|
Post by patrick on Jul 25, 2014 11:14:45 GMT -5
Any chance of moving Texas to Israel? Like the Middle East doesn't have enough insane gun nuts already?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 25, 2014 11:30:59 GMT -5
If we are to ignore the present realities and instead try untangle the threads of ownership woven in and through that much-trampled land ...
The Jews and the Palestinians are both interlopers. The land really belongs to the Hittites, and if fairness is to rule, it should be given back to them.
But, the Hittites stole it from the Kaskians who stole it from the Andorians who stole it from The People Without A Name who stole it from a lost Neanderthal tribe who had eaten the Australpithican Klingonians who had kicked ass on The Look Like Monkey People...
I do believe The Look Like Monkey People were there first, as the land was under thirty feet of water or so until just prior to their arrival. So, as it is unlikely there are any fish tribes that would want the place now, by rights, it should belong to The Look Like Monkey People. And there are still a number of them to be found in central Wisconsin. They are quite devoted to their Packers, but, now with the NFL Network and The Packer Page so easily and widely available, I expect some would consider a return to their homeland, once they were told they had another one.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 25, 2014 11:47:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 25, 2014 11:57:32 GMT -5
If we are to ignore the present realities and instead try untangle the threads of ownership woven in and through that much-trampled land ... The Jews and the Palestinians are both interlopers. The land really belongs to the Hittites, and if fairness is to rule, it should be given back to them. But, the Hittites stole it from the Kaskians who stole it from the Andorians who stole it from The People Without A Name who stole it from a lost Neanderthal tribe who had eaten the Australpithican Klingonians who had kicked ass on The Look Like Monkey People... I do believe The Look Like Monkey People were there first, as the land was under thirty feet of water or so until just prior to their arrival. So, as it is unlikely there are any fish tribes that would want the place now, by rights, it should belong to The Look Like Monkey People. And there are still a number of them to be found in central Wisconsin. They are quite devoted to their Packers, but, now with the NFL Network and The Packer Page so easily and widely available, I expect some would consider a return to their homeland, once they were told they had another one.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jul 25, 2014 12:06:21 GMT -5
Isn't it too big?
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 25, 2014 12:32:06 GMT -5
There's a Mid East video clip (supporting Israeli side of things) that states palestine never had a land of their own. They were controlled by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) Until WWI. Then Briton created a Jordanian state that encompassed Palestine. The Palestinians heave never had their own state. Here's a different (longer) version Shows the Arab nations have never supported their Palestinian bretheran when they had the chance. Instead they only call for the destruction of Israel. That video is most definitely telling only the Israeli side. Actual history is quite a bit more complex. It would take too long to go through every omission and falsehood in it, but I'll just mention a few of the obvious ones from the first part of the video. Jews had never had an independent "state" in Palestine (because a "state" is a modern concept), except for perhaps a Kingdom for 50 years in ancient times. Other than that, it was ruled by the Egyptians, Romans, Ottomans, etc. If that's the criteria, Italians have a greater claim to Palestine than the Israelis. Whether the Palestinians have ever had a state is rather irrelevant, since the Israelis didn't either until the UN decreed both states into existence. In fact, when Theodore Hertzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, was looking for someplace for a state for the Jews, he first proposed southern Argentina, that was refused by the Argentinians. Next he proposed that Britain should give the highlands of Kenya to the Jews, also went nowhere. Palestine was pretty much his last choice, he personally detested the place. The video confuses the Balfour Declaration with the UN Mandate. The Balfour Declaration was issued by the British govt by itself (in fact, mostly just by Lord Balfour, a committed Christian Zionist). During WWII, to get their support, Britain was cynically promising the Arabs independence in Palestine while also promising Jews in Europe they would set up an independent Israel. The UN Mandate covered all lands formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire lost in WWI and now under the control of Britain and France. The Mandate required that the Mandatory powers prepare the people under their control for independence. The British in Palestine quite consciously fostered the Jewish side, providing them with arms and military training and embedding them in the govt, while excluding the Palestinians. In 1940, mostly because of immigration of Europeans fleeing the Nazis, there were possibly 400,000 Jews in Palestine (about 3/4 of them recent European immigrants), compared to over a million non-Jews. And Jews actually owned a small percentage of the land, being mostly clustered in cities while the Palestinians were agricultural. Thus, the proposed division of territory was viewed as grossly unjust, in large part because most of the country was being given to these European immigrants, rather than the Palestinians who had lived there for millennia. At the end of WWII, the Arabs were close to realizing a dream they had had for decades, getting the damn Europeans out and getting independence. That's what happened in all other Mandate countries, the British withdrew from Iraq and Palestine and Jordan and Egypt, the French withdrew from Syria and Lebanon. But at the last minute, a bunch of Europeans show up and set up another colony. That, and the gross injustice of the division, is why the Arabs reacted so strongly. The claim that 7 Arab armies invaded to fight the Jews in 1048 is also non-sense. There didn't EXIST 7 Arab armies. Saudi Arabia had no army to speak of. Jordan's army was still under the command of the British and advanced only into territory they had already secretly negotiated with the Jews would be theirs. The Syrian army didn't invade. A few irregulars crossed the border from Lebanon, but the army never invaded. Could someone please explain to me how the Iraqi army, itself almost non-existent, traveled from Iraq to Palestine? They don't share a border! Reality: the number of Arab troops was about the same as the number of Jewish fighters, who were far better armed and trained by the British. The "solution" to the "problem" of all refugees is to send them home. Who's standing in the way of the return of the Palestinian refugees? I'm writing a book here, which I don't have time for, and I've barely begun. Read Juan Cole's article linked above, as well as "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by Israeli historian Shlomo Sand and you'll get a much better picture of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 25, 2014 13:23:52 GMT -5
... Jordan's army was still under the command of the British and advanced only into territory they had already secretly negotiated with the Jews would be theirs... . Like Jerusalem? Which the Jordanian army attacked and nearly overran? Was Jerusalem part of the negotiated package? Juan Cole's account is as "fair and balanced" as Marshall's account. One seeks to exaggerate the foes young Israel had to overcome (for ideological purposes), the other seeks to belittle and minimize the Arab threat (for ideological purposes). Juan Cole does offer a worthy and useful perspective on the Palestinian issue, but, to put Juan Cole's blog in perspective, it should be understood that, in many respects, it is the "lefty" version of P.J. Media. The perspective has a filter, and facts are chosen and presented appropriately. The battle of the bloggers is just one of the many battles associated with the Middle East and Israel.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 25, 2014 13:56:29 GMT -5
"Juan Cole's account is as "fair and balanced" as Marshall's account. One seeks to exaggerate the foes young Israel had to overcome (for ideological purposes), the other seeks to belittle and minimize the Arab threat (for ideological purposes)."
By what criteria? Juan Cole is a professional historian at the University of Michigan. I don't know who put together that video, but it clearly ignores historical fact. And, yes, those facts can be determined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 15:09:30 GMT -5
"Could someone please explain to me how the Iraqi army, itself almost non-existent, traveled from Iraq to Palestine?"
They went through Jordan, let in by the Jordanians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 15:11:06 GMT -5
Also saying that the "palestinians didn't have a country because they were controlled by the Ottoman Empire" is a good deal. Can we now get off America's collective ass for taking over Native American lands? I mean, we controlled them after we took them, so they were ours, right?
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 25, 2014 15:40:48 GMT -5
Also saying that the "palestinians didn't have a country because they were controlled by the Ottoman Empire" is a good deal. Can we now get off America's collective ass for taking over Native American lands? I mean, we controlled them after we took them, so they were ours, right? I don't understand what you mean by "is a good deal." Different issues. We took Indian lands back when it was acceptable, as was racism, colonialism and slavery. Times changed between 1845 and 1945. By 1945 it was illegal to seize land from others in war and keep it as your own. Israel's major problem is that it is a standard issue European colony, established about 50 years too late. In the 1800's and early 1900's Europeans could go steal whatever they wanted from non-white people. Thus the Germans taking German Southwest Africa, the Belgians taking the Congo, the French, Spanish and British in South America, and the British on just about every continent everywhere. With the establishment of the League of Nations, and later the UN, that is no longer allowed. Hence the winners in WWI did not get to own the various parts of the ME taken from the Ottoman Empire, they had to plan to set them free.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 15:58:38 GMT -5
"I don't understand what you mean by "is a good deal."
Sorry. It's called sarcasm. That's not a good rhetorical tool.
That said, the original reference to the Ottoman Empire, which folded in 1922, is poor rhetoric as well if the benchmark is 1945. I'm not sure why 1945 is any more important to the Palestinians than 1897, 1903, 1917 or 1922.
I'm referencing this quote. "They were controlled by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) Until WWI. Then Briton created a Jordanian state that encompassed Palestine. The Palestinians heave never had their own state."
My point was that was a poor argument. The Palestinians have been living on the same piece of dirt for centuries. If which empire controls the ground is the benchmark for legitimacy, then after 1492, the Native Americans have no argumentative leg to stand on. They "lost" to the West.
I think we agree there are holes in that argument.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jul 25, 2014 15:59:47 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity: 1. Is it okay for Israel to retaliate for being bombed? 2. If so, then how? Simple and easy. Figure out who set off the very first bomb however long ago. Then let the other side set one off and you're done.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 25, 2014 18:46:15 GMT -5
Yes, Juan Cole is historian. So is Victor Davis Hanson. Historians can be found on every side of every issue, and Juan Cole is on the Palestinian side of this issue. Which is fine... good even, as the the Israeli side of history has gotten much more play in this country. Many in this country believe stuff that even the Israeli's themselves think is bogus ("a land without people for a people without a land")
And Juan Cole is also an active blogger, a participant in the Middle East blog wars on behalf of the Arab perspective. I have been reading him on and off for fifteen years or so, and he has had enough pissing matches with Goldberg, Sullivan and others to fill a small lake. And while a political blogger may seem fair and balanced if you agree with him, there are times Cole can make Mark Steyn seem like Walter Cronkite. He can be as unfair and sneaky as the best (or worst) of them.
Consider that bit linked to as support for the claim that Netanyaho instituted a massive search for the three kidnapped boys as a cynical ploy to start a war, as he knew they were already dead. Re-read that link. It is all blogosphere bs. Mean spirited, degrading blogo bs. No different, really, than the rightwing blogos that read Obama's mind and implicate him as being responsible for Bengazi (secret Muslim sympathizer that he is). Yes, security experts are mentioned. In all blogs (and Fox and CNN). Whether for money, spite or ego, there are always plenty eager "insider" experts available to support any position at any time. And the smart ones know what it takes to keep getting called back.
What is Cole's blogo evidence that Netanyaho knew the three kids were dead? A cell phone call that picked up gun shots, a couple groans, and singing? And their car with eight bullet holes in it? That is not proof that three kids are dead. That is proof that their car got shot and one or more of them may likely have been hit by a bullet. It is not proof of three kids dead. That is not a reason to call off a search or to not rattle every likely cage in order to try find the kids. Even if you fear the kids may be dead, you try find them, for they may not be. Even if you know they are dead, which you don't, if you are an Israeli, you do your damndest to find the bodies and return them to their families for a proper burial.
Cole's attempt to put a single cause to Netanyaho's action, a single cause which serves his blogo politics and which denies the possibility of anything decent or just on Netanyaho's part is, outside of the disgusting blogosphere in which he operates, despicable. Any Israeli leader would have gone to whatever lengths necessary to try find those kids, alive or dead, and return them to home. Any Israeli leader.
I do not mean to discredit Juan Cole. He can provide a perspective that is too often lacking. I do mean to say that he, very clearly, swings from one side of the plate.
Beware the Bloggers.
>
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 25, 2014 19:29:30 GMT -5
Reality: the number of Arab troops [who were trained and equipped by the British] was about the same as the number of Jewish fighters, who were far better armed who were equipped and trained by the British. The '48 war was not the David vs. Goliath deal portrayed by the unofficial Israeli PR department, but it was a dangerous time and the outcome wasn't guaranteed. The Arab league had more tanks and aircraft. [the Israeli forces only had two tanks, tanks which showed up when two British tank commanders took off with their tanks and join the fray on the side of Israel] [and there were four Iraqi brigades, one armoured, involved]. King Abdullah did not fight outside of his prefered spots, but he did fight several battles against the Jewish forces while taking control of east Jerusalem and attempting to take control of the rest of it. Jerusalem mattered to both sides, then as well as now. Maybe I put too fine a point to it, but, while Cole is correct in calling it a battle between even numbers rather than the miraculous survival of a courageous few against the teeming hoard of bloodthirsty Arabs, his wording seemed to tilt the battle too far in the other direction, seeming to be dismissive to the very real threat the Jewish forces faced. The arms and intent to destroy were there, even if the Arab forces had some issues with organization at the top and motivation on the bottom. <
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 25, 2014 22:28:55 GMT -5
There is and was no governing body that can make any such thing illegal. France took land from Germany, the Russians took land from Germany etc. 1945 didn't change anything. The UN has no authority to tell any country what to do or not do.
|
|
|
Post by mnhermit on Jul 26, 2014 8:40:38 GMT -5
whoops you guys almost sucked me into this one
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 26, 2014 8:52:37 GMT -5
whoops you guys almost sucked me into this one We'll try harder next time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 10:34:43 GMT -5
I think Israel has to hammer Gaza, hammer it hard, and not stop until Hamas is shredded. And now is as good a time as any. Probably a very good time, given the current chaos in the Middle East. Hamas followed the PLO after Israel hammered them. In the perhaps unlikely event that Hamas is shredded, what might follow Hamas? Hezbollah? Or.... Destroying Hamas won't solve conflict, warns US intelligence headLieutenant-General Michael Flynn says a group more dangerous than the Islamic resistance movement could take its place
Destroying Hamas would only lead to something more dangerous taking its place, a top Pentagon intelligence official warned on Saturday, as he offered a grim portrait of a period of enduring regional conflict.
"If Hamas were destroyed and gone, we would probably end up with something much worse. The region would end up with something much worse," Flynn said at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.
"A worse threat that would come into the sort of ecosystem there something like ISIS," he said.....www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/27/destroying-hamas-wont-solve-conflict-warns-us-intelligence-head
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 27, 2014 11:06:08 GMT -5
|
|