states-- and their useful idiot apologists in the west-- as "a war crime".
And-- of course those Israeli actions were highly sucessful as well. (Hizb'Allah knw it best not attack Israel again-- and there are almost no suicide bombers hitting Israel...almost no rocket attacks from Gaza. In fact, I recently read where tsome Islamic Jihad people were about to fire off a rocket-- Hamas stopped them-- I don't think Hamas would be too happy if they pissed off the Israelis in a major way!)

But...by whose definition?

By definition of Anti-Semites.

The law for one

Like killing a Muslim women just because she is raped - it is the law

Like killing a sister because she dishonored the family - accepted behavior

Like Somalia now where a male muslim was killed for adultery and the women will be killed as soon as her baby is born - it is the law

You apparently have no concept of right from wrong.