|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Who among you is willing to admit they did not believe Iran wanted nuclear weapons? Talk the talk, now walk the walk!
Iran has always wanted Nuclear weapons, no doubt about it.
I don't think anyone could deny that Iran has always wanted nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons gives you a seat in the world arena and assures that you will at least be heard in the discussion. Everybody knows this. Just why has Korea gotten so much newsprint with their proliferation exhibitions? At first we gave them the technology and even helped them set up their own nuclear power facilities.
Why haven't we just overrun Pakistan even with our disregard for sovereign countries rights? The Bomb that is why.
Foreign governments and regimes have learned from us that we listen to the bomb and we negotiate with the bomb. Don't you want one too?
If Iran struggles to be Nuclear or not. It's their right. No body has the right to stop them specially the failed American State. If Obama wants Nijad to drop off then at the first Obama must drop off his pants.
I agree, they are a stable, responsible and reasonable voice in the region. We can trust our islamic brothers to tell only the truth and to honestly work hard for peace in the region.
I am so, SO sick of the "left." If they had it their way, Israel would be living on dingies at sea and trying their best to find fresh drinking water. One wanna-be-reporter here on hub pages has even suggested that it is somehow okay for those living nearest and/or amongst Jews to lob rockets at Jews -- after all their rockets cannot be aimed very well. Idiot.
"Tackle This:" If you can, LOL. 1) 11/04/2008 was NOT about history having been made. If it were, the honorable Alan Keyes, would have been seeking re-election. Ha, touche!
I am a Christian and proud to be an "Evil right-wing extremist." After all, we are responsible for most of the violent crime in the U.S. I am facetious and the "left" is, by and large, not all that well educated.
If they were, they would bring concrete numbers to arguments concerning abortion, violent crime etc, etc. Idiots.
I really think you are right. Your passion and ire really make the point and validate all your claims. The left must be a bain to your existence and because you think so strongly about it they should be cast out of this country so the right thinkers can finally get it done right.
You seem to be against free thought and sticking to a topic with a firm conversation about the ideas being expressed. You choose to pick a boogey man and turn all your frustration to destroying him so that you can proove you are right.
Not talking to people and listening to what they have to say got us into this whole mess in the first place. You seem to continue to promote this failed way of tackling the issues.
You mean how I wasn't able to stick to the topic at hand when I said: "If the left had their way, Israel would be residing on dingies at sea and searching for palatable drinking water? Nah, that wasn't at all on-point. <snipped - no personal attacks in the Forums>
My we are an angry little man aren't we. I guess the name calling and judgemental tone of your comments only adds to your charm.
The topic is "A Nuclear Iran" Is reading a new skill or do you make it up as you go along. Your penchant to throw up feelings get in the way of trying to take what you say seriously.
If you could put your bias and attitude in your hip pocket for awhile you may just learn something.
If you can look past your nose could you comment on the subject?
I am a Christian too. To me and most Christians around the world the "moral" US Righteous Right seem like a bunch of war mongers. How is that pro life? It's not. You are a contradiction within yourself. Just like the entire US Righteous Right are or as you call them "Evil right-wing extremists". You people have hijacked Christianity in the US to make it something completely different. You are Forcing God's Hand just like the writer Grace Halsell says in her book of the same name. The Customer Reviews will tell you what the book is about. Just the last sentence from the first Customer Review shows how scary and wrong you characters are; "If you are concerned about a racist type of Christianity that's on the rise today, one that does not believe in separation of church and state and is actively trying to convert this nation from a Democracy to a 'Theocracy' then you should read this book." All of the Customer Reviews are worth reading. It would be a good idea to post all of the Customer Reviews on here.
http://www.amazon.com/Forcing-Gods-Hand … 0967401313
Why are you attacking the US? The way you talk all Christians in America are foaming at the mouth and ready to kill there neighbor. Can you differentiate between some American Christians may be unbalanced loons and some not?
If I believed everything I heard about France then I would think the French are all cowards! Canadians are all bastard children of Queen Elizabeth and all Australians were criminals. Its a good thing I can distinguish between good and bad people!
Not all Christians in the US would consider themselves part of the US Righteous Right. The 1st and 2nd Customer Reviews of Grace Halsell's book Forcing God's Hand from the link above clearly shows who she and myself are talking about. They are deceiving a lot of people. Here's the 3rd Customer Review of 19.
"Forcing God's Hand: Why Millions Pray for a Quick Rapture and the Destruction of the Planet Earth throws considerable light on apocalyptic motifs in culture, psychology, and politics. It forces the question, What kind of species are we that we can lock ourselves into a gospel of violence such as found in the Schofield Reference Bible? Halsell has perhaps opened a door for better understanding why the horror fiction of Hal Lindsay and Stephen King excite so many of our friends. What is really scary, however, is the number of people who want to insert the premillennial script into real national and international politics. One other point: Halsell makes it clear that when it comes to the will-to-power-and-to-dominate, the apocalyptic preachers' "Christ" makes Stalin look like a puff of wind. Joe Barnhart, Professor of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas"
This basically explains how people that call themselves Christian can find joy in seeing one group of people entirely subjugate another group of people in the middle east. They don't even seem to care that the group of people that are being subjugated are both Muslim and Christian.
They don't - they just want to prove to the world that they could have them if they want to.
I'm a liberal.
Iran has wanted nuclear weapons for awhile now.
Countries can build up a homeland security policy all they want. When that includes denying another countries right to existence and calling for their extermination that's quite different.
If America were to say such and such a country needs to be wiped out and their population executed then yeah we shouldnt have nuclear weapons either.
I can't blame Iran for wanting nukes though. Its the thing to do these days and all the cool kids are doing it.
Nuclear weapons are going to be more common place as time goes on. Its an eventuality.
For us a nation with thousands of war heads. And the best delivery systems on earth.To sit here and tell a nation with not one. a nation mind you that we have many of our nukes pointed at, for us to sit here and insist that they cant have one and threaten them with war if they do . Is totally unacceptable.i love my country . But we have a huge hypocrisy problem that we must address .i think
Really? When was the last time the government rounded up thousands of Americans and commanded them to chant 'Death to Iran'? Is it part of official US policy that God demands we wipe Iran off the map? Where are the obligatory prayers among Americans that every last Iranian be converted or killed? Is it the official stance of the US government to deny the mass killings of Persians by invading Mongols?
The most obvious Lie ever told and our liberal friends are buying it lock stock and barrel!
Are you saying that you have to be republican to believe that Iran has motives for the development of WMD?
Can you blame liberal thinking people for being cynical, your country has reached record levels of external debt to help finance the last war you had over non-existant nuclear weapons.
You mean WMDs? He used them on the Curds. The fact that he was assembleing materials that are consistant with neuclear weapons doesn't mean anything.
Are we talking about Iran or Iraq here? Because you may, or may not, notice that I have not stated whether I do - or do not - believe that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons.
Well come on then sneako, what are you talking about? What is your argument?
His argument was that we did not go to Iraq seeking Nuclear weapons, we went looking for Weapons of mass destruction! Could there have been Nuclear weapons? Possibly. Was there weapons of mass destruction? Probably, is Sarin gas a WMD? Yes, they had it!
So why did Bush admit that he/America were WRONG.
WMD? ludicrious. You could make a pretty effective WMD out of everyday chemicals purchased from hardware stores.
I am sure it was what the rest of the world needed, for him to grovel. There were WMD's there he used Chemicals on his own people. We took the Country from a mad man who sponsored terrorism, no matter the outcome for US reputation Iraq will be the better for it. And just my opinion I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks of us, there are many more people like me than like the hand wringers!
Then why are we not in Zimbabwe fighting Mugabe? Enlighten me please. If we are the humanitarian police of the world where the were we in Rwanda? Darfur? We invaded Iraq for reasons that were PROVEN FALSE. We didn't invade them because Saddam was bad, we invaded in "retribution" for 9/11, which Saddam had nothing to do with. Now, we are securing nice little oil deals; how convenient!
Tell us about all the oil deal? I guess that's why prices went up?
Why are we not in Zimbabwe fighthing Mugabe?
Because Mugabe does not sit amidst gazillions of crude oil resources, with the power to cause an international energy crisis, which in turn would be disastrous to the global economy.
What a fool they have produced in a wonderful country. Republican's bare respnsibility for this also, it's just that they have NO power now.
If Iran nukes Israel, do you think they will stop there? What about the "fall-out" that wil drop over Arabic countries. Iran does not care.
Here, show me where the button is, I would press it. No problem.
Just to get rid of a load of junkkkkkk that is walking around out there.
Sweetie if someone there is bothering you, you're acctually going to have to ask someone there for help we're in the computer. There you go now, thats a good lass!
Have any of you that are so much better, smarter, wiser, and more right than anyone else, considered that who are we to decide who gets what in the world? That MAYBE Americans are not better than everyone else just for being American?
It was people like you who argued that if we didn't "save" Vietnam, the whole world would fall to Communism. People like you that said we need to attack Iraq so they couldn't use their "WMDs" against us.
What's the matter Harvey, Israel can't fight a war when the enemy has the same technology? Do they only do massacres?
Ok, now go back to telling yourselves how smart you are...
You need a different breakfast cereal! We aren't but we do know a bunch of bull when we hear it. We don't allways think PC is the correct way to be but, not to fear, we have a fine collection of whiners here as well so you would fit in well!
What a joke. Is that your best response? Can't think of anything legitimate to say? Anyway, you are just proving me right. I said that people like you were those that were paranoid of communism and landed us in Vietnam; ever heard of Joe McCarthy? Evidently the MO has not changed: arguments are difficult to respond to, but names are easy to throw around.
I am NOT an anti-semite.
That has to be the most overused inaccurate term in the English language. All of the Palestinians are Semites. Some of the Jews are Semites. You need to pick a different explosive term Texan. Try antizionists.
Israel is not the same as Jewish people. Do you understand this or no? It's really not a difficult concept. I can dislike the actions of the state of Israel, but that does not make me anti-semetic.
You, on the other hand, declared that we should drop a nuke on Afghanistan. According to your rationale, that makes you racist against muslims, and is a much more offensive statement than any I have made.
Maybe you are just a little too anti-intelligent.
You large piece of ****. If I said what you did, you would call me anti-Semetic. We aren't deciding alone smart ass. I was one of YOU during Vietnam. My intelligence taught me to change much of my thinking a few years later.
So you want your kids to sing songs praising Obama! Tell me all of his accomplishments with a Democratic Congress? The short amount of time is no longer a valid argument.
Wow, great insult; you are good at making a fool of yourself. I never asked anyone to praise Obama.
Guess what? There is a difference between Jewish people and the state of Israel. Disagreeing with the policies of Israel is not being anti-semetic.
But, turns out the only way you can argue is by name-calling, as you clearly have nothing intelligent to add. Is that why you must respond 12 times? Couldn't fit it all in one post? Insecure?
he's feeling lonely. on the good side, he did set a new hubpages record for most consecutive posts in a single thread. he broke the old one set by, you guessed it, ol' harve himself.
of course, there is the possibility that he enjoys seeing his name at the top of the forum board for copious amounts of time.
Good point. Let's make a deal. You can have your WMD's, then when us Americans feel the least bit threatened we will flatten the country, and pave a big landing strip in the center for Air Force one.
A country with unstable leadership and peoples makes it too easy to press a button therefore deserving to be a worry worldwide, jus my thoughts.
What makes their leadership more unstable than Israel's? Last I checked, Israel is constantly using their force against neighbors, with civilian death counts greatly outnumbering military.
What makes a population stable? If there is a way to gauge this, I could judge the American population extremely unstable right now.
Thats why we have a system of checks and balances to curb the extreme position.
I chaned my mind, you are an anti-semetic piece of garbage.
Well, everyone still seems to be buying truckloads full of Dollars, including China. Didn't hear anyone wanting some Iranian Rial's. You don't think that says something about stability?
Harvey is a giant tool. It's been terribly obvious that Iran has wanted nuclear weapons since 1979, there's no doubt about that.
Hes a tool because you have to admit the truth about a situation? Who's the tool?
A nuclear Iran looks inevitable now. With the Iraq experience, I don't see Obama or the Europeans doing anything to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
Sanctions aren't going to help prevent Iran going nuclear. It could have been a good first step, but even on that, agreement across the board is missing.
If countries such as China continue to have normal relations with Iran, sanctions just won't hurt!!!
I agree, Sanctions are not going to stop them, they already have the technology and are making the Bombs now. Sanctions are like closing the barn door after the Horse ran out.
We will all see, Iran will cheat us all and one day Iran will be have nuclear weapons and several other countries will be motivated to have it in the same way as Iran. Iran will continue to threaten the world and even Israel won't be allowed to prevent Iran. Unfortunately nothing could be done now, as the whole world got tired of two wars started by Bush.
Where do they get the kryton high speed high voltage switches from and the electron guns?Have they gone beyond production of yellowcake?
Sanctions may work if China stops being the spoiler. I think Russia would come on board on sanctions, but the Chinese have always played spoiler.
These facilities will be operational sooner than the 18 mos that's being stated as I said, the instability would worry me with their 'the eyes of our enemies will be blinded' comment. Scary.
I heard on the ABC radio that Iran would provide full access to the site. Any bets on if they will or not?
The arming of Iran with nukes is most dangerous for India. The only country in between Iran and India is Pakistan, which is also anti-Indian. India being the most-to-be-affected country, our sentiments are never counted by western countries. They seem not to understand what would happen if India succumbs to muslim fundamentalists. They continue arming and aiding Pakistan, in the guise of "drive against terror", Pakistan itself being the hub of terrorists.
Here's an alternative plan.
Speed up the disarmament process. Make all nations that have nuclear weapons eliminate all of them by this time next year. That includes the US and Israel. Assign a body of inspectors to monitor this process. The inspectors should only come from nations that do not have nuclear weapons, aka peaceful countries. Then closely monitor all scientists that have the knowledge to build nuclear weapons. Capture and purge all written knowledge to build nuclear or atomic weapons. Purge these despicable weapons out of existence. This may have to include the purging of all nuclear power generating stations and knowledge to build them, they are not safe anyway. The results would be a huge sigh of relief heard around our little planet.
Texan I know that not all Texans are haters like yourself but many are. Because of people like you Texas has been dubbed the hate state.
In an ideal world - that would be a good idea. But, realistically, is that workable? I mean would the countries that have them ever give them up? The honest answer to that would be a big NO.
So, idealism aside, what are the realistic options? Talking about Iran - from what Ahmedinejad keeps saying, it is a frightening thought to visualize a nuclear Iran!!
It is not workable or realistic if it is not initiated Shil. But the process has been started again just 6 days ago. Yeah it must be a frightening thought for Iranians and people of other countries in the middle east that Israel has nuclear weapons as well.
Russia, U.S. start new round of nuclear disarmament talks
"GENEVA, Sept. 21 (Xinhua) -- Negotiators from Russia and the United States opened here on Monday a new round of talks aimed at a replacement for the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I).
The closed-door talks were opened at the Russian mission to the United Nations Office in Geneva, and they would later be transferred to the U.S. mission, diplomatic sources said, adding that discussions may last two weeks.
Five rounds of full-fledged talks have been held between the two sides since Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama agreed in London in early April to start talks for a new arms reduction treaty."
Also on September 23, 2009 "Gordon Brown has said he is willing to cut Britain's fleet of Trident missile-carrying submarines from four to three as part of global disarmament efforts."
Britain Ready To Cut Nuclear Sub Fleet
This is a good start but it needs to be sped up. It would be nice to see all nations that have nuclear weapons join in this disarmament process, including Israel.
MM - honestly, the whole disarmament process is a PR exercise. No one would oppose it publicly. They would all say the right words in front of TV cameras, but I ain't betting that we'd see disarmament of nuclear weapons in 5 years or 20 years. Its a genie that ain't gonna go back in the bottle.
Well it is certainly not going to go back in the bottle with that attitude. That is a defeatist attitude. With enough opposition to nuclear weapons by people of all nations heard around the world it would definitely speed up the process.
Personally, I ain't one to look at things negatively. However, I admire the fact that you hold our world leaders in such high esteem and expect that they would be honest in their efforts at disarmament.
People around the world aren't given to demonstrating on such issues and building pressure on the politicians. Countries continue to pursue policies that suit their real or perceived interests. So, I ain't counting "people" to play any role in nuclear disarmament!!
Shil I do not hold our world leaders in high esteem. Demonstrating against nuclear weapons has put pressure on the politicians in the past. If the demonstrations increase so will the pressure on the politicians to speed up the process. I do not see sanctions on Iran doing anything. What might make a difference to Iranian leaders is if Israel starts a disarmament process themselves.
Oh that would make a difference alright. The difference is that they would be thrilled and Israel would soon cease to exist.
I did not say that Israel should eliminate all of it's nuclear weapons immediately. If Israel started a process of nuclear disarmament it would at least be an olive branch for peace and a start. "According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75–200 (nuclear) weapons." If it is on the high side then Israel has more nuclear weapons than North Korea and possibly India and Pakistan.
For security the world needs more than Non-Proliferation (testing of new weapons). Nations need to eliminate the stock piles held today. Our planet would not survive a world nuclear war. It is insane that all nations that have nuclear weapons stock pile so many of them.
If someone stood in front of you with a stick of dynamite in their hand with a burning fuse and said in no uncertain terms that they hated you and that their most sacred responsibility was to see to it that you cease to exist, would your first inclination be to extend an olive branch? How would it work out if you did?
That is what Israel is to other nations in the middle east. To be a little diplomatic you have to look at both sides of the equation.
This doesn't make sense. It was Israel who was attacked by the Arabs at least three separate times.
To which country has Israel said it is their national mission (as ordainef by God) to see it wiped from the map?
Palestine and have you seen their plans for Greater Israel.
Palestine. Except they didn't say it, they just did it.
Just because you say so? Sorry pal, it's true. Israel claims that the land of Israel is theirs because it is promised to them by god (i.e. a natural mission ordained by god, as you said). But wait, there were already muslims living there. There was no official state because the British controlled it, it wasn't just some open land that nobody claimed yet. Who was there before the British? Oh, right, the muslim Ottoman Empire.
No, because there is not, was not, but hopefully will be, a country named Palestine. That's why.
Thanks for playing.
And a 621-year old empire, one of the largest and longest-running in history that covered over 13 current nations, doesn't count as an "official state" for you, eh? I never said there was a country named Palestine, just that a muslim entity existed, it was not just open space as you make it seem.
Good, because there wasn't. I think I made that pretty clear.
I didn't say that. Plenty of words in my mouth without you trying to put more in there, thanks.
And no "official state" before the British either.
Hmm, seems you did say that. I was making the comparison between what you said about, presumably, Iran with Israel.
That's not true. When Israel became a country the Arab countries around it said that they were going to attack and that the Muslims should clear out so that they don't get hurt. The Muslims that left, and expected to come back after the Israelis were slaughtered, are the displaced Palestinians. The Muslims that are living in Israel were the ones who stayed and actually many of them fought for what they consider their country too.
Yes, it is. Your missing the point. Israel just declared that the land was theirs, because god said so. Most of the Palestinians who don't think this is right are stuffed into Gaza, a giant slum whose water, electricity and other essentials are controlled, and often just shut off, by Israel. Israel is building neighborhoods (settlements) in Palestinian territory illegally, hoping that when the time comes to make two states, that territory will become theirs because it is predominantly Jewish.
The last "official state" was the muslim Ottoman Empire, which lasted hundreds of years, so don't say it was just empty land ready for the taking. I suppose you think there was nobody in North America when the settlers arrived as well? Makes for convenient history.
Any other words you want to try and put in my mouth?
"illegally" is an oh-so-dramatic term, but not an accurate one in this case.
Illegal = AGAINST THE 4TH GENEVA CONVENTION. Need it any more accurate?
Since when has the Geneva Convention been part of islamic affairs? Nice try.
All your posts are meaningless and do not address any arguments. Thanks for playing though.
some pertinent history people should consider and know before posting in this type of discussion.
Some real facts if you will read them please?
ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, ISRAEL HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO ALL OF THE LAND WEST OF THE JORDAN INCLUDING THE WEST BANK. Of course the PLO and the Arab terrorists claim the West Bank as their own. However, we must look at the evidence for the truth: the Balfour Agreement. Below is a summary of the events.
In 1517, the Turks controlled the Middle East for 400 years. In 1917, the British won the war due to the help of the brilliant Jewish chemist Cheim Weizman. As a result, Lord Balfour gave the Jews their homeland consisting of all of Jordan and the land west of the Jordan River. This was called the Balfour Agreement.
In 1920, the League of Nations ratified the Balfour Agreement. In 1922, under pressure from the Arabs, the British and the League of Nations took away Jordan. The Jews and the Arabs signed this agreement. In 1947, the UN offered the Partition Plan, but the Arabs rejected it. When the United Nations recognized Israel as a nation on May 14, 1948, the Arabs declared war on Israel. Israel defended herself, but Jordan took the West Bank. In the 1967 war Israel took back the West Bank which was legally hers by international law.
Below is more information on this agreement:
Historical Importance: The 1917 letter that made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.
Dates: November 2, 1917
Overview of the Balfour Declaration: The Balfour Declaration, a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild in which the British made public their support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, was a product of years of careful negotiation. After centuries of living in a diaspora, the 1894 Dreyfus Affair in France shocked Jews into realizing they would not be safe from arbitrary anti-semitism unless they had their own country. In response, Jews created the new concept of political Zionism in which it was believed that through active political maneuvering, a Jewish homeland could be created. Zionism was becoming a popular concept by the time World War I began. During World War I, Great Britain needed help. Since Germany (Britain's enemy during WWI) had cornered the production of acetone -- an important ingredient for arms production -- Great Britain may have lost the war if Chaim Weizmann had not invented a fermentation process that allowed the British to manufacture their own liquid acetone. It was this fermentation process that brought Weizmann to the attention of David Lloyd George (minister of ammunitions) and Arthur James Balfour (previously the British prime minister but at this time the first lord of the admiralty). Chaim Weizmann was not just a scientist; he was also the leader of the Zionist movement. Weizmann's contact with Lloyd George and Balfour continued, even after Lloyd George became prime minister and Balfour was transferred to the Foreign Office in 1916. Additional Zionist leaders such as Nahum Sokolow also pressured Great Britain to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Though Balfour, himself, was in favor of a Jewish state, Great Britain particularly favored the declaration as an act of policy. Britain wanted the United States to join World War I and the British hoped that by supporting a Jewish homeland in Palestine, world Jewry would be able to sway the U.S. to join the war. Though the Balfour Declaration went through several drafts, the final version was issued on November 2, 1917, in a letter from Balfour to Lord Rothschild, president of the British Zionist Federation. The main body of the letter quoted the decision of the October 31, 1917 British Cabinet meeting. This declaration was accepted by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922 and embodied in the mandate that gave Great Britain temporary administrative control of Palestine.
In 1939, Great Britain reneged on the Balfour Declaration by issuing the White Paper, which stated that creating a Jewish state was no longer a British policy. It was also Great Britain's change in policy toward Palestine, especially the White Paper, that prevented millions of European Jews to escape from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine.
The Balfour Declaration (it its entirety):
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Arthur James Balfour
If you care to hear the other side of the argument read on.
On November 29, 1947, the night partition was announced in Palestine, Zionist settlers danced through the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. When some dancers burst onto David Ben-Gurion's study, he hurried them away and returned to poring over military maps. The maps showed that over one-half of all Jewish settlers lived in three major cities, while the Palestinian Arabs lived in every city and in Arab villages throughout Palestine. Ben-Gurion studied each Arab village, focusing on the details of its strategic importance, its inhabitants, and its surrounding terrain.
Ben-Gurion had already ordered a secret mobilization of all soldiers in the Zionist army, the Haganah, and in the Palmach, the assault troops of the Haganah. Earlier in November, four special agents had departed for Europe with three million dollars of credits raised in the United States. Their mission was to buy rifles, machine guns, airplanes and artillery. In the outlying kibbutzim, secret arms factories, built from smuggled materials supplied by American Zionists, turned out small arms. Zionists were negotiating with Czechoslovakia for a large arms purchase.1 Ben-Gurion was preparing a military offensive designed to seize much more of Palestine for the Zionist state than the United Nations had assigned to it. He called this offensive "Plan Dalet." It would begin as soon as enough British troops withdrew from Palestine.2
For Palestinian Arabs, the threat of war hung heavy in the air the night of partition. They listened to the wild celebration in the streets. They talked of how to defend their nation in the upcoming fight. No arms were arriving from Europe for the Palestinians. The weapons they possessed dated from the 1936 rebellion. In all of Jaffa, there were only eight machine guns. The British Emergency Laws, enacted during the 1936 Palestinian rebellion, still condemned to death any Palestinian found with a gun. Two small Palestinian guerrilla groups had continued to train in the hills throughout the Second World War. The only central leadership, the Arab Higher Committee, had been banished ten years ago. Recently re-formed, it no longer had the power to rally Palestinians behind it. The Palestinians faced a Zionist military that was perhaps the best led and best organized of all European settler armies.
The hopes of many Palestinians turned to the other Arab countries. The Arab League, formed at the end of the war to coordinate the activities of Arab countries, was quick to issue scores of statements expressing solidarity with the Palestinians. But it failed to train Palestinians or to provide them with arms. Arab leaders depended on Britain and the United States to maintain their power. Several, like Prime Minister Nuri es-Said of Iraq, were more employees of Western oil companies than independent leaders. They did not want to challenge imperialism by giving full support to the Palestinians.
There were those among the Arab peoples, however, who had an understanding of Western imperialism born from decades of resistance. Through demonstrations and in organizations, they pressured their governments to do more than pay lip service to the Palestinian cause. Some Arab organizers suggested a powerful weapon: an oil boycott against the United States and Britain. In 1947, Syria had refused to sign an agreement with the United States to complete an oil pipeline. Workers in Lebanon and Transjordan stopped work on the line in enthusiastic support. But King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia sabotaged the work stoppage to protect the royalties that flowed directly into his palace from the profits of United States oil corporations. Palestinians understood from betrayals like this that they could expect only token help from the Arab governments.
In December 1947, the British announced that they would withdraw from Palestine by May 15, 1948. Palestinians in Jerusalem and Jaffa called a general strike against the partition. Fighting broke out in Jerusalem's streets almost immediately. The Zionists were prepared to seize every opportunity to escalate the fighting. A lightning war was their only hope to defeat the Palestinians, who outnumbered the Zionists and lived in all parts of the partitioned country. A lengthy battle could only favor the Palestinians. Violent incidents mushroomed into all-out war.
Zionist soldiers invade a town.
Palestinians fought in small guerrilla bands, in village militias, or in the ranks of the Arab Liberation Army, a poorly armed force of a thousand Palestinians and three thousand volunteers from other Arab countries. The people of Palestine supported the fighters as best they could. Women organized groups called "daisy chains" to smuggle arms into the hills, to dig trenches and to organize medical supplies. Casualties were high. By February the Palestinians were outmatched with twenty-five thousand Arabs fighting fifty thousand Zionist troops.3
Throughout the winter of 1948 Haganah and Irgun soldiers carried out night raids on Arab villages. The Haganah defined the purpose of these raids as "not to punish but to warn." Soldiers attacked quiet villages that had not been involved in the fighting to demonstrate "the Haganah's long arm."4 Haganah troops entered a village and silently placed dynamite around the stone houses, drenching the wooden doors and window frames with gasoline. Then, stepping back, they opened fire with their guns. The sleeping inhabitants died in the explosion and fire that destroyed their homes.5
Such "warnings" caused some villagers to flee their homes, but often only to another part of Palestine, no far enough away for the Zionists. The Zionist goal was to "clear the land" of its Arab inhabitants, but Palestinian leaders urged the people to stay and fight. In March Ben-Gurion put Plan Dalet - an all-out attack throughout the whole of Palestine - into effect.6 At the heart of his strategy was the systematic expulsion of the Palestinian Arab population. As long as most Palestinians stayed in Palestine, the Zionists could not win a decisive victory.
The attack began with the use of psychological terror. On March 28, the Zionist Free Radio broadcast this warning in Arabic:
Do you know it is a sacred duty to inoculate yourselves against cholera, typhus and similar diseases, as it is expected that such diseases will break out heavily in April and May among Arabs in the cities?7
Such broadcasts were not directed at Palestinian soldiers. Their purpose was to create fear in villagers, farmers and families in the cities and encourage them to flee. At Deir Yassin, a small Arab village near Jerusalem, psychological terror turned into a full-fledged massacre.
Deir Yassin was a quiet village. Its inhabitants had cooperated with the Jewish Agency and kept Arab troops out of their town.8 On April 9, Irgun soldiers entered the village and told the residents they had fifteen minutes to abandon their homes. Then the bands of soldiers attacked. In a few hours, the Irgun had murdered two hundred fifty-four people - men, women and children - in cold blood.9 Over the protests of the Jewish Agency, Jacques de Reynier of the International Red Cross visited Deir Yassin a few days later. He met the soldiers of the Irgun in the process of "cleaning up." This is what he reported:
I found some bodies cold. Here the "cleaning up" had been done with machine guns, then hand-grenades. It had been finished off with knives, anyone could see that... As the [Irgun] gang had not dared to attack me directly, I could continue. I gave orders for the bodies in this house to be loaded on the truck, and went into the next house, and so on. Everywhere, it was the same horrible sight. I found only two more people alive...10
The Irgun took the few survivors to Jerusalem and paraded them through the streets as crowds spit upon them. Although the Jewish Agency piously condemned the massacre at Deir Yassin, the Irgun was admitted to the Joint Command of the military with the Haganah the same day.11 The actions of the Irgun served the Zionist plan well. The destruction of Deir Yassin, which was skillfully publicized by the Zionists, sparked an exodus of Palestinian families who feared a similar fate. During the joint Irgun-Haganah attack on the Palestinian quarter of Haifa, the news of the massacre which had occurred twelve days before convinced many to flee.
On April 21, 1948, the British commander of Haifa advised the Zionists that he was withdrawing his troops. He did not tell Palestinian leaders. At sundown the Zionists began their attack on Haifa Arabs with Davidka mortars, which hurled sixty pounds of explosives about three hundred yards into the crowded Arab quarter. Barrel bombs, which were casks filled with gasoline and dynamite, rolled down the narrow alleys and crashed, creating an inferno of flames and explosions. Haganah loudspeakers broadcast "horror recordings" that filled the air with the shrieks and anguished moans of Arab women, interrupted by a booming sorrowful voice that called out in Arabic, "Flee for your lives! The Jews are using poison gas and atomic weapons!" As Palestinians fled their city, the Irgun commander reported that they cried, "Deir Yassin! Deir Yassin!"12
Palestinians flee Jaffa.
Within a week the same psychological blitz," as the Zionists called it, emptied the port city of Jaffa, a city designated as part of the Arab state. Only three thousand of he eighty thousand Arabs of Jaffa remained. Jon Kimche, a Zionist historian, reported that the soldiers "commenced to loot in wholesale fashion... Everything that was movable was carried from Jaffa [and] what could not be taken away was smashed."13 From the fertile fields of Galilee to the fortress city of Acre, the Zionist campaign drove the Palestinians from their homes, their villages, their lands. The several hundred thousand who remained lived under Zionist occupation.
During that fateful April of 1948, eight out of the thirteen major Zionist military attacks on Palestinians occurred in the territory granted to the Arab state by the United Nations.14 By May 15, as the British ended their long rule over Palestine, three hundred thousand Palestinians were exiles, living hand-to-mouth in the Jordan valley, Lebanon and Syria. The Jewish Agency cynically announced that the exodus of Arabs from Palestine was due to "flight psychosis."15
Ben-Gurion proclaims the State of Israel.
"Proclaim the State, No Matter What"
On Passover, April 24, Ben-Gurion had announced at a victory feast in Jerusalem: "We stand on the eve of a Jewish State." He had already set the date in his mind. As the British ended their rule on May 15, 1948, the Zionists would begin theirs. Ben-Gurion planned to cut off the lingering debate in the UN about the partition plan by confronting the world with the actual existence of the new state. Chaim Weizmann, the elder statesman of Zionism, telegraphed his advice: "Proclaim the state, no matter what else ensues."16
Zionist leaders approached President Truman and worked out the details of U.S. recognition. At 6:00 p.m. on May 15, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the existence of Israel. Eleven minutes later, President Truman cabled American recognition of the Jewish state.
A messenger rushed into the United Nations to inform the members of the turn of events; even the U.S. ambassador had not been informed. Arab delegates charged that the United Nations had again served as a backdrop for the maneuvers of the United States. The Soviet Union, still hoping that the creation of the new state might mean an end to imperialist control of Palestine, added its recognition a few days later.
People in the Arab countries knew better. The news of Deir Yassin and other violent incidents had created an intense concern and anger over the fate of the Palestinians. As Committees for Palestine called meetings and demonstrations throughout the Arab countries, Arab leaders knew they had to respond. The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill-equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts. King Abdullah of Transjordan, the official commander-in-chief, was busy negotiating with British and Zionist leaders for a slice of Palestine.17 Abdullah wanted to attach to his own kingdom any Palestinian territory not occupied by the Israelis. He promised that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements.18 Under Abdullah's self-serving leadership the armies of the Arab League had little effect. A few individual units - most notably those of young Egyptians - fought fiercely, but often with no support from their generals. Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off the "overwhelming hordes" of five Arab countries!
In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified. British Major Edgar O'Ballance described the new phase:
[T]he Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory, as at Ramleh, Lydda and other places. Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country, the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them.19
On July 11, 1948, Moshe Dayan led a jeep commando column into the town of Lydda. Rifles, Sten guns and submachine guns blasted at everything that moved. Within minutes, the streets were silent, strewn with corpses of men, women and children.20 The next day, the Israelis seized the adjoining town of Ramleh. Loudspeakers announced that all Arabs had forty-eight hours to leave. Israeli soldiers stripped each person of all belongings - even food - at the bridges leaving the town. As Israeli troops sacked the town, a hundred thousand Palestinians began a painful march into exile.21 For three days, without food and water, the refugees walked in the sweltering sun towards the Transjordan hills. Many old people and children died of thirst.
"An Insuperable Problem"
When the fighting persisted and it became clear that the partition plan had broken down, the United Nations sent a mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, to try to arrange a cease-fire and to secure the rights of the Palestinians. Numerous cease-fires which he arranged broke down as the Israelis continued their drives into Arab territory.22 Bernadotte urged Israel to allow the Palestinians to return to their homes. Israeli Foreign Minster Moshe Shertok replied: "On the economic side, the reintegration of the returning Arabs into normal life... would present an insuperable problem."23
In reality, the "problem" was that the new state depended on the homes, land and shops left behind by the exiled Palestinians. New Jewish settlers were already arriving, moving into Arab houses and reopening Arab businesses. The wealth of the exiled Palestinians - 80 percent of the land, 50 percent of the citrus groves, 90 percent of the olive groves, and ten thousand shops - was needed to build the new state of Israel.24
Bernadotte continued to press for Palestinians' right to return. His reports documented the forced flight of the Palestinians and their desire to return once peace was established. Finally on September 17, members of the Stern Gang assassinated Bernadotte. Waves of shock rippled through the United Nations and Western capitals at the news of his murder. New pressure mounted on Israel to accept a cease-fire. On January 7, 1949, a prolonged cease-fire went into effect. The new state of Israel encompassed 80 percent of Palestine! The key to victory had been the forcible eviction of the Palestinian Arab population. Chaim Weizmann observed that exodus of the Palestinians was a "miraculous simplification of our tasks."25
The Western world celebrated the birth of the new state. In America, Senators, members of Congress and the President applauded the "miracle of Israel." A rush of books and articles, like the best-seller Exodus, told the story of Israel as the victory of a valiant and intelligent people, the Israelis, over hordes of dark-skinned, dishonest and backward Arabs. The story had the drama of the popular Hollywood Westerns that dominated the American screen. It also had the same point: the attack on native people and the conquest of their land, whether Palestinian or Indian, was not only legitimate, but courageous and inspiring. It was a useful lesson to teach as American leaders launched the Cold War. It helped mobilize the American people behind the U.S. drive to seize the resources of other countries. An atmosphere of fear and hatred of "backward and uncivilized" people, from the Koreans to the Arabs, gripped the country. Israel represented a victory that both recaptured America's pioneer days and gave Israel's American supporters an emotional stake in U.S. domination of the Middle East.
The truth about the Palestinian Arabs lay buried in this avalanche of propaganda. In 1959 an American Jew, Nathan Chofshi, who had settled Palestine in 1908, wrote to the American Jewish Newsletter, protesting an article by Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan. Kaplan had argued that Arab leaders told the Palestinians to leave. Chofshi wrote:
If Rabbi Kaplan really wanted to know what happened, we old Jewish settlers in Palestine who witnessed the flight could tell him how and in what manner we, Jews, forced the Arabs to leave cities and villages which they did not want to leave of their own free will. Some of them were driven out by force of arms; others were made to leave by deceit, lying and false promises.26
Over seven hundred fifty thousand Palestinians had been driven out of Palestine to create the state of Israel.27 King Abdullah annexed the Palestinian West Bank to Transjordan, renaming his enlarged kingdom simply Jordan. King Farouk of Egypt took over the administration of the Gaza Strip. Palestine disappeared from Western maps.
The people of Palestine did not forget. The memories of the terror of the spring of 1948 mingled with the memory of other springs in Palestine, when the land was theirs and grew under their care. Ghassan Kanafani, an exiled Palestinian writer, described the flight of his family from Jaffa in a story called The Land of Sad Oranges. He recalled
... the long queue of lorries, leaving the land of oranges far behind and spreading out over the winding roads of Lebanon. Then I began to weep, howling with tears. As for [my] mother, she eyed the oranges silently and all the orange trees [my] father had left behind to the Jews were reflected in his eyes; all the wholesome orange trees he had acquired one by one were visible in his face and glistened through the tears he could not check, even in front of the officer. When we arrived in Sidon that afternoon, we had become homeless.28
Here's what really happened.
I replied to your above post, that's the same as this that you put in that other thread with this below Dutchman.
In the other post I also found and posted the opposit opinion the Palestinean side, and said that They, the Powers at the UN that were making that decision screwed this up, forced them togeather, and illegaly split the land. that all those Powers making that decision should take a bow for the disaster that happend and still is happening today. I agree with you totaly.
I did not post all of that here, as I ran out of time. I am posting at work in- between things going on in the computer room, and should have waited till quiet time at home to really post it all correctly. My Bad!
That's right dutchman, forced them together and illegally split the land. The powers that are responsible for making this happen and allowing it to continue for so long should be responsible for correcting the problem. At the very least the UN Security Council members should not have any biased veto power for one side in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict or any conflicts with Israel and it's neighboring countries. The veto power of the UN Security Council members, particularly one of the members and I believe we all know which one that is, is the reason why this problem has gone on for so long.
That's good news Ralph.
What split law did they break? So let them fight it out all against one and if the 'all' lose you would support Israels right to do what ever they want and keep whatever they take? You surely wouldn't want to keep doing it over and over again until you get the result you want, do you?
The Balfore Decloration took ex Turkish empire land awarded to Palestine by treaty and gave it to Israel. Wihout consent of the Land owners. They did it by a US, English and Russian voted decloration in the UN, not by the world court, and or full International law. And without Palestinean consent. Gave thrm no say in the Matter.
I didn't say it was just empty land ready for the taking. What I'm saying is there were no official countries with borders in that part of the world prior to the British taking over the area. Additionally that area that was seen as the Palestine region was split. Two-thirds went to the Muslims and became Jordan and the other third went to the Israelis. It was the Muslims who were always complaining. And they continue to complain because they were jealous that the Israelis were a successful nation while the surrounding Muslim countries were such backwaters. Look at what happened to the Gaza Strip. Since the Palestinians took over they've been threatening the Israelis and destroyed the greenhouses. The greenhouses under Israel was very productive and allows them to export produce. The Muslims cut off their nose in order to spite their face.
I take exception to your statement that "And they continue to complain because they were jealous that the Israelis were a successful nation while the surrounding Muslim countries were such backwaters." The argument that the muslims in the area were jealous of what the Israelis did in developing the land is a mute point among many in your argument. The development of the land came after the stealing of the land and how could you distinguish the difference between jealousy and being wronged?
The fact of the matter remains that the Israelis with the help of the UN and its' main backer the US took the land from the muslims in the area and set up their own government and country. That is wrong in anybodies book. If you want to make excuses like the land was not utilized properly or undeveloped or unorganized is not valid because it violates the rights of the people there. This is not a matter of spilled milk it is a living, breathing cause to reclaim land taken unjustly.
I mentioned the successful use of land as the reason for the Muslims being upset with Israel and their continuing efforts to eradicate the country not to say that Israel deserves the country.
You can't say that Israel stole the land. Jewish people moved there, bought the land and worked it. Everybody lived together and it was not a problem until they got too successful and that's when the fighting started.
"Bought" the land? What was the war of '48? Muslims and Jews have been fighting ever since (and before); nobody waited until Israel got "successful."
Only after Israel had been established -- militarily -- did they start selling the land that wasn't exactly theirs in the first place at very low interest rates to Jewish settlers. The theory is clearly that if there are so many Jewish people living in the area, it only reinforces the state of Israel and makes it difficult for a Palestinian state (with any decent cut of the region).
I'm glad you brought up the war of 1948. Newsflash: The Muslims lost. The Israelis won and winner takes all. In fact the Muslims lost every time.
Newsflash! the US backed them and still are with weaponry and technical support as well as 3 billion dollars in aid. Why don't the Arab nations rise up and overtake Israel now. Newsflash! The US backs Israel and they ( The Arabs) need our dollars to live the way they want.
We have no business supporting Israel anymore. Sixty years of support is enough!
So what? You think the Muslims weren't being supported by the Soviets then? Where do you think they got their arms? Either way, each side had to use their own men to fight and the Israelis were outnumbered and the Muslims still lost. Three times.
If what you say is true then because the Soviets backed the Arabs and they lost the issue is dead? Are the Soviets continuing to help out the Arabs in their efforts to recliaim their land. No but you bet we continue to back the Israelis because it is the right thing to do. Wake up and smell the coffee! We are still involved in supporting Israel because you cannot attain the presidency without the jewish lobby. It has no noble cause other than that.
I don't think that Israel has no right to exist I just don't want to pay them to do it either politically or monetarily. Sixty Years Is Enough! Let them stand on their own.
Wow. I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the jewish lobby. OK I understand where you're coming from now.
Well, this is my final word on it. Normally when people fight over land the winner takes all, that's just how it's been. You think there should be an exception when it comes to Jews winning. I don't. Nothing you or I are going to say anything that will change each other's mind. So it's been a good discussion but we'll just agree to disagree.
I feel uneasy about your inferrence to I know where you are coming from as to what the conotation that could mean but I will accept your agree to disagree.
Perhaps if you have the time you may wish to read this. It may help. http://www.newjerseysolidarity.org/reso … ter08.html
I realize this argument is going nowhere, and only proves that the real conflict will never see an end in which everybody is happy.
However, flightkeeper, you continue to prove yourself wrong. First you say Jewish people came and "bought" the land and worked it. Then you say no no, they came and killed the Arabs (who, uh, LIVED THERE) and that's that! They lost! Get out!
One thing: THAT'S MY POINT. Who are they to just take land for themselves? Who is the USA to support them? If they wanted to talk about a two-state solution, that's another story, but they didn't ask anybody. The way Palestinian Arabs have been treated in this is one of the greatest injustices is modern history.
If you really want to talk about who was taking land from whom, you should take a look at Lebanon, a majority Christian country until the Muslims moved in. But you don't care about that do you?
Did the muslims overthrow the country with the use of US and UN funding?
The planet would be just fine. Humanity would not do so well.
I agree Mike, I think Israel should aim for peace initiatives that can work.
As far as getting rid of all the nuclear power stations, I think many countries would find that difficult without a lot more sharing of resources.
And just what initiatives "can work" when the other side has determined that God demands they never give up the stuggle until your nation and all your people cease to exist?
Stopping the Settlements and tearing down the Border walls and crossings would be a great Olive Branch I Think
Yeah I hear you Earnest. The reason why I suggested to get rid of all the nuclear power stations as well as the stock pile of nuclear weapons in a previous post is because I have read that there is a lot of nuclear waste from nuclear power stations and that nuclear waste is used to make nuclear weapons. Also that nuclear waste has to be contained some how so it doesn't contaminate our water and environment if it is not used to make weapons. If this is true then I figured it would be a good idea to get rid of the source, being the nuclear power stations.
We are all headed for war no doubth about that.
Right accross the Globe including Europe.
Who were the first ones to blast off a Nuck.
That's right.I shall say no more.
Frankly my dear i don't give a dame.
Yes we are.
But i shall not concern myself
with the bussinesss of the world
I am quite safe where i reside.
Nope,does that stand for dope.
Or are you just smoking too much of it.
I wounder what the People living in Iran think of all of this?
curious for a true answer
Iran wants nuclear weapons right? Well..we have a few thousand of them, lets sell 10-20 of them to Iran. Why not let them have it? They pay us the little money the country has, we leave a self destruct button in them, its a win win! We make money, we make them happy, and we neutralize the future threat.
They will pay a very steep price for that pursuit of nuclear weapons. Europe is very nervous, the Russians and Chinese are beginning to see the threat to Peace emerging and are beginning to "see the light". Russia and China will do nothing until an attack on Iran is imminent, then they will see no benefit to themselves if Israel or the U.S. attacks the nuke plants.
Until we are at the edge, they will continue to consider if they will benefit from the current impasse. When they realize, that when forced to be aggressive the U.S. and Israel are not quite so easy to "calm down". (once the blood is up, it takes a long time to cool)
My reading of Iran today is that the greatest mass of Iranian people do not support the present incumbent, however, their national pride is offended by the West telling them what military toys and technologies they can and can't have. Our arrogance in this regard is endangering the undoubted friendship that young Iran in particular feels towards us. Instead, we should be cultivating this friendship.
Iran nearly imploded only a few months ago and is still likely to do so again, but this time with feeling.
The lead time from now until any serious nuclear strike by Iran is probably longer than the lifetime of the present regime.
And I agree with Mike that Israel needs to make a meaningful gesture - halting their expansionist policy and a degree of nuclear disarmament. Hard line leadership in Israel strengthens rather than weakens the hard line Iranian hierarchy.
But, on past form, I am afraid that Israel is more likely to go it alone with a 'pre-emptive strike' which will reverberate disastrously for another twenty years.
I think if we are to influence Israel in anyway it has to be financially. With over three billion dollars worth of support from the US, Israel may have more at stake to listen to us and less tendency to make empty gestures. However our own corrupt politics with its' lobbyist dollars will put a quick and decisive kabosh on any steps in that direction. Funny how we the people have about as little control of our government as the Iranians have of theirs.
Israel is at liberty to do whatever necessary to ensure and safeguard its own existence and security of its people. No one asks muslim countries not to harm and hurt the Israeli people.
As if they are at liberty to harm the jews as and when they find time... But I think Israel will not be alone in safeguarding its existence.
Well speaking of Israel and Iran, nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
Not to mention that there was no country there in the first place. And isn't it nice of all the Muslim nations in the region to refuse to accept the 'Palestinian refugees' so they won't lose the PR value? Truly a brotherhood of faith...
What we're seeing here (on this forum thread) is very typical of every border/territorial dispute the world over. Pepole taking entrenched positions based on their view of history and perceived (unforgiven) wrongs in the past.
Such disputes are never settled until the main representatives of both sides stop looking back and look instead at moving from the status quo to a better future. There's no alternative, except further war.
Unfortunately true. It's part of human nature to be upset when you lose something, whether that's your house or country.
I agree that arguments like this usually get into a tit for tat but when the other side trys to establish legitimacy through inuendo it is hard for it not to turn into this type of discussion.
What always gets my ire is when Americans cannot see where they have played a significant role in the problem and continue to this day. Our support for Israel both politically and monetarily sets us up as an enemy to many Arab nations. You can say that we have great relationships with some of them like Saudi Arabia but is it a true friendship when support for nations against Israel is given by them. Most of the hijackers on 911 were from Saudi Arabia.
USA is playing a very dangerous and cynical game in the Middle East. They are keeping Israel armed to the teeth, while also maintaining a military base and (by all accounts) a formidable arsenal here in Qatar (just across the Gulf from Iran). Faced with this, why would Iran not want to arm itself accordingly? Sooner or later, weapons get used, with the exception, so far, of nuclear ones (apart from WW2 in Japan, the test bed for all time).
Sorry, have to go. No hard feelings. This was just a discussion for me.
With the given nature of the middle east and all the transient states which have come and gone I wonder what would happen if Israel was made to stand on its own without the monetary support of the US.
Would it hasten a peace accord with other nations in the area or do you think they would do the unthinkable and create a nuclear holocaust? I wonder.
Actually, guys, it's been a bad discussion, for reasons I mentioned earlier. As long as you keep thinking in terms of conflict, conflict is what you'll have. You reap what you sow. It's time to grow up. Even the Irish managed to do that. (I'm a Celt, so I can say that!)
I echo your sentiments. It is selfishness that seems to rule so many acts that may seem so well reasoned, or unreasoned.
I totally agree with you conflict only begets further conflict. I am as guilty as anyone else in here of getting off topic and I do appologize.
The points I try to establish are based on ownership of involvement. To what degree are we (US) a part of the problem and what are we (US) going to do to rectify our involvement. The topic goes horribly wrong when we(Arrogant Americans) place no fault for our actions in the past and then start about halfway through the conversation proclaiming how innocent we are and how badly we have been wronged.
Unless we (US) understand that we are a part of the problem and step away and look at the actual transgression we will never find a way to peace.
Too many people place the value of our military to sort out things where politics have failed. Then it is too late to compromise because of the victory the military must seek.
If you personally are arrogant, that's your issue. Blanket condemnation of your own nation does NOT make you appear intellectual no matter what the professors told you in college.
Well hooray for the red, white and blue is your answer? That just prooves the arrogance I was describing. Can you not see the part we (Americans) have played in this debacle?
I am an American and I believe our country is not right in this continuing support of Israel. We would be screaming to highest rooftops if this sort of thing happened to us. Oh I forgot we can bomb or invade those we do not agree with.
Bottom line is if Israel is to exist it must do it on its' own. Sixty years is enough!
You are entitled to your OPINION, but a little logic in discourse would be nice.
I appologize and yes I am guilty of that tirade. I get very angry when someone results to judgemental and personal comments because of someones opinion expressed in earnest.
I am also guilty of having a passion for the subject because I believe our country has the opportunity to make a difference at the beginning of a serious issue it deserves hoand open discussion and not calling someone an idiot for their opinion.
That's a good question rhamson, "to what degree are we (US) a part of the problem?"
"Who are they to just take land for themselves?" Another good question egiv.
I want to correct some of the errors in some previous posts with these historic maps.
It's been said just recently in this thread that there was never a country called Palestine. Well that's wrong. Here's a 1570 map of Palestine probably just before the Ottoman Empire ruled it. You can enlarge the map from this link,
http://www.mapsorama.com/maps/asia/pale … ondius.jpg
Flightkeeper said this just recently in this thread. "What I'm saying is there were no official countries with borders in that part of the world prior to the British taking over the area. Additionally that area that was seen as the Palestine region was split. Two-thirds went to the Muslims and became Jordan and the other third went to the Israelis."
Nope, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire before the British Mandate in 1917 during the first world war. The Arab tribes with Lawrence of Arabia, a British officer kicked the Turks out. The English deal with the Arabs was that there was not to be a Zionist state in Palestine.
No during the British Mandate the other third did not go to the Israelis. Here's a 1947 map of Palestine just before the end of the British Mandate in 1948. Note the small amount of Jewish land ownership of Palestine in 1947. You can enlarge the map from this link,
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2005/10/ … gmcpem.jpg
These maps show the progression of Palestinian loss of land from 1946 to 1947 with the UN Partition Plan. No wonder they didn't agree with it. Then the loss to 1967, then to 2000. You can see a larger map on this link,
http://www.sott.net/image/image/s1/2223 … ne_map.jpg
Just 60 years later. Imagine yourself as a Palestinian.
Mike - I commend your perseverance. You must get tired of having to post the same information every time the subject of Israel/Palestine is raised in the forums. The problem is, it is very hard for anyone living in America to absorb the truth about Israel from the popularly available sources. It is rather easier for Europeans to get a balanced view. Such is the nature of propaganda and vested interests. Thanks!
We are ablind people led around by our noses! What would we do without the naked, unaudulterated truth!
Do you ever contribute, or are you just a happy sniper?
I must confess I am at the moment a sniper. My time to write a Hub is greatly used up by work and this forum. I will be a Hubber I promise. You have exposed me and I beg your indulgence.
Say something that makes sense. I have on this tread repeatedly. You and your enamoured budies never address a complete entry. You comment on something out of context, then you claim to be the voice of reason. Well maybe reality is relative and maybe it's not near as deep as you hope it is. Maybe what you see is the way people go and have gone throughout history. I don't where you're from so I can't imagine what experiences have shaped you opinions. You talk in circles about religion and conservatism so the only thing I can draw from that is, throw your pipe and your smoking materials out the window. You want an honest debate, be real not this miner for the thoughts locked in the rocks in someones soul.
I base my opinions and perceptions on my reality, what I have lived and seen. Americans should stand by those who stand with us, no one should have to, but no one should be telling us what to do either. There are those of us who believe we have been tasked to stand for something, for the innocent. It's hard road to go because you make a mistake and you're the goat. Even when the rest of the world does little or nothing you're called out for trying. Are we perfect? Hell No! But were a hell of alot better than the alternative!
Why wait? If you want to know where I'm coming from, read my profile and a few of my hubs. I'm not answerable to you.
I would never imply you were! You called me out on sharpshooting and snipeing, I'm used to your retoric. I made it clear that you don't exchange thoughts you pull things out of context then declare it infinite wisdom. If you want me to exchange and debate you need to exchange and debate. If you're going to act like a just another liberal intellectual You won't answer my challenges COMPLETELY then I'll go back to what I do best insert sarcasm here and there and move on. You don't answer to me and same applies for me to you. If you can't debate, fine, but don't put yourself out there as a intellectual because I'll spot the target on your back everytime.
No, that's not what I do. And as a matter of fact, take it or leave it, my comment about your 'sniping' was a late night, just back from the bar, ill-judged one, which I regretted. But I have to say I see you hiding behind a facade of "I'm just a plain speaking guy". Sorry, but some things are not black and white. If you're not willing to see shades of grey, there's not much room for discussion.
Your welcome Paraglider. Yeah even a CBC reporter here in Canada was told by a UN envoy to Palestine this past week to keep the reports unbiased.
Israel is not the question and it is funny to see thatIsrael is involved in this debate.The question if the world should let iran be with nuclear weapons should not be related to Israel.
Imagine iran with this kind of weapon trying to do what Irak
leader tried to do and take on Kuwait or other country.
What will happen then andd who will be able to stop Iran?
Not everything is related to Israel you know.
If you cover your eyes the problem does not go away.
You should read more comments in the forums you would clearly see Israel and the US are the great satans of the world!
Israel is not involved in this? I guess their threat about pre-emptively bombing Iranian nuclear facilities doesn't really count for you. Iran's holocaust denial and the ridiculous hatred between the two... nah, that's nothing. Completely unrelated. Get a clue.
Here is an additional View of it also I found:
Understanding the Why of the Balfour White Paper
By Hershy Goodman
History is history; understanding history is understanding.
The history of the Jewish People and the British has passed through many changes. There have been periods of time when we have been close allies and periods of time when we have been bitter enemies. It is well known that the Israeli War of Independence was fought, not just against the Arabs, but also against the British.
Contrast that to an earlier period, the period of World War I, when the relationship between the Jews and the British were in close proximity and the Balfour declaration was made declaring the intention of the British Government to establish a homeland in "Palestine" for the Jewish people.
What caused the British to do a good deed for the Jews and what caused the British Government to turn on their promise and try to renege on their stated intention?
The Balfour Declaration, which was written by Arthur James Balfour, the foreign secretary of Great Britain, in November of 1917, stated:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Now this declaration certainly sounds like a true and altruistic manifestation of idealism. A major world government has for the first time recognized the soul yearning of the Jews to return to their homeland as a valid and legal right. How many years have the Jews wandered from country to country, denied citizenship, plundered and exploited. Now finally a major world power has recognized their legal rights to their homeland. If so, why did the British turn on the Israelis several years later and deny them the very access to immigration that they promised?
To understand this historic document, we must view it in its true perspective. World War I was fought between the Allies and the Axis powers. The British were on the side of the allies; Germany and Turkey were on the side of the Axis powers. Until this point in time, Turkey controlled the Palestine area. The British understood that it was in their best interests to harness the Jewish Zionist aspirations for their own purposes.
Part of the Jewish world lived under German and Turkish rule. The Zionist headquarters were at that time in Berlin. Part of the Jewish world lived in the Russian territories, who were undergoing the pangs of revolution. The other part of the Jewish world lived in the USA, which desired to remain neutral. The remaining Jews lived in the Allied counties.
The British weighed the matter seriously. They were under the opinion that the Germans who used their influence with the Turks to promote the welfare of the Jewish population in Palestine. There were rumors that the Germans would soon recognize the Zionist dream of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The British felt that this would cement a world wide support by the Jews with the Axis powers. The British were fearful that the Americans might be influenced to give support to the Germans.
The British had two reasons to support the Jewish Palestinian homeland declaration. First, there was the moral support from the world at large that they hoped to enlist through the Jewish voices in the foreign lands. Secondly, was the support of the Jewish soldier in the middle east. The British were in a bloody war. If allies could be found in Palestine to fight against their enemy, let the spoils go to the victory. How many Jewish Youth volunteered and enlisted in the Jewish Legion of the British Army. This was the beginning of the Jewish Army in Israel. Jewish soldiers received British training.
Everything went according to the British plan. The Jews were appreciative of the British recognition of the Jewish national thirst for its own homeland. Except one thing. The Arabs, fearful of the ultimate ingathering of the aggressive and advanced western style Jews, fearful of the usurping of the lands that they now claimed as theirs, began riots against the Jews. The war being over, the British, now the ruler of Palestine was saddled with making peace with the Jews and the Arabs. The Arabs represented more to the British than the Jews now possessed. Prior to the war, the British courted the Jews and sought their support. In exchange they pledged a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Now the Arab empires were more important to the British. The British were not ignorant of the importance of the oil rich middle eastern Arab counties and therefore began the sell out of the concept of a Jewish homeland.
"Beware of the ruling authorities, for they bring a person close to them for their own needs". When they need you, they honor you. When you are no longer useful to them, they will abandon you and not stand by you in your time of need. This was the advice of the Jewish sages, as written in "Ethics of the Fathers," more than two thousand years ago. Happy are we who have truly understood this.
What I think is we all screwed them after the War!
I believe the conflict is man made. We split the lands, threw them togeather depending on our loyalties at the the time, then sold out for the Oil afterwards, and left them (Both sides) to fail, with Super Powers taking the side of what economicaly benefited them the most.
The facts are that Palestinean Land was taken, and Isreal was given Legal right to it, Under the United Nations. We all screwed it up, set them on a Path to war. Abd now it is here!
We all should take a bow!
We need solutions for Both Peoples, fair safe borders, and all of this crap to end. It is time. Germany, England, Russia, America; we made the mess, we created it in the floor of the UN. and "ALL" of us are wrong.
The thing we have to look for in all of this is that no one, not one of our countries can claim an innocent hand in this and we should leave the local unrest between the Israelis and the Palestinians to their own devices. Let them work out their differences without our monetary support.
This will not solve the problem but it will be a beginning for us to show that we are a neutral party in any political solution they wish for us to help them with and not arming one over the other. In the Arab world if you stand with Israel you stand against Arabs. Simple don't you think.
Get over it will not work for them and it certainly has not worked for us.
Now as far as Iran having nuclear capabilities I am against it but can we learn from the mess we created in that region and please talk to them?
rhamson, I agree, I do. all the Powers who created this back then, need to be supportive of Both Peoples equaly now, face the truth! A Tall order from what is being shown I think.
America is geographically in a safe location you don't have much to worry about over there, here in Europe is where all the big wars are!
I think almost every country want nuclear weapons, and for most of the countries, they will not use nuclear weapons.
Iran agreed in talks with the United States and other major
powers to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant
near Qum to international inspection and to send most of its
openly declared enriched uranium to Russia to be turned into
fuel, senior American and other Western officials said.
This illustrates that diplomacy backed by the united power of major nations can achieve success without military action.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world … tml?emc=na
What I do not understand is this: Isreal has access to all of this information, and how the Land was Granted from Palestinean Land without Palestinian Vote or authority, right? It has all of the UN documents, arguments everything that happend then.
So why is this not brought before International Courts, Both sides arguing and showing proof of argument, and have it settled once and for all. All Parties abiding by World Law?
Both Palestine and Isreal told, it will follow law, or risk loss of all backing?
All the Super Powers will be hands off, no exceptions and that means the U.S. and Syria and all others involved, and let the Court decide it, period?
Maybe thats too civil for Extreme Religionists I guess, but It needs a real solution. Of course Palestine would have to Get a Central Goverment of authority, to represent themselves. That may be the real issue actually when I think on it more.
It seems that fundamentalists are the problem on both sides, there are many reasonable views on both sides too.
If the people want peace they will have to remove the loonies first.
Sneak just in case you don't know what UN Security Council member I am talking about in my last post, it's the US. I figured everyone that was contributing to this thread would know which one I was talking about until I seen you post.
I know exactly what you're saying and allways have,you're no mystery. Your position and your loyalties were for a while, but; as you know, I caught up to you on a different tread. I would like you to try and get a handle on yourself and for one time answer my exact response to your previous post. I haven't seen anything you've written based on the exact situation and void of religious bigotry. If you really have some unbiased facts to present lets hear them.
Scroll back through the 10 pages sneak. No, you don't even need to do that, just read the last couple of posts then ask yourself what to heck are you talking about with this "split law" that you mentioned.
Good night. Sweet dreams.
You clearly stated they "illegaly split", what law, not interpretation, was violated? You and your backhanded insults are so constructive and informative and what I've drawn from your posts is a hugh dislike for Israel. You also have a death wish for the country of Israel.
You seem to imply that the arab community are level headed and are, through no fault of their own, are allways persecuted by the US. That seems so consistent with a general disrespect for us as a people around the world. So, if we side with our allies I don't think it should be a surprise.
The American tax-payer has just about had enough with the world thinking they have as much right to our policies as we do. I'm a firm believer in giving you what you want then close the door. I'm sure that wouldn't satisfy you either but at that point we would take care of ourselves. No more NATO, NORAD, UN and trade agreements. That way when we did deal with each other it would be fair, no more sweetheart deals because the world oniy cares about what they want and we should do the same.
Even if Make Money did have a percieved (by you) bias against the nation of Israel I don't see where it changes the facts of the issue.
Israel has possesion of land gotten through illegal means and we the US helped them right from the start. If this is too bitter a pill to swallow then I don't know what to tell you concul your anger.
I think that Israel has a right to exist but do I think we should foot the bill, no. Thirty years of supporting Israel is enough.
Rhamson, it's pointless. He surely didn't read the posts with actual information, hasn't read or studied anything substantial about the actual subject, and thus will never consider any argument that is not his. I can respect an intelligent argument, be it Republican or Democrat, but I have yet to hear one from sneak.
This is life. It's easy to oversimplify things and throw around accusations. It's much harder to try and understand a situation. It only took one Joe McCarthy to ruin the reputation, and career, of countless incredibly intelligent men.
While I do believe your are right about the hopelessness this argument provides I think the real history of the conflict needs to be reiterated constantly.
sneaker is not the only one here that blasts everybody with his opinion but the facts have to be made clear and made clear often lest we forget where it started. So I guess I wish to be informative and try to cut through the crap the politicians and news media gloss over so people like sneaker can have the information when they emerge from the fog.
Lest we forget - absolutely correct.
But regardless of how we got here, I think it is inconceivable that the US will continue to 'invest' such vast sums in Israel. With the biggest ever national debt and no prospect of meaningful recovery any time soon, the Government will inevitably become less willing to shell out to the pro-Israel lobby at previous rates.
I suspect that whatever happens in the short term, the two-state solution will prove untenable, to be overtaken by a single state withing my lifetime (and I'm no spring chicken). I think it's unlikely that single state will be called Israel.
I believe you are probably right and it is sad to have to acknowledge that the thing that will force us to change our policies is not the will of the people but the money in our purse. But a capitalist society has the trappings of its' priorities as does any other endeavor.
Despite Obama's apparent curbing of Israeli influence, I have to say that I don't see any break between Israel and the United States, financially or politically, for many years to come. Further, in my opinion, the abolishment of the state of Israel will never happen.
I just hope a reasonable 2-state system can be worked out. Obviously not everyone will be happy, but the Palestinians need self-determination and to be able to provide their own services. Hopefully (the key word) they will obtain enough in the deal to emerge from this period with a sense of pride.
As many have pointed out Jews will be a minority in a single state which means they'll lose their claim to being a democracy or they will be voted down.
I agree. In a perfect world, everyone has all the facts and makes a thoughtful decision based on them. But the lethal combination of ignorance and strong opinions is often just plain offensive, and frankly not worth anyone's time. However, you are absolutely correct in saying that this is no reason to give up.
Not a break, but maybe a toning down. The problem with the two-state model is that it requires walls. History shows that walls have finite lives. Sooner or later, they have to be breached, then pulled down.
Of some interest, perhaps:
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2009/09/2 … ive-years/
There's much truth in Jeff Gates's article "Will Israel Fall in Five Years?"
Iran has no real friends in the middle east since they are Persian ,this makes feel Iran unsafe.But I think every one has full right to develop their own homeland security policy.
Homeland security should not jump the required levels... it should not threaten other countries... that too a n-bomb in the hands of those who have a cruel historical background is dangerous to the world. In a sense, those bombs with America itself is a threat to world peace.
I think the ownership of a nuclear device gives the owner a voice to be heard in the grand scheme of things. What is funny is that up until now we haven't wanted them to have a word otherwise.
Hey if it is working for North Korea with a madman in charge why shouldn't it work for Iran?
Here's a different take on the story that a friend just sent me by Scott Ritter from Sept. 25, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … nspections
Quite the different story altogether.
Here is why Iran is developing nuclear weapon . in the prophecy of Islam , the Aqsa mosque will be captured and liberated twice . We have witnessed the first take over by the crusaders and the first liberation by Saladin. The second capture was by the Zionist, the second liberation will happen before the end of the world and it will be done by the Mehdi,
the Iranian believe very strongly that the Mehdi will come from Iran. but have no fear the Iranian will not use thier bomb first
they will only use it for retaliation
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is...
by rhamson8 years ago
With Irans new revelations that they have a secret site for the nuclear capabilities is this the latest step in the path to a nuclear war?
by Evan G Rogers6 years ago
I'm sorry, but I have yet to find any evidence that Iran is building a nuke. Yet, the EU just condemned starvation and austerity to the people of Iran because it MIGHT be building a...
by AngelTrader6 years ago
It is all falling neatly into place for the US to attack Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia. The US views the plot as state-sponsored terrorism. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton described it as a "violation of...
by dadibobs6 years ago
If Iran was to succeed in developing a nuclear weapon, how should our own nations react?Would we strike at the construction facitily, and possible storage sites?, or do we just use a nuclear weapon on them first?....
by James Smith5 years ago
After the Associated Press released an extremely misleading article explaining how a particular graph proved that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, scientists at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and journalists...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.