AmirMortal wrote:Sometimes it is beneficial to simplify a problem to see what is at its core.

Yep.

Democrats haven't shown me that they're Pro-Palestinian:

Congress to Palestinians: Drop dead
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 87256.html


Oh and the one protester that speaks out gets thrown in the hospital:
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/americas/201 ... -democracy
http://english.pnn.ps/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=63

Rae Abileah, 28, yelled "stop Israeli war crimes" from the public gallery of Congress, reported Haaretz. Abileah told YNet, an Israeli online news organization, that she was then attacked by members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group.


A press release from a group called Move Over AIPAC said Abileah was taken to George Washington University hospital by police for treatment of neck and shoulder injuries she sustained while being tackled by the alleged

As an American jew, I'm really turned off by the heavy handedness of the IMF and settlements in the West Bank. Never mind the ultra orthodox whackjobs who claim that it's God's will that jews live there. What kills me is that someone is probably making a metric asston of money selling off parcels of land from something that amounts to spoils of war. Never mind the 'defensible borders' argument.

That said, I get a really sick feeling in my stomach when I consider what would happen if the Israelis were indeed pushed into the sea. I'm worried that it would embolden antisemitic nutjobs everywhere in the world. Part of me wants to see Israel thrive at any cost. I don't like that feeling because while I'm not at all connected to my faith in any spiritual way, I find myself reminding my daughter that she, as Goy as you can get, would have been stuffed into a gas chamber just because two of her grandparents were jewish.

Yeah, I hate the feeling. Kind of like enabling an alcoholic family member.

I think 'my' policy for Israel would be the same policy I have for Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Gitmo, etc.

GTFO.

No more money, no more troops, no more American bases, etc.

Simmer down wrote:Some day I'll sit down and research this weird relationship the US and Israel have going. I openly admit there's plenty I don't know but what it appears to be is Israel taking advantage of some Americans' idea that they must maintain Israel in a certain form as part of the end times myth.

How sad it would be if the US has been paying to play in the the christian drama.


Reminder- I'm in the dark on this one.

Although its not the final word on the subject The bible and Sword England and Israel From the Bronze Age to Balfour by Barbara Tuchman is a good start. Its a good read but then again all of her books are good reads.

AmirMortal wrote:Sometimes it is beneficial to simplify a problem to see what is at its core.

In this case you're taking the historical, social and political equivalent of nuclear physics and trying to explain it with 1st-grade arithmetic. I understand the desire to use metaphors to better understand things, but yours is a false metaphor.

Please don't take this the wrong way, because I do not mean to disrespect you, but your statement makes me think that you don't have the time or energy to learn the history, so you're basing your opinions on very little evidence. Just like it is dangerous to try building a nuclear reactor with some plutonium and an elementary school text book, it is dangerous to talk about the mideast without having a good grasp of the history of the region.

Let's leave simplifications and over-simplifications to the Repugs ("death taxes"). The Democratic party has always had a nuanced approach to Israel. Let's remember that it was the haberdasher of Missouri that recognized the State of Israel, and it is doubtful that his great predecessor would have taken the same action as quickly. The upper class in America has historically disliked and opposed Jews. Their social clubs banned Jews as members.

Truman was not among the upper crust. His decision was overtly political in one respect, Jews have traditionally been democrats in overwhelming numbers, so his decision made political sense. It is also believed that his knowledge of the death camps influence his decision, but that subjective element is harder to measure.

The repugs do not have a history of supporting Jews or Israel until fairly recently (at least within my lifetime, so for me that is fairly recent). The change in their party stance can be traced to the rise of Fundamentalist Apocalyptic Protestants as a political force. Their idea is very simplistic, the nation of Israel is directly related to the return of Jesus. Jews and Israelis are all still going to hell, but to get Jesus back we must safeguard Israel until the battle of Armageddon. So you end up with people like Nixon who in public could support Israel while in private could express his hatred for Jews.

A driving factor in the Democratic party's stance on Israel, and the nuanced stance they take, can at least in large part be attributed to American Jews within the party. They want to see Israel uphold certain democratic ideals, and freely express their displeasure when Israel doesn't.
While not a political force (per se) you can see this behavior in John Stewart on the Daily Show. Chomsky took an even harder stance by actively siding with the Arabs against the state of Israel.

So, on one hand you have the Democrats who support Israel but expect better behavior from it and the Repugs with their two-faced and very simplistic "Israel First" policy (as long as it fits into the lowest common denominator of their party members). Mix into this the geopolitical consequences of Truman's recognition of Israel (which resulted in numerous Arab states aligning themselves with the Soviet Union) and what you have left is less like a sandbox and more like "clear as mud."

Finally, as my own opinion, I fail to see all that many avenues of negotiation open to Israel unless the landscape of this "Arab Spring" results in parties ready to accept the reality and future reality of a Jewish state. I sure as hell wouldn't want to waste my time at a negotiating table with parties that proclaim their goal as my destruction. That said, I also fail to see how continuing to build settlements in contested territory is a good public relations move, especially if you have agreed not to do it. You can't say I am against Israel because I am for Israel, but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with some of the decisions they make.

I fail to see all that many avenues of negotiation open to Israel unless the landscape of this "Arab Spring" results in parties ready to accept the reality and future reality of a Jewish state.

Well I think that with the behavior of the Israeli government during the Egyptian revolution, coupled with allowing Binyamin Netanyahu to speak at a rare joint session of congress, and the US moves against a UN approved Palestine; we are not going to see any conventional negotaitions. Also when we examine the blatant, one sided demands by the Israeli government to the PA, we can assess that the previous "negotiations" of the past ten years have been a sham.

I do have hope for change in the region however through the nonviolent Pali movement, the pressure for a Pali state based on the 1967 borders, the unification between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the opening of the Rafah border crossing, With more and more autocratic leaders removed, the Arabs will be able to shape their own destiny, as well as the way they want their foreign policy to look like. This will probably mean increased pressure onto Israel to reconsider how they treat their indigenous population, as well as the Syrian population in the Golan Heights.

While I agree that the Democrats stance toward Israel is largely influenced by the Jewish population that votes Dem.. I feel that as resentment against the "Only Jewish State" becomes generalized, greater numbers of young Jews will get fed up with their counterparts in Israel. I think we're already seeing this by the way.. the heckler at congress was Jewish. My two cents.

If you want to know how Israel treats Americans, go to this site and scroll down to, "Threats to Safety and Security." These are the State Dept travel warnings.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_t ... _1064.html

We have friends who have visited Israel and were detained for hours when they tried to leave causing them to miss flights and having to buy new tickets. Computers, particularly iPads, and cameras were confiscated and they were not allowed to call the US Consulate during hours long interrogations. The reason people ask to not have their passports stamped when they enter or leave Israel is because there are several countries that won't allow you to enter if there is an Israeli stamp in your passport. I've been around the world several times but you couldn't get me into Israel if you held a gun to my head. I sure as hell don't like my tax dollars providing military aid to those bastards. That $6 billion a year could go to education or health care in this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident Heres another example of how Israel can treat Americans in international waters and if I remember correctly frontsight LBJ was a Dem.

The Democrats are Israel's only hope. A Republican Likudnik-enabler isn't going to force the question that is already being asked, and only getting louder: How will Israel be democratic and Jewish when most of its people are Arabs who can't vote? Israel will never have militarily defensible borders, at least nothing that anyone would find comfortable. Suck up the West Bank and there's still Syria and Golan, shut off Gaza and it will be open to Egypt, where who knows what the government will be in 6 months? Lebanon is divided over Syrian influence, but united against Israeli. These realities won't be changed or mitigated by building some flat blocks around the Sea of Galilee.

Israel has to have politically defensible borders, and that means cutting Palestine loose into its own state, ASAP. To do otherwise is to trade the entire future of Judaism in the Middle East for a 50-year lease on East Jerusalem. Keeping the Palestinians under Israeli military and political dominion without representation won't work, just as it didn't work in South Africa or Rhodesia. The result of the status quo will inevitably be an internationally credible movement for Palestinian franchise in Israeli elections, which will immediately be followed by the destruction of Jewish Israel at its own ballot boxes.

The surrender talk, the under-the-bus talk, all of it is bullshit that isn't even meant to protect Israel, it's meant to score cheap points in American politics. Partition is critical, peace is optional. The side with the most to gain from delay is Hamas. The longer the Israelis fuss about settlements, the further they entangle themselves with West Bank developments, the sooner comes Hamas's decisive, final electoral victory.

I have heard the story told like this:
"The Jews worked the land no one wanted and created a kick ass economy and gave jobs to the displaced Arabs who were just sitting around doing nothing."
And I've heard it told this way:
"The jews just rolled in, kicked out all the locals and said 'This is mine now!'"
I suspect neither version is true.

At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, I don't really care how anyone came to be there.
If you go to Israel/Palestine, you're gunna see Jews and you're gunna see Arabs. I don't care about ancient inheritance arguments. "Hey, we're here," is good enough for me.

The current reality is an Apartheid state and that is indefensible.
All other arguments notwithstanding.

Let me say that last part again. The current reality is an Apartheid state and that is indefensible.

Greengunner wrote: Let me say that last part again. The current reality is an Apartheid state and that is indefensible.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In South Africa the blacks were asking for equal rights.
In Israel, the Palestinians don’t want to have anything to do with Israel, and their national charter calls for the destruction of Israel

Israel offered full citizenship to all Arabs in 1948; they rejected it and chose to be refugees. Blacks in South Africa were never offered anything.

Apartheid was about keeping one race down
Israel’s position is one of national security.

Two very different situations.

You are correct.
Israel is not South Africa and South Africa is not Israel.
They are two different places.

In 67 Israel annexed sections of land. Since then, the people who were annexed along with that land have lived under Israeli control.
It’s that last part that, in many people’s opinion, is reminiscent of Apartheid.

Whatever their status was previously, indigenous versus displaced versus refugees versus whatever, that reality was forever changed the day they came to live under Israeli control.
That reality is indefensible (I mean morally and politically, not strategically).

Going forward? I agree with the President. A two state solution based on the 67 boarders is the only viable option.
The idea that the 67 boarders are indefensible (here I mean strategically, not morally and politically) is not an agreed upon fact. It’s not even agreed among Israelis. There are many inside and outside of Israel who advocate a return to the 67 boarders.

If a two state solution based on the 67 boarders is realized and a sovereign independent internationally recognized Palestine becomes nothing more than a launching pad for attacks against Israel, Israel will have to take defensive measures, but at least they would be doing so with absolute moral clarity.

Greengunner wrote:If a two state solution based on the 67 boarders is realized and a sovereign independent internationally recognized Palestine becomes nothing more than a launching pad for attacks against Israel, Israel will have to take defensive measures, but at least they would be doing so with absolute moral clarity.

Precisely.

Simmer down wrote:Some day I'll sit down and research this weird relationship the US and Israel have going. I openly admit there's plenty I don't know but what it appears to be is Israel taking advantage of some Americans' idea that they must maintain Israel in a certain form as part of the end times myth.

How sad it would be if the US has been paying to play in the the christian drama.


Reminder- I'm in the dark on this one.

I am with you. Ignorance is bliss - but will that cause fear of the unknown? I am so confused...

FS: I have to disagree with your original thesis that the Democrats are pro- Palestinian 100%. Both parties overwhelmingly support Israel but the Democrats make a few weak protests on occaision over Israel's apartheid like policy toward the Palestinians.
The notion that the Palestinians never had a nation and therefore do not deserve one is straight out of the colonial handbook. The French said the same thing about Vietnam and Algeria. Hell, the Jews never had a nation either- why do they deserve one more than the Palestinians?
Finally, here are some minor points to address:
1) Since Arabs speak a Semetic language and have a Semitic culture, is it correct to label them anti- semetic? Maybe anti- Jewish, but not anti- semetic.
2) There was an ancient Iron Age kingdom known as Palestine, but the people who settled there were Indo- European migrants from Greece or Sardinia. They were part of a huge migration of Indo- European people known collectively as the Sea Peoples- so called because like the Vikings much later, their prefered mode of travel was by boat. The modern Palestine was a name the British pulled out of their ass to describe their slice of the Ottoman Empire after the Turks surrendered in 1918.

Does anyone disagree that the eventual peace deal will be based on the '67 borders, with land swaps for the major settlements in the west bank and major Israeli Arab villages in Israel Proper, and a division of the old city (east Jerusalem) between the states?

The problem now is that Hamas won't renounce violence or change their charter (which explicitly calls for a genocidal war against Israel and Jews). Until Hamas does that, or until the Palestinian people roundly reject Hamas's authority to speak for them, the two sides are at an impasse. I don't like Netanyahu but the Palestinians are giving him a real opportunity for inaction with the reconciliation of Hamas and Fatah.

How many settlements are there in Gaza compared to the West Bank?

amrev360 wrote:How many settlements are there in Gaza compared to the West Bank?

As far as I know, none in Gaza. When Israel de-occupied Gaza, they removed their military and resettled any Israelis who so opted. A few Israeli citizens stayed, but are on their own. At least that's my understanding.

As far as I know, none in Gaza. When Israel de-occupied Gaza, they removed their military and resettled any Israelis who so opted. A few Israeli citizens stayed, but are on their own. At least that's my understanding.

Do you think that was influenced by the militancy of Hamas and the refusal to negotiate?

Does anyone disagree that the eventual peace deal will be based on the '67 borders

Netanyahu disagrees.

FrontSight wrote:

In Israel, the Palestinians don’t want to have anything to do with Israel, and their national charter calls for the destruction of Israel

Israel offered full citizenship to all Arabs in 1948; they rejected it and chose to be refugees. Blacks in South Africa were never offered anything.

That's not completely accurate. Palestinians have always had "limited citizenship" available to them in Israel and today, on average, 300 Palestinians a year apply for it. They do not have equal rights with the Israelis when they get citizenship, however. The Palestinian National Authority charter does not call for the destruction of Israel. The PNA was created by the Oslo Accords in 1994 and it recognizes Israel's right to exist. That Charter gives the Palestinians self-rule in Gaza and the West Bank and requires that Israel withdraw its military rule from the area. When Israel failed to withdraw, the people of Gaza elected leaders from Hamas who do favor the destruction of Israel. I don't blame them for that. The people of the West Bank have still accepted the PNA and its recognition of Israel's right to exist.

Most Palestinians do not want to be citizens of theocratic Israel. They want their own nation and I don't blame them. [I'm getting a bit tired of living in "Christian America" myself.] Nobody in their right mind would ever want to be a citizen of Israel. Israel has violated every UN resolution that sought to bring about a peaceful resolution to this conflict and it has violated its own agreement from the Oslo Accords.

On Saturday, Egypt stopped the blockade of Gaza and opened their borders to the people of Gaza. The Israelis pissed their pants. On Wednesday this week, Hamas will sign an agreement with the PNA which brings both groups under the control of the PNA. The Israelis are doing everything they can to stop that agreement. A united Palestine is the last thing Netanyahu wants.

Black Eagle wrote:
That's not completely accurate. Palestinians have always had "limited citizenship" available to them in Israel and today, on average, 300 Palestinians a year apply for it. They do not have equal rights with the Israelis when they get citizenship, however.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Anyone who wants full citizenship in Israel needs to serve in the army (well, ok, except ultra-orthodox rabinical students, who have a special clause written in). There are some Druze and other Israeli Arabs who serve in the Israeli army and have full citizenship. It's even a little more complicated than that, but as I understand it from my Israeli friends, in general, to be a full citizen you need to serve in the army or have a waiver granted.

stickman wrote:Actually, that's not entirely true. Anyone who wants full citizenship in Israel needs to serve in the army (well, ok, except ultra-orthodox rabinical students, who have a special clause written in).

It must be pointed out that possessing full citizenship and enjoying all of the rights, privileges, and benefits of full citizenship are entirely separate. As proof-of-concept, it must be pointed out that blacks possessed full citizenship of these United States, but for more than an entire lifetime (1868 to 1948 and more) did not enjoy all of those rights, privileges and benefits.

So with this in mind, I hold no faith that arabs in Israel and Israeli-controlled environs are being given their full due human rights as a matter of course, even should an individual arab be full citizen.

I simply think that the Israelis don't care about citizen or not, they care about Jew or not, and treat non-jews as non-persons. There will, of course, be individual cases that seem different, but the track record of actions speaks louder than mere words or fleeting disparate different events.