Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem
How does moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and declaring it the Capital of Israel create peace in the region?
Which country, outside Israel, has world opinion dictating where they can put their capital? Which country do we locate our embassy in neither the capital nor a suburb of that capital? Do we have a right to tell foreign countries where they shall put their capital? If so can we also dictate the plot of land within the city we choose for them? Perhaps how large it is, what shape it is, who the architect is, etc.?
Wilderness: You didn't answer the question. I'll ask it again: "How does moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and declaring it the Capital of Israel create peace in the region?"
By peace in the region, I mean for the Palestinians. The have been treated lower than dirt by the Israeli's for years. They believe it is their God-given right to colonize and occupy the Palestinian territory which has been Palestine's homeland for thousands of years. Israel builds walls just like Trump wants to control those people and makes refugees out of them in their own land. Humans make borders, not nature.Why is declaring Jerusalem the capital such a big deal?
The final status of Jerusalem has always been one of the most difficult and sensitive questions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For years, US policy has been to avoid declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel in the absence of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, as the Palestinians also claim Jerusalem as their capital. It was argued that a unilateral decision would break with international consensus and prejudge an issue that was supposed to be left to negotiations.
Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital has also moved the United States a big step closer to relocating the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which would be seen as cementing Israeli sovereignty over the city.
----------------
Leave it to Trump to just trumple over a delicate negotiation situation and ongoing peace efforts by definitively taking a single side and exacerbating matters, unnecessarily.
Because of this and other recent cases of poor judgement in the realm of international diplomacy, I take my side against him!!Hey there Cred, let me grab your comment to make a response relative to your thought that Pres. Trump, using poor judgement, just trampled over delicate international negotiations.
Without going into the details, just take a look at the basics:
U.S. presidents have been trying to broker a peace deal since Carter's 1978 Camp David effort. Roughly speaking, for 40 years. Some presidents have tried harder than others, but all have tried.
Generally speaking, each president's efforts traveled the "delicate negotiations" path. Some tried more forceful economic and diplomatic efforts than others, but we know that all have failed, (the reasons are beside the point of the point I am making)
Our presidents have acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel's capitol since 1995. Over 20+ years, and three presidents.
So now, a fourth president changes tact, and you can only view it as a trampling of protocol? Do you believe that a fourth president should stick to a policy tact that has shown itself to be a failure for 40 years? I am not certain your poor judgement accusation is pointed in the right direction.It sounds like you would prefer a 'participation trophy' instead of a real effort.
GAIt is better than clearly antagonizing the other "side" of this. Are we now saying, whatever Israel does were are going to go along with? That is unless you are saying that we should abrogate our traditional role as peace brokers in the region. Clearly taking one side is saying just that.
Well bud, considering that 40 year history of our efforts, I am not sure this antagonism will make any difference at all - negatively, but could there be a chance that a new U.S. stance might at least prompt a new consideration by those you fear antagonizing? Now, that is just a thought, not a position, but ... for 40 years we did this and they did that. We rewrapped the "this" - multiple times, and they still did the same "that." I don't think I can agree that another rewrap is better than a new effort.
Sorry if I left a miss-impression, I tried to stick to just two points; 1) we have tried the same policy, (diplomatic negotiations), for 40 years - and they all failed. 2) For 20+ years, (and three presidents), we have committed, as a nation, to recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capitol - but failed to live-up to our declaration. I don't see anything there that said, or implied, we go along with "... whatever Israel does ..."
But you are right on your final point. If our traditional role as a peacemaker can only follow a 40 year track record of failure - then maybe we should abrogate it. We sure as hell haven't been very good at it. If we aren't willing to try to achieve, instead of just holding our place as a participant, then maybe it is time to let someone else try.
GAGA, the antagonism has been evident in region already, the "new consideration" will most likely be entirely negative. We have not a good track record trying to reconcile irreconcilable parties, I acknowledge that. The 1995 agreement or pledge was not carried out for legitimate reasons, theneed for a settlement as to who can get to claim Jerusalem as capital.
Obviously, Trump has given up on the prospect, but I think he is just ideologically hostile to the cause of the Palestinian and want to suck up to his Evangelical following. It has nothing to do with fatigue in regards to the negotiation accords.
This "recognition" is what Israel wanted, isn't it? Trump is saying "to hell with it, let the chips fall where they may". This outcome, in my opinion, is only going to make a bad situation worse, and Trump broke it so now he owns it. So we resign to letting helter skelter rule the day?Hi Cred,
I know the answer is "politics," (the reason for the acknowledgement, and the postponement), but, think about you just said: We acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel's capital for legitimate reasons, but didn't follow through because whose capitol it was hadn't been settled.
Well, if our words mean nothing, (they didn't "settle" the issue), then why say them? That was rhetorical of course, I know the answer is "politics," but shouldn't our word as a nation mean something?
If we didn't have the courage of our words, then we should have eaten them, and rescinded the pledge. That would have taken presidential courage. So now, a president comes along and abides by the pledge. And for that he is a trampling fool with poor judgement.
Geesh!
ps. A Wilderness comment had me scrambling to look-up "Dane-geld," you should take a look at the idea.
GA
It took over 80 years for sectarian violence between Irish Republicans, Loyalists and the British government to be brought to an end in Northern Ireland. It took over 40 years for apartheid to be brought to an end in South Africa.
Why would the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be resolved faster than any other intractable, socio-political conflict with deeply embedded historical, religious, racial components? Do you think that's a reasonable expectation? What part of human history is that expectation based on?Hi Don W., I don't know the details of either of your examples, so I am unable to make comparisons, but, my "40 year" point was not a reference that the issue should have been resolved by then, but that we had been trying the same method for that amount of time, and it repeatedly failed.
Based on that point, no, I don't know what time-frame a "reasonable expectation" would/should encompass. But I do know that old adage about the definition of insanity.
GASure, I guess the point is that there are examples in history of similar intractable conflicts which were eventually successfully resolved through the "delicate negotiations path".
These historical examples (the disbanding of the terrorist group ETA in Spain is another) all included moments of progress and failure over the course of multiple decades.
With hindsight we can look back on some of those moments of failure as being part of an iterative process that eventually enabled peace. Is it possible that, because of their nature, these types of conflicts are only resolvable through this type of iterative process, which will inevitably include failures along the way?
If so, perhaps it's not yet time to abandon the delicate negotiations path. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is only insanity if there is no evidence that it brings about the desired result. We know that sensible diplomacy has resolved conflicts of this type in the past.
You're absolutely right, the current president has changed tack. But is that part of a well thought out strategy that considers all the pros and cons, or is it because he only has one tack: brash? Based on everything I've seen I think the latter is more likely.
Brash is great when needed. But just as brash was not what lead to peace in Northern Ireland, or the end of apartheid, or the disbanding of ETA, perhaps brash isn't what's needed in the Middle East right now either. Brash often leads to bloodshed.
A 10 lb hammer is great if you need to smash things. Not so useful if you need to fix a Swiss watch. The Middles East has been smashed already. I don't think Trump has the necessary tools to help fix it.Don, those are all valid points - probably. But I don't know if they are or aren't. The first question that comes to mind is what broke the stalemate in your examples? For apartheid was it a breakthrough in negotiations, or was it Mandela? The ETA, The IRA, what turned the tide? Did one side just outlast the other?
I would have the same question concerning mediation participants. Did any declare an official position, and then ignore it? Was such action a benefit or detriment to negotiations? Were any of your examples turned by a bold move by either side, or just a continuous plodding of massaging previous offers?
To the final "10 lb. hammer" thought ... comes another question, "Is living up to a national declaration brash or bold?"
I don't know the answers to those questions - my list is already too long to research those first questions, and I only have an opinion on the last one.
GAFor each of these conflicts, from what I can tell, there were no magic "breakthroughs" that caused deals to be done that were not possible before. The "breakthroughs" consisted of decades of ceasefires, broken ceasefires, talks, failed talks, agreements, failed agreements and a perseverance and commitment to achieving peace. This quote is a good illustration:
"The most difficult obstacle to overcome is the lack of trust. You can rebuild buildings, you can replace vehicles, you can put bridges back up, but the really important thing to change what is in peoples’ hearts and minds takes much longer. It takes generations who didn’t see innocent members of their family blown up by a bomb just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s hard to restore trust; easy to lose it. It isn’t there yet in Northern Ireland, but it’s on its way."(1)
(Former Senator George Mitchell - Chairmen of the peace talks that led to the Good Friday Agreement and the end of the conflict in Northern Ireland)
So perhaps, because of the nature of these types of conflicts, the passage of time is another important factor in the peace process rather than a failing, but only if it's spent building trust.
The presence of an honest broker also seems to be a key factor. The position of most previous administrations to apparently always side with Israel on everything, continues to be a barrier to the US being accepted as an honest broker in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. But Trump's actions do nothing to lift those barriers. Instead his actions firmly cement them in place, further hindering the possibility of the US being a broker for peace in the region.
So the gradual building of trust over a sustained period of time, and the acceptance of an honest broker to facilitate peacemaking, is the closest thing to a magic solution to these types of conflicts that I can see. Trump's actions prevent both.
(1) https://www.usip.org/public-education/e … transcriptDon, I took some time to skim the histories of two of your examples; Apartheid, and the IRA. I am not intending to make these into tangential discussions of this thread, or to specifically rebut your statements, but just to offer my impressions.
I don't think either of those two examples compare to the "delicate international negotiations" thought as applicable to the Israel/Palestine issue. My impression is that apartheid was living on borrowed time - borrowed purely by the force of British power. And I did get the impression that there was a major break-though. And that was Nelson Mandela. (comparable to Poland's Lech Wałęsa?)
Regarding the IRA, I have the same impression. Both side's general populations had tired of the bloodshed and were ripe for the appearance, (as in come on the scene, not just appear to be), of an honest compromise. In this case, as you noted, that compromise was captained by someone that could be viewed as an "honest broker." In this case, it appears the honest broker's efforts were a two-year effort to forge a compromise that the populace representatives of both sides could accept - even with minority factions, (Sinn Fein?), still dissenting. My impression is that the IRA example, although true to your thought about an honest broker, is not comparable to the Israel/Palestine issue.
With that as a basis for what follows, I can agree with you that it will take what both sides can view as an honest broker to succeed in the Israel/Palestine issue, and that with our history as an Israel ally we have never been, and probably never will be viewed as that honest broker. If Pres. Carter can't claim that mantle, then I certainly don't think any U.S. president will claim it.
Which, (unfortunately it seems), reinforces my original thoughts regarding the futility of us continuing our 40-year history of "delicate negotiations," and my thought that is right that we live-up to our national declaration concerning Jerusalem.
GAWithout getting into the details, I think you hit the nail on the head with "[b]oth side's general populations had tired of the bloodshed . . ." in relation to N. Ireland.
It's sad, but true, that it may take years to reach the point where the appetite for peace outweighs the appetite for violence, or in the case of S. Africa the appetite for a just (sustainable) system, outweighs unjust (unsustainable) one.
It took multiple decades to reach that point, which is what led me to suggest 40 years is not an unusual amount of time in relation to resolving these types of conflicts.
In that case I don't think Mandela was the "breakthrough" as such (he'd been calling for change since the 60s) but he was definitely instrumental in preventing the transition of power becoming a blood bath, which it could have easily.
But again, I think the main thrust of my point is that with these types of conflict a significant passage of time often leads to the general populace becoming "war weary". That attitude can then be leveraged by a trusted broker (or in Mandela's case advocate for peace).
In the case of Israel/ Palestine there has been a significant passage of time. And I think there is war-weariness, and shifting attitudes, e.g. one of the crown Princes of Saudi Arabia acknowledging Israel's right to exist. So now would be the time to earnestly push a two-state solution (the only viable solution in my opinion).
Instead the current administration has chosen to make a gesture that is of no practical value in terms of the peace process, most likely to appease an evangelical Christian base before the mid-terms. It's more evidence that the current administration does not have a clue how to engage in sensible international diplomacy, or does, but chooses not to. That approach to foreign policy has dangerous consequences.Hi Don, I have also read about the apparent change in Saudi attitude, but I haven't read anything that leads me to think either party in the Palestine/Israel conflict is tiring of the bloodshed. I think at least one non-Hamas dominated generation will be needed to reach a scenario similar to the IRA conflict.
And if I were tossing darts at a list of possible solutions, I think it might be, even after that Hamas-free generation, only an Arab effort that could be viewed by both sides as an "honest broker." If that should be the case, then it might be possible that the U.S. move on the Jerusalem issue, now, might turn out to be a motivator rather than a detriment.
GAI don't think it's just about a Hamas-free generation. I think it's about having generations of people (Israeli and Palestinian) who are less motivated to commit violence due to the grief, anguish and desire for revenge that comes from seeing loved ones killed. Those emotions can be found on both sides of the conflict.
But hope is also a crucial factor in these types of conflicts, and one of the main sources is a belief that the political process can deliver results. Agreements like the Oslo accords and the various ceasefires offer hope that a better agreement can be reached and more permanent ceasefires achieved.
Trump's move, and other comments from this administration, signal a lack of belief in the political process. It signals that the administration believes, like you, that the political negotiations are an exercise in "futility".
Problem is, if you're trying to convince people to move away from violence, and engage in a peaceful political process (which is absolutely what the administration should be trying to do) then it makes no sense to signal that the political process is futile.
If the political process is indeed futile, then why should Hamas lay down their arms? Why should they stop fighting and come to the negotiating table?Is the problem two fold? First a mix of two religions and peoples that have fought each for a thousand years, but second (and perhaps far more important) that one side feels they were shoved off their land, out of their homes, and it then given to someone else, someone that has zero claim to it?
The differences in ideology and culture will matter a great deal, as will past (ancient) history of conflict, but to have the Allies just take their homes and give them away would seem far more important.You're right, one of the biggest immediate grievances the Palestinians have is the building of Israeli settlements within occupied Palestinian territory from 1967 onward.
Those settlements have been deemed to have "no legal validity"(1) under international law by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Court of Justice. The UN Security council alone has issued five resolutions affirming the illegality of the settlements(2)(3)(4)(5)(6).
The latest resolution (resolution 2334) from 2016, called the settlements "a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace"(7).
The priority for those wanting an end to the conflict must be to persuade Hamas to move away from violence and engage in a peaceful political process, but how can that happen if Israel is allowed to violate international law? Equal effort needs to be made to persuade the Israeli government to meaningfully address the issue of illegal settlements.
Moving the US embassy in a way that seems to favor Israel's claims in this conflict, signals to the Palestinians that pursuing a political solution is futile, because the current administration will back Israel regardless of what it does.
That's the opposite of what the administration should be doing. It should be showing Hamas that the political process is still their best hope, by putting pressure on the Israeli government to end its intransigence on the issue of illegal settlements.
Israel wants Hamas to stop committing violence against its citizens. But if the Palestinians have got no hope of having their grievances addressed through a peaceful political process, and Israel is allowed to continue violating international law, then what reason have Hamas got to stop fighting and start talking?
(1) https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm
(2) https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal. … E50075D7D5
(3) https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RES … penElement
(4) https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RES … penElement
(5) https://undocs.org/S/RES/471(1980)
(6) https://undocs.org/S/RES/476(1980)
(7) http://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf"Israel wants Hamas to stop committing violence against its citizens. But if the Palestinians have got no hope of having their grievances address peacefully through diplomacy, and Israel is allowed to go on violating international law, then what reason have Hamas got to stop fighting and start talking?"
It's the usual answer as old as the pharaohs, they simply want these aggreived people to just sit down and shut up. A more convenient if not satisfactory solution to this problem.Wasn't referring to that at all, but to the fact that Palestinian land was given to a new nation, Israel, to have as their own after WWII.
Well I'm sure all those cultural factors play a part, but the leader of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, has literally said:
"Once the occupation comes to an end, the resistance [violence] will come to an end. . . "(1),
and
"What do I believe Hamas needs or wants? Peace. But we want peace without occupation, without settlements, without Judaization, without the siege. We want to live on par with every single nation. We need to live in Palestine."(2).
So this is about very clear political objectives, not just cultural differences with vague, impractical goals.
In fact both sides have clear objectives: the Palestinians want an end to the illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, and recognition of the Palestinian state by Israel. The Israeli's want an end to the violence against Israeli citizens, and recognition of its right to exist by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.
Those objectives are are not impossible, which is why it's such a shame Trump has waded in like a bull in a china shop; making a move that is of no practical use to the peace process, mainly to appease evangelical Christians before the midterms. What he should be doing is continuing the pressure the previous administration started putting on Israel to stop the illegal settlements (even allies have to be straight with each other sometimes); and pushing Hamas for a ceasefire in return, so they can get some dialog going.
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HOvmlD … &t=119
(2) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … s-blockade"What do I believe Hamas needs or wants? Peace. But we want peace without occupation, without settlements, without Judaization, without the siege."
That's what I said, isn't it? The Palestinians want the Jews gone from the area, and that's the only thing they will accept. Not the culture of the Jews, not their settlements and without the Jews.I'm not sure if that's what you said. Apologies if you're already aware of this, but I want to avoid any confusion in case you're not.
The "settlements" the Palestinians are referring to are not in Israel.
They are on land occupied after the "6 day war" in 1967. The land sits outside the borders of Israel in an area to the west of Jordan (the West Bank).
Hamas is not asking for Israelis to be gone from the whole area in the sense of wanting to end the existence of Israel. It has implicitly recognized the borders of Israel, established in 1948.
So when Hamas says it wants peace "without occupation, without settlements, without Judaization, without the siege" it means it wants Israel to leave the West Bank, which has never been a part of Israel.
The UN recognizes the sovereign Palestinian State, so the Israeli military that controls the West Bank makes Israel an occupying power in that territory. So the civilian settlements Israel builds there are not only outside of Israel, they are also illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention (article 49): "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."(1)
Hamas wants Israel to stop occupying the West Bank, and to stop transferring parts of its own population into the occupied territory, i.e. building Israeli settlements there.
So if that's what you mean by "Palestinians want the Jews gone from the area", then yes that's what you said.
(1) https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/i … CD0051BDB0"Hamas is not asking for Israelis to be gone from the whole area in the sense of wanting to end the existence of Israel."
Ah, but I think he is. He is expressing in such a way as to gain help from the world in taking the first step, but the ultimate goal, and the only one that will end the conflict, is to end the existence of Israel. In his part of the world, anyway.
I'm not a student of that conflict, but if memory serves me correctly Israel was not the aggressor in the 6 day war, and the areas occupied as a result of that conflict came solely as a result of it, not the other way around.
In any case it is my opinion that Hammas will not accept any form of occupation anywhere in the middle east, by Israel. Give him what he says he wants - remove Israel from the West Bank - and it will do exactly nothing to end the conflict.But what do you think that Israel wants that is unacceptable to Hamas? Why should Israel's demands be the only ones that are to be considered? How much of the blame must Israel accept for the lack of peace in the region?
Much like you yourself would where your children live , Israel just might want an end to rockets and suicide vests being exploded into their peaceful neighborhoods and shopping malls or on commuter busses?
Just a thought !Hi Cred, I think Israel shares much blame for the lack of a peace agreement. A recent read offered several examples showing that the cost of no agreement - to Israel, is much less painful than the cost of an agreement.
It dealt with "costs" in several areas; national security, (the West Bank), cultural, (turning Israel into a majority non-Jewish state), religious, (the seemingly intractable Jerusalem question), territorial, (the settlements issue), and several more, but the bottom line was even with the situation as it is now, Israel is better off without a peace agreement than it would be with one.
Of course, I am speaking from a not-deeply-informed spectator seat, and I do understand the points I mentioned are certainly debatable, ( a quarter-century of proof for that point), but ... they did seem to be credible considerations.
GAI glad we can see much the same thing in regards to this. I did a graduate thesis on this subject as long ago as 1976. Back in the days of PLO and Black September, I found the Israeli position just as unreasonable then. I always seem to see that as part of our foreign policy we always took the Israeli side regardless of whether it was merited from the position of fairness to both sides. The focus of my thesis was on Pro-Israeli bias in public school textbooks. I took a lot of heat from those in the class when we shared with each other the nature of our relative projects. I was accused of being anti-Semitic, when my only real position was just 'fair is fair'. Equal and fair applications of a set of laws was always my "pet peeve". It does not matter whether the laws are state, federal or eminate from the UN. I never understood how the whole world could condemn an Israeli action, yet the US abstains.
American foreign policy seems to mirror the Cowboy and Indian attitude that shaped much of this nation's founding and development. There were the biblical people, and the 'flower in the desert' image relative to "coarse" Palestinians. Then there were films like "Black Sunday" (1977), that made the Palestinians into dangerous terrorists while Mossad agents were helping Americans to prevent a catastrophe. Can't forget the novel Exodus by Leon Uris and how much the novel and spin off motion pictures shaped the American point of view.
We will talk againI'd love to read that thesis Credence. Any chance of turning it into a hub?
Don, I am honored that you would ask me about this. This stuff is ancient but I have a copy in my archives somewhere. This was done with standard typewriters with erasable onion skin paper, white out and looks terrible by today's standards. If I could transcribe it, I would be lucky if I could get a legible copy into a digital format.
Let me check around, Gad, my grammar and writing skills that long ago still leaved much to be desired.
Uh oh ... If we are to talk again Cred, on this issue, don't forget that I am a Purple pragmatist. Considering U.S./Israel issues, fairness is not a deal breaker for me. But, that doesn't mean I ignore the obvious.
GAIf it ain't fair, nobody suspects that anything is going to last long. I naturally resist any obvious disparity of the unfair and inequitable and that will not promote peace. If we are willing to agree that that is a proper goal. Equality is pragmatism, ultimately. So, what is pragmatic about being unfair? Is that the whiff of conservatism in the air; that equality takes second fiddle to imperialism or authoritarianism? The scent I would not exactly call an "aroma".
BTw, I have waylaid for a while, give me title of the book you have mentioned on Watergate again, please?Hi Cred, The book was The Wars of Watergate by Stanley Kutler. What I found credible about it was that it dealt with Watergate from the perspectives of different government and social agencies - not just the Nixon perspective.
I think you would find it informative because it is not a Left hit piece, nor a Right rebuttal or rationalization. I think you will be surprised by the depth of the Watergate impact in non-Nixon corridors.
*As to the Israel discussion, I will let that dog sleep. I doubt we will find any common ground other than my acknowledgement that Israel is not an "innocent" in the matter - as portrayed by most Conservatives.
GAThanks, regarding the book, I'll check into that today.
I respect your desire not to pursue this, but I have to be curious about what aspects of your view of the "pragmatic principles" of American foreign policy that are so 'red' that it would have me running for the hills?
We don't need to have common ground nor agree on everything, I am interested in your positions and reasoning for them.
We know that blue and purple are not the same.That is a fair request Cred, so I will try to offer a 'Cliff Notes' generalization with respect to what I see as the reality of the world, and without any 'Kumbaya' considerations.
Consider the national security value, (to us),.of having a dependable ally like Israel in the Middle East. Consider the negative possibilities, (to us), of a semi-united Middle East, (without an Israel) - with regards to the probable theocratic and anti-U.S. ruling sentiments.
I also think that, although not in the barbaric sense of pre-industrial age "wars," the concept of 'To the victor go the spoils...' is as valid today as it ever was. If a war is waged, and the instigators lose, reality demands a price for that action. Consider how many times war has been waged against Israel, and by who, then consider what should be the cost to those instigating nations. My thinking is that Israel would be justified in keeping the West Bank, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights if they wanted.
About those wars ... to the claim that Israel was the invading usurper, an illegitimate occupier, there is the competing reality that the victors of the war that put the Israelis there were the ones that drew the boundaries - an action similar to all other such events throughout history. Whether you agree or disagree with the division of the Otterman Empire, I think it would be hard to disagree that such an action was the reality of the world at the time. Was the WWII division of Berlin so different?
As you can see, none of those points incorporate qualifiers of fairness or culpability. I do think those qualifiers need to be addressed in a thorough search for a peace solution, but you asked about my reasons for supporting Israel. It isn't an unconditional support, but it is a firm support.
GAGA, thanks for taking the time to explain your position, and I promise that I will still respect you in the morning……. It ok, it is purple. It would be terribly boring if everyone agreed with me all of the time.
----------------------------------------
With the exception of Afghanistan, a war zone, Israel receives more in American aid than anyone else.
It is interesting to note that: “Except special considerations to countries such as Israel and Egypt, the direction of US foreign aid flow reflects the government efforts in alleviating poverty, promoting democracy and encouraging economic openness of the recipient countries.”
They receive aid outside of the standard parameters that are met by others that receive such aid. If someone was offering my country 3 billion dollars a year with no strings attached, I guess that I would be their ‘bud’ too. We pay for all of that and it’s expensive. With our interests in the flow of petroleum from the region, I would think that there would be plenty of reasons for other countries in that region of the world to ally with the United States if only just to keep the spigots open.
------------------------------------
What makes it a dependable ally? The relationship has seemed to me one sided, Israel uses the United States to muscle through policies in regards to its adversaries that the entire world does not accept. I think that the petrodollars (Saudi Arabia) and that influence more than make up for any advantage that we supposedly get by being Israel’s “bud”. How does the presence of Israel minimize the effects of a semi-united Middle East? I don’t see how our problems with that region are ameliorated solely because Israel is there?
I know that I am brazen to say this, but I believe that Israel wants a war with Iraq, but wants to drag the United States into such a war, a war that I have no stake in. That is why Netanyahu now cozies up to Trump and treated Obama like a pariah in his own country 2 years ago. Trump appears to be amenable to giving him the war (regime change) that he wants and the latitude to allow them to settle the Palestinian issue once and for all, to their exclusive advantage. So, the “cowboys” win by default.
Is the idea of “to the victor go the spoils” the way we want to do things today, in an age of nuclear proliferation and the evident ineffectiveness of the old ideas of massive military force, a la WWII? It might be reality but it remains a dangerous game to play. Why even pretend to want to negotiate, mediate as an impartial party when our attitude is that Israel ultimately deserves all of its “spoils”. Do we take that attitude regarding other combatants in other parts of the world, or are we selective as to whom this concept is to apply to and for whom it doesn’t? The ideas of massive armies, and gunboat diplomacy and a world without the doomsday weapons are rather quaint 20th century visions of how conflicts between nations are settled. There is never a reason for them to seriously negotiate when they know that the US always has its back. I would find that unsettling as ultimately I am going to have to find a way to learn to live with my neighbors.
Yes, indeed as a result of WWI, the losing Ottoman Empire was broken up. Germany was broken up as well, as part of the spoils to the victor, but the resentment that remained regarding the relatively harsh terms of Versailles contributed to the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich. In the terms of RealPolitik, that is fair, the winner of a war gets to set its terms, but after two devastating 20th century conflicts, and endless stalemate guerilla wars today, have we learned anything? So, basically war, the thing to be avoided, is the only way for acquiring things that would otherwise be unfair that now becomes fair as the spoils of war. War should be the last resort, when all else is exhausted, so if we have a beef with our neighbor or wants his stuff, maybe we should try something other than armed conflict?
The very fact that war is necessary says that equitable settlements are not going to be in the mind of those victorious. You also need to know that there is a differing perception over what I might think of as in the national interests verses what you would. I was furious with Reagan during the 1980’s in his offering “constructive engagement” to the apartheid nation of South Africa, while still playing “Cold War” games with Cuba and much of the world. So, my experiences and background make my understanding of “good guys” and “bad guys” different. I never trusted the “Cowboys”, their propaganda nor their agenda, which was part of my thesis 42 years ago.
I support Israel like I would support any other country of the world; they have the right to exist. But I do not acknowledge some sort of “special relationship”, but that is just me.I can see you really put some effort into this one Cred. I almost feel a bit chastised for offering only a Cliff Notes version. Almost. :-)
Regarding your thoughts on our, (U.S.), flow of foreign aid, do you consider our $1.5 - $2.25 Billion, (yearly, depending on source), to Pakistan to fit your model? I don't. I think we are just buying their acquiescence to refrain from going to a full-blown Taliban/Al Qaeda nation, and, for limited military cooperation.
You seem to support our foreign aid to Israel, but have problems with the amount and designation. I can see your point as a valid consideration for perspectives such as yours, but my view sees it as relative to the cost of the product.* And we seem to view the product differently.
I see Israel's alliance as almost invaluable, (again, not an unconditional perspective), whereas your comment regarding Saudi Arabia, (the "petrodollar" nations wanting to keep the spigot open), indicates you consider Israel's alliance as no more valuable than one with Saudi Arabia. I don't see that as a comparison at all.
*I came across this Quora thread - Why does the US support Israel? What benefit does the US get out of this alliance? that includes sevral Israeli perspectives, that might help flesh out your thoughts on the benefits we get from our alliance.
And along that line of thinking - the "spigot" nations, history has shown that rather than being our buds, in order to keep the tap open, they have been shown to more likely twist that tap to their own benefit. Even when they did open it a bit to ingratiate themselves with us, they only did so when the reciprocal benefit, (those petrodollars), was greater for them.
Your question about what makes Israel such a dependable ally? I won't even attempt to answer that one Cred. I think our modern history is full of examples of their value to us. I also think you are aware of the instances I would point to, and if you know about them, but don't see them as valuable, then nothing I would point out will change your mind. I think you are being dismissive of what "is," because you only want to see what "should be." I think your view on the 'spoils of war...' point affirms that thought.
But on that point, ("spoils of war), I would think that our efforts after WWII, ie. the Marshall Plan, our efforts to help Japan recover, and our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan - where we took nothing, (tangible assets), and offered almost everything, belie your thoughts in that "spoils of war" paragraph. That you would put conditions on "spoils of war" actions doesn't deny the reality of the concept. And that was the point I originally made.
Moving on ... and starting with your "The very fact that war is necessary says that equitable settlements are not going to be in the mind of those victorious. " Once again I think history proves your following paragraphs wrong. Or at least not realistic of world concepts of the times.
That you would blame Reagan for 'working with an apartheid state' makes me wonder if you would also condemn the Founders for not outlawing slavery in the Constitution, or Lincoln for 'working with' slave holding states prior to the 13th Amendment. Of course I could have misread your intent, but the context of the rest of those couple paragraphs seem to support my understanding of what you meant.
And look where we have ended up:
"But I do not acknowledge some sort of “special relationship”, but that is just me." - The very place that I said we started from. Even so, I am always glad when we 'talk again.' :-)
GAI can see you really put some effort into this one Cred. I almost feel a bit chastised for offering only a Cliff Notes version. Almost. :-)
Regarding your thoughts on our, (U.S.), flow of foreign aid, do you consider our $1.5 - $2.25 Billion, (yearly, depending on source), to Pakistan to fit your model? I don't. I think we are just buying their acquiescence to refrain from going to a full-blown Taliban/Al Qaeda nation, and, for limited military cooperation.
(I certainly understand the purpose of the aid, and why it is considered an "exception" from the rules that govern the use of foreign aid for every other nation with the exception of Israel. It is a fools errand though, and it's quite a price tag, with incomparable amounts of waste associated with it. It is not a "blue" attitude, but would it be cheaper just to go in and destroy Afghanistan rather than this slow bleed?)
---------------------------
You seem to support our foreign aid to Israel, but have problems with the amount and designation. I can see your point as a valid consideration for perspectives such as yours, but my view sees it as relative to the cost of the product.* And we seem to view the product differently.
(I support the idea of foreign aid as it was designed as part of US foreign policy. It might be part of that Realpolitik that you allude to, but we pay for the alliances? My friendship and relationships are not based on the fact that I have to pay someone to agree and acknowledge such. I see such Western Europe and Canada as more 'natural' allies, those that I don't have to pay to see things much as we see them, even if it is not all of the time. Yes sir, we view and value the "product" and its value differently.)
----------------------------
I see Israel's alliance as almost invaluable, (again, not an unconditional perspective), whereas your comment regarding Saudi Arabia, (the "petrodollar" nations wanting to keep the spigot open), indicates you consider Israel's alliance as no more valuable than one with Saudi Arabia. I don't see that as a comparison at all.
*I came across this Quora thread - Why does the US support Israel? What benefit does the US get out of this alliance? that includes sevral Israeli perspectives, that might help flesh out your thoughts on the benefits we get from our alliance.
(As to our differences as to the true value of the Israeli alliance relative to say Saudi Arabia, I have to say viva la difference. I checked out the Quora thread, there were as many that questioned the value of the alliance and a minority that supported it. It may have been more useful during the "Cold War" as to acquiring intelligence and such from the Soviet Union and its satellite states. But the Cold War is over and there are new realities to contend with. Issues regarding the "only Democratic state in the Mideast and atoning for the Holocaust does not ring it with me. )
------------------------------------
And along that line of thinking - the "spigot" nations, history has shown that rather than being our buds, in order to keep the tap open, they have been shown to more likely twist that tap to their own benefit. Even when they did open it a bit to ingratiate themselves with us, they only did so when the reciprocal benefit, (those petrodollars), was greater for them.
(I believe the same about Israel, using the alliance and America's might as a cover, where were it not for that, they may well not exist today in the same form. Israel 'plays' us as well, just in a different way.)
------------------------------------
Your question about what makes Israel such a dependable ally? I won't even attempt to answer that one Cred. I think our modern history is full of examples of their value to us. I also think you are aware of the instances I would point to, and if you know about them, but don't see them as valuable, then nothing I would point out will change your mind.
(My thinking can always be changed and adjusted with compelling evidence that supports a point that is being made no matter how contrary. I want to hear the other side, that is why these forums are so interesting. I might question the value of Israel to American foreign policy that justifies the price tag, maybe I am not aware of this hidden value, point to a couple? I won't be obstinate for its own sake.)
--------------------------
I think you are being dismissive of what "is," because you only want to see what "should be." I think your view on the 'spoils of war...' point affirms that thought.
But on that point, ("spoils of war), I would think that our after WWII, ie. the Marshall Plan, our efforts to help Japan recover, and our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan - where we took nothing, (tangible assets), and offered almost everything, belie your thoughts in that "spoils of war" paragraph. That you would put conditions on "spoils of war" actions doesn't deny the reality of the concept. And that was the point I originally made.
Moving on ... and starting with your "The very fact that war is necessary says that equitable settlements are not going to be in the mind of those victorious. " Once again I think history proves your following paragraphs wrong. Or at least not realistic of world concepts of the times.
(This is a difficult concept to explain, I will leave it for now. )
----------------------------------------
That you would blame Reagan for 'working with an apartheid state' makes me wonder if you would also condemn the Founders for not outlawing slavery in the Constitution, or Lincoln for 'working with' slave holding states prior to the 13th Amendment. Of course I could have misread your intent, but the context of the rest of those couple paragraphs seem to support my understanding of what you meant.
(While you support principles behind much as American foreign policy as actually practiced within the last 50 years or so, I do not. That's the rub. Is Realpolitik designed with a component of hypocrisy in its make up?)
("The Contras were the various U.S.-backed and funded right-wing rebel groups that were active from 1979 to the early 1990s in opposition to the socialist Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction government in Nicaragua.")
(Who was talking about "constructive engagement" in regards to the government that was in place in Nicaragua during the 1980's? Instead, we get skullduggery and illegal movement of resources to support rightwing insurrectionist groups by the Reagan administration.)
(The Founding Fathers had to compromise with the slave holding states to forge a union, I don't see the world largest Democratic power needing to have made such a concession to South Africa. Also, we all know that Lincoln, while being anti-slavery was not abolitionist, his primary goal was to hold the union together.)
--------------------------Jumping to your ending Cred, it fairly sums-up the points I have been trying to make. Whether regarding, "buying" more favorable behavior from Pakistan, maintaining Israel as an ally and proxie, or dealing with apartheid - sometimes compromise is the only goal attainable, As you term it - "Realpolitic" realities cannot be ignored just because they aren't the desired realities.
I don't like our situation with Pakistan either. The negatives are awful, but ... would they be worse without our "RealPolitic" efforts? I don't know, but I suspect that those that would know are involved, and since we continue down that path, then maybe our position is the lessor of two evils. They are a terrorist-harboring nuclear power. Do we really want to just cut bait and run? *shrug*
You will have to give me a minute to get up - after falling out of my chair from your "Why not just go in and destroy Afghanistan" thought. No Cred, beyond defending our national interest related to Afghanistan, I really think we are trying to help them. A stable Afghanistan is in our best national interests too.
If you think our alliances with Canada or Western Europe are comparable - in value and purpose, to our alliance with Israel, then I am at a loss. To me that would be like asking why form a crime-fighting alliance with a bad-neighborhood crime watch group when you already have an alliance with a city-wide police force.
But, (I always have a "but"), I don't disagree with you that our aid to Israel is disproportionate to other nations, or that Israel has "played us" for their own aims at times. Reciprocally, although I wouldn't say we have "played" Israel, we certainly have used our aid for facilitation of our aims - at times. It is a very obvious two-way street.
A quick wrap-up, (I will try to get back with the Israel examples you asked for). Of course the reality of what actions a nation takes, or can take, (your "RealPolitic" actions), regarding other nations is often chock-full of hypocrisy. It ain't nice, but sometimes there isn't a choice. And you shouldn't mistake my perspective of the reality of some of these examples we've discussed as the only viable choice - as support for that choice.
GAI was speaking specifically about Afghanistan as the recipient of funds. But I will concede the need for US involvement outside of the norm due to the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power. I would not want to consider what would happen if these radical groups overthrow the present Government in Pakistan. Since, the problems and threat posed by these groups in Pakistan are pretty much what we are trying to control in regards to its neighbor, I understand. Political and economic stability is desirable in any nation, we just don't fund them all. But, as I mentioned before, I understand the critical nature of the Afghan-Pakistan connection. I would refer to 'that' as a good example of Realpolitik.
I agree with the principle of compromise, just not about when and where it is necessary as so much of it seems more political than as an actual stopgap against a threat to world peace, I spoke about regarding Pakistan. Too often politics and economic advantage circumscribe what are "the realities" in American Foreign policy verses "desired realities" of democratic values and self-determination of peoples, if you look at American history in this regard. If that makes any sense?
----------------------------------------
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger had adopted a policy known as the Tar Baby Option, according to which the US ought to maintain close relations with the white rulers in South Africa.[7] Ronald Reagan continued to support links with South Africa, describing the ANC as "a terrorist organisation", but congressional pressure forced increased distance between the two governments.
(So Reagan refers to the African National Congress, the opposition to apartheid, as a terrorist organization? Now is THAT is Realpolitik, from the standpoint of American Foreign Policy?)
-------------------------------------
You said:
"It ain't nice, but sometimes there isn't a choice. And you shouldn't mistake my perspective of the reality of some of these examples we've discussed as the only viable choice - as support for that choice. "
I think that our government, by saying that there is not another choice, is often times coming from a more political and economic interest perspective than reflecting a truly dire circumstance. So, I question the selection of choices by my Government in Foreign Policy matters as the sole viable ones as available because we have no other choice?It seems that during the times of Nixon, Kissinger, and Reagan, the ANC was a terrorist organization. Complete with bombings and civilian murders.
Take a look at their Wikipedia page. It wasn't until 1991 that they returned to being a non-violent political entity. Or so Wiki says. It looks like Reagan's designation was more reality than "RealPolitic."
GAThat is half of the story,GA
Like I said, it is natural that our perceptions of heroes and villains are going to differ.
Founded on 8 January 1912 by John Langalibalele Dube in Bloemfontein as the South African Native National Congress, its primary mission was to give voting rights to black and mixed race Africans and, from the 1940s, to end Apartheid.[4] The ANC originally attempted to use nonviolent protests to end apartheid, however, the Sharpeville massacre resulted in the deaths of 69 black Africans and contributed to deteriorating relations with the South African government. On 8 April 1960, the administration of Charles Robberts Swart, banned the ANC and forced the party to leave South Africa.[5] After the ban, the ANC formed the Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) to fight against apartheid utilizing guerrilla warfare and sabotage. On 3 February 1990, State President F. W. de Klerk lifted the ban on the ANC and released Nelson Mandela on 11 February 1990.[6]
Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire. There is an example of Realpolitik in action when human and equal rights could no longer be patiently hoped for or negotiated by afflicted groups.
Reagan, by the 1980's, was out of touch when America's allies and Congress all understood what the needed response would have to be.
Hamas is the name of the organisation. Khaled Mashaal is the name of the leader.
In its own policy document, Hamas says many thinks that suggest you are right about it wanting Israel out of the region altogether. But in the same document Hamas also says . . .
"However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national
consensus."(1)
This suggests to me that Hamas is walking a line between signalling to the US and Israel a willingness to accept the 1967 Israeli border (a significant shift from its previous position), while at the same time using the rhetoric necessary to not alienate its core supporters. It's essentially talking to two different audiences.
The reason I suspect this is because we've seen that type of balancing act before among terrorist organizations.
In N. Ireland, the public position of Sinn Fein (the political wing of the IRA) was to demand a unified Irish Republic. But it spent most of the late 80s and 90s secretly negotiating with the British government on ceasefires and power-sharing agreements. The benefits of those negotiations eventually created enough of a tipping point that Sinn Fein and the British government could negotiate openly (which still caused dismay and outrage on both sides).
Likewise, in the Palestinian Territories, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) started as a terrorist group, with the same anti-jewish rhetoric Hamas uses. Following secret talks with Israel in the 90s, that organization became (via the Oslo accords) the Palestinian National Authority. It was later removed from the State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations, and is now the interim body governing the Gaza Strip.
So it's not uncommon to see harsh rhetoric from these types of groups, but it doesn't mean negotiation can't bear fruit. The trick is being able to separate the rhetoric from the political signal.
I don't believe Donald J. Trump is capable of recognizing subtle political signals, let alone acting on them. That's dangerous in international politics because words and gestures (like moving an embassy) take on greater significance, and have serious consequences.
I think he has no clue that he's just signalled to Hamas that they should forget about the political process. Hamas may well respond to that (and to the deaths of Palestinian protesters) with targeted terror attacks inside Israel in the coming weeks or month. Even then I don't believe Trump will be able to see any connection between his words and actions, and those atrocities.
(1) http://hamas.ps/ar/uploads/documents/06 … bfef44.pdf
No, Trump doesn't have the tools to fix it. Neither did Obama, or anyone in Europe. The only people in the world that have the tools to fix the middle are those living in the middle east.
Sometimes, a trusted, honest broker can make a big difference.
Former senator George Mitchell chaired the Northern Ireland peace talks, which led to the Good Friday Agreement and the end of the conflict in Northern Ireland.
A good-faith mediator can be the catalyst for peace.
It goes without saying that Trump could not play the role of an honest broker, or good-faith mediator, but a senior statesperson (or perhaps a former President) could.
Unfortunately the attitude of the Palestinians towards a US mediator may now be negatively impacted by Trump, who's actions have only raised tensions in the region.
It won't stop it, it won't exacerbate it.
"Which country do we locate our embassy in neither the capital nor a suburb of that capital? Do we have a right to tell foreign countries where they shall put their capital?"Not true, not Palestinians but Israelite's for thousands of years. I don't know who you got your history from but hear this. That is if you will be brave and put prejudice aside! The people of Israel lived in the land from as early as 1000 BC. They were removed from the land by the Assyrians in the 8 century BC, and people from Jordan, Babylon, Arabia etc., Arabs from all over the region placed there. This was the policy of the Assyrians under King Sennacherib, when they capture a land they remove the dwellers and repopulated by foreigners. The land was first called Canaan, but when the Israelite dwell there it, it changed to Israel under King David. Successive Empires Persians, Greeks, Romans suppressed the Jews. With the exception of Cyrus the great of Persia who gave the Jews limited access of return. When the Roman Empire defeated the Greeks, they ruled the area. The Jews petition them for independence and was refused. The Jews then raged guerrilla war against the Romans, who as an insult to the Israelite renamed the area Palestine. This was because the Romans sought to know who was against Israel and history reveal their ancient enemy was the Philistines. This is where the name Palestine came from! In 70 AD, the Romans, under General Titus, destroyed the Jewish temple, a temple where Christ had worshipped. The Jews were slaughtered by the Thousands, so they were very much there throughout. The Ottoman Turks, that tried to invade Europe, occupied the land for over 4 hundred years until they were defeated by the British in WWI and later was given mandate over what now is Palestine. The Arabs built their Mosque on the site of the Jewish Temple built by King Solomon of Israel, because they claim Mohammad replaced Christianity and is the final messenger. Under the Turks and other empires the Jews were always suppressed and the Arabs given more opportunity. The crusades which fought against Muslim Saladin tried to remove the Arabs from the Holy Land, failed but they were not sympathetic to the Jews either. The British was petitioned by the Jews for independence, but they too refused the Jews and offer the Arabs more freedom in the land because the Arabs have Oil. Yasser Arafat nor Arabs never lay claim to Jerusalem in his 1960 article of memorandum. Until it became a political issue, Arafat rewrite the article to include Jerusalem as his capital. Europeans has never been sympathetic to the Jews, and in every country was abused and killed. Hitler would never have the Jews to kill if successive empires never keep them from their original homeland, Israel. It was never Palestinians!. Europeans always voted in the UN against the Jews. There can be peace when the world see through the Arabs lies, and stop using the UN to punish Israel in occupying their homeland that has been stolen for centuries! When the Arabs stop claiming Jerusalem and enter genuine peace talks, it will have positive results. When the world stop listening to the Terrorist, Hamas etc. who swore to the total annihilation of Israel, and talk peace.
LOL As the tale goes, when Israel first came to the "promised land" (now the country of Israel) they found the Canaanites already living there. They told the Canaanites that their god had give it to them - get out. When (of course) the Canaanites refused to leave their farms, their cities and their homes, Israel waged war, through a series of battles beginning with Jericho, and eventually drove the owners (those that survived multiple attacks from a foreign people) out of their lands.
If you're going to go back to ancient history to prove ownership, better tell the whole story, don't you think?Doesn't that then go right back to the other half of all geo -political stories - colonization ? And if it does we will all be playing regional "musical chairs"all OVER the world ? Lets give America back to who then ? The vikings or the land bridge transient natives ?
ahorseback: Let's just destroy your neighborhood and build new settlements for the Native Americans, make you and your neighbors refugees and build walls so that you can't get back to your old neighborhood, then kill anybody who approaches the settlements.
If you are going to conquer a country or a people, then conquer it for God's sake and let the people assimilate into the new country. Don't make refugees out them and put them on reservations. That is what we did and it is not right.I wouldn't say "colonization" so much as "conquering. As of 10,000 years ago, nearly all the land on earth had been colonized. To be sure, much of it was pretty thin, but colonized.
wilderness: I agree with you. I shouldn't have used the word colonize. The Israeli's have built settlements in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinians are not conquered. They have been made refugees on their own land.
The limited space in a hub cannot give the total picture of any people or country. But Israel have more history than any other, in fact being invaded and its people suppressed more than 44 times. If all the powers that invade the land lay claim,today, Israel would still have right of land. The Canaanites cease to exist, and Israel continues to live their even if only a remnant, during the periods of invasion.Before you should want to ask a question you should present the historical facts. So, yes, now we start to get things straight. But even your question and subsequent answer is bot cynical and and an attempt to hide the historical facts. And mentioning the true history of the Canaanites from who the land was taken means now you are focusing.
First you seem cynical about the biblical records, but history and secular records, British Museum, Egyptian Museum and hieroglyphics, thousands of records in existence prove the accuracy of the bible. Second, the Canaanites were not Arabs, and certainly not Palestinians! Yes historically people travel, invade land, took it over and rule it. With Israel it was a case of God given the land, because the Canaanites were so evil, God had to remove them. Every people and nation have an history, we need to know where are coming from and where we are going. But to deny a people a homeland is shear cruelty! Look on the size of the nations where these Palestinian Arabs came from to flock into Israel. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, even Syrians have flocked into the land. Yet it is a tiny strip in comparison to those lands, why would they leave it to fight over Israel, a land 10 times smaller than Florida? Why then don't we address the issue of them leaving those vast lands to fight over a tiny landscape? Can you and the world not see that this is politics?
To repeat myself, the Arabs historically never like Israel. One reason was, because they have polytheism worship and have a Panthian of gods, and Israel preach one God! The first set of wars was to prove their many gods was stronger than Israel one God. Only when Mohammad started preaching a single god in line with Israel that they gave up polytheism. However that does not mean that Israel's God has now abandon Israel and chose the Arabs. So that building their Mosque on the temple mound where Israel had their Temple don't mean their religion is authentic!
But not to go on repeating history, the Arabs were never claiming Israel until western powers got involved. So this became part of the geopolitics of the world. If they Arabs were not keeping Israel out, If the Romans, Turks and British had given the people independence we would not be in this situation today. Other people returning to their lands are far and few between.
So Europeans occupying Indian lands in North and South America does not apply, because I don't see vast numbers of Indians waging war on America, or calling for their total annihilation! The west needs to get out of those peoples affairs and let them settle their issue. Peace will come when the Arabs, under the guise of Palestinians stop calling for the total annihilation of Israel. They have the power to solve it, but stop using Jerusalem as a bargaining chip.
So though you may pose a meaningful question, the answers you expected may not be the ones that you have got.That's what I said, isn't it? The Isaraelites claimed their god gave them the land that others (Canaanites) lived on, the others refused to leave so the Israelites killed them and took the land by force.
Now they want to cry "unfair" when somebody else does it to them, saying it was their land that they won by killing the rightful owners.Wilderness, the only 'unfair' Israel is crying is first, why the facts of history is not being told? Second why, the west, Europeans and Americans, such as yourself hates them so much? Why that western media are so easily swayed by the Palestinian and Arabs, that all you see is Palestinians sufferings. Hamas, declared terrorist swear the total annihilation of Israel, and when it defends itself it is accused by the western media as heavy handed. Yet Hamas execute more Palestinians weekly, than those who dies in clashes with Israel yearly. Whats their crime? They collude with the enemy Israel! But the western media ignores and fail to report this. Just before the 1948 Balfour declarations, the Arabs saw it coming, and so more Arabs flood the land of Israel, to prevent it being declared the new state of Israel. That led the nations from where they came, Egypt, Jordan, Syria among others to launch all out war, but they were defeated.
I need not touch what happens to Jews in Europe, during the times of the enlightenment. First the Jews who now accepted and found dwellings in many European states, were now turned against. That caused Hitler to launch the final solution, the death camps. The Arabs turned them out of their homeland, and now Europe didn't want them. Hitler killed them in his gas chambers. The Arabs didn't want them in the Middle East, Europeans and even America refused them at one point, the ship on which many hundreds were on trying to escape European persecution was diverted to Cuba.
Plainly in the 1970's when the Arabs launch their oil embargo, was because the west including America started to show some acceptance of the Jewish nations. The Arabs didn't like it, so they withheld oil and plunge the worlds economy to the brink of disaster.
So Wilderness, you know a little history, but you only refer to those which suits your inclinations. You can only see one enemy, and offender and in your case, only Israel fits the bill. The point I made previously, I must make again. The size of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia where these people came from yearly to fight against Israel,put together competes with the size of America. Israel in size is 10 times smaller than Florida. So why the fight for such a small piece of land, why does the Arabs want it so badly?
I say to you again, it is all about politics! When western, and the UN meddlers stop meddling, stop listen to Palestinians ;lies. peace will come. But the Arabs have oil, Israel don't, so they will always be accused by the western press. They will continue to be painted in a negative light. For the life is a daily struggle for survival against terrorist who are fuelled by Arabic oil money and the western press.
For us who believe the bible,it is politics, but much more than that. It boils down to Israel's God verses Mohammad's god! The battle between good and evil. Evil never wins in the end, truth and righteousness will triumph. The times of the gentiles, (quoting Christ), must be fulfilled concerning the Holy Land. Some has and some yet to be fulfilled. So you like the rest can continue to be cynical, The day will come when the smirk will be wiped from your faces.
You bring up a point that is rarely mentioned: the vast majority of the so called :"Palestinians" (there really is no such nationality) came from surrounding countries after the Balfour Declaration. Jewish immigration also increased, but they, at the time, had no homeland. Then when the land was divided by the UN, those that came to Palestine from their homelands decided to fight the Jews over this territory. It was a colossal blunder which cost them a lot of territory that would otherwise be theirs.
A lot of people need to read the history of the Israelis for one thing , The religion of Islam was born when , around 700 AD so they have very little say about who belongs in Jerusalem , Also in the beginning of Israel 1947-1948 Five [5] leaders of Arab nations told the Palestinians "Get out of there and make room for the displaced Jews .............
One question , Does France , Russia or China have any say if we wanted to move the US capital from Washington DC.to Biloxi Miss. ? No ! It would be up to the American people if we wanted to move said capital , no one else in the world has a say . How many US. presidents in the campaigns have promised to honor Israel's decision to claim Jerusalem as their capital?
All of them ?
So, Trump honors his original word ! Wow , let's hang him ?
ahroseback and Wilderness: Let's go back a little further than 1947. Let's go to right after WWI. After the British and the French carved the mid-east into zones, they didn't know what to do with the Israel/Palestinian territory.
Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain's most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild, expressing the British government's support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The letter would eventually become known as the Balfour Declaration.
Here is the Balfour Declaration:
"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."
In other words, "Here Israel, you do with the Palestinians what you will. It's not my problem."
It turns out, there was no border between Israel and Palestine, then and to this day, the border does not exists. Israel annexed it by colonizing the Palestinian territory and stealing it from Palestine. They actually bulldozed down Palestinian houses and made refugees out the people living in their own homes and territory and then prevented them from becoming citizens of Israel. You tell me who the biggest terrorist are?As I understand it, in 1947, which is where we have to start to understand current conflicts, Palestine was divided into Israeli and Palestinian (or non-Israeli territory by the UN. There were borders on the map. What am I missing?
Peoplepower ;
One , Jerusalem could have been divided between the Palestinians and the Israelis, Israel has even offered that division in the efforts to treaty in the past , but when the charter of Palestine calls for the destruction of the Jews that Hitler obliterated the other half of ; why should Israel compromise this time?
Two , in ten years time alone over ten thousand rockets and missiles have been fired into the Israeli people's neighborhoods . And yet You and the media want us all to believe that the palestinian children paraded in front of the Al Jazeera cameras are victims ? What are eight and ten year old kids doing protesting international borders ?
Three , Your biased media is listening to the Palestinians main voice of Al Jazeera to get all of it's facts , all of it's statistics , and then selling them to the western world . This is nothing but a propaganda war against the Jews , bought and paid for by Iran for one , targeted from Syria with Iranian weapons to "Kill Jews "and has been from the beginning .
Four , Who's side is the American left and media obviously on ?Syria's , Iran's ? We can't see through the masks , The Palestinians wear the same masks that the deep state left here wears ,the mask of chaos and anarchy?
Tell me I'm wrong !ahorseback:
a: One , Jerusalem could have been divided between the Palestinians and the Israelis, Israel has even offered that division in the efforts to treaty in the past , but when the charter of Palestine calls for the destruction of the Jews that Hitler obliterated the other half of ; why should Israel compromise this time?
M: You are wrong because, Israel never wanted to share the land with them. If they did, why did they bulldoze down their houses and colonize the Palestinians territory? That is a game Israel plays, saying they want peace and then continue to colonize the territory. As far as Hitler goes, that is precisely what Israel has done to the Palestinians.. They have created ghettos out where the Palestinians live. It they wanted peace why have they created walls and a myriad of checkpoints to keep the Palestinians out of Israel? They don't want Hamas to go away. That is their excuse for continuing to colonize the Palestinian territories. Pleas show me the "Charter of Palestine."
a: Two , in ten years time alone over ten thousand rockets and missiles have been fired into the Israeli people's neighborhoods . And yet You and the media want us all to believe that the palestinian children paraded in front of the Al Jazeera cameras are victims ? What are eight and ten year old kids doing protesting international borders ?
M: What international borders are you talking about? What would you do as an 8 or 10 year old that had your house and land taken away from you?
Israel uses military equipment including fighter/bombers bought from the U.S. to take out the Palestinians including the children.
a: Three , Your biased media is listening to the Palestinians main voice of Al Jazeera to get all of it's facts , all of it's statistics , and then selling them to the western world . This is nothing but a propaganda war against the Jews , bought and paid for by Iran for one , targeted from Syria with Iranian weapons to "Kill Jews "and has been from the beginning .
M: I don't listen to Al Jezeera, but I do research and analysis and draw my own conclusions. I have written several articles on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It is not based on propaganda. It is based on my understanding of the region and based on verifiable facts.
a: Four , Who's side is the American left and media obviously on ?Syria's , Iran's ? We can't see through the masks , The Palestinians wear the same masks that the deep state left here wears ,the mask of chaos and anarchy?
M: Now you did it by mentioning the "secret word"...the Deep State. Now I know you get your information from Trump''s Minister of Propaganda, Sean Hannity. As far as chaos goes, your glorious leader wins the prize for chaos. He thrives on chaos and drama.
a; Tell me I'm wrong !
M: O.K. You are wrong!!! Here are my articles on the subject:
https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Israe … t-Conflict
https://hubpages.com/politics/Names-of-Terrorist-Groups
https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Four- … e-Mid-East
Tell me I'm wrong !Peoplepower ; Well you are in great company criticizing Israel , today in fact in Germany Neo -Nazi's critisized Isreal , In Greece the Communists criticized Israel . So you are not alone diplomatically ! How conveniently you've forgetten WHY Israel and HER children were evicted from their homes all over Europe by Hitler for one the communists for another . Russia , Poland , France ..............name one European nation and name the enemies of the Jewish people .
Yes , 10,000 rockets and missiles in ten years Peoplepower . WHY DO YOU think the US does supply Israel with planes , patriot missiles , defensive weaponry , and diplomatic support ? Because no one else does !
Stop and imagine Iranian , Syrian and so Palestinian rockets being thrown into your neighborhood since the beginning of Israel , for over half a century . Still you side with the likes of Iran over Israel ? Why , perhaps you were bullied by a Jewish kid in kindergarten ? I thought you were a veteran of the US military or was it the one on the other side ?
Have you read a history book yet ? You obviously suffer the liberal "History of Today " not acknowledging any of the past history that I've accused you of before and that liberals seem to suffer from today. .ahorseback: I haven't forgotten about how the NAZIs committed genocide of the Jews. Have you ever heard Netanyahu use the term "transport." Do you even know what that means? He wants to transport the Palestinians to an Island some place. He would love to be able to kill all the Palestinians, but he knows he could never get away with it.
You don't get it do you? Stop and Imagine your house being destroyed by Israeli soldiers so that the Israeli's can colonize where you live. You, your family, and neighbors are left without homes and become refugees in your own country as you watch new homes being built where you once lived. I don't side with Iran. Did your read my articles yet? Why would Netanyahu want peace? He would have to give up land and colonies to the Palestinians.
There is no way of putting the toothpaste back in the tube. You are going to have to stop making false assumptions about me. You are so far off base. I don't hate the Jewish people per se, but I do think Netanyahu is evil and very one sided about Israel. Even while prior peace talks were taking place, he continued to develop colonies in Palestine. Yes, it's supposed to be their God given right, but if you read my articles, you will know that Jews and Arabs both came from Abraham.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago
0
Peoplepower ; These pictures show the cannon fodder that you want us to believe is fair rule as to all these protesters , This is the "diplomacy" that you defend of Hamas , Palestine , Syria and Iran ? Who do you think put's these kids in uniform and the subsequent dead victims up in front of the camera's ? But it's Israeli that's at fault here ? Perhaps Peoplepower , You need to go and read a real history book of Israel , of Palestine , and drop your subscription to Al Jazeera .The problem with trying . . .
. . . to explain a complex social issue . . .
. . . with nothing but memes or photos . . .
. . . is that the images often . . .
. . . don't tell the whole story.
Do you see how easy it is to create a narrative with images?ahorseback: Sorry, you made the wrong assumptions. I don't subscribe to Al Jazeera. But as you will see in my previous reply, I have done the research and analysis of the the conflicts in the mid-east and have drawn my own conclusions, not like you, where you post a picture of armed kids without knowing the back story of why they are armed. I have read the real history books of Israel and probably know more about the Israeli Palestinian conflict then you ever imagined.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Another Israeli issue that needs addressing is that the incredible power of the western media is now waging international wars , When western news media incite , promotes and manifests lies on front pages , Just how many palestinian deaths is the western media directly causing by it's own misleading agenda's of alt-reality ?
Israel ALSO shows incredible restraint on their borders and deserves credit for not killing more of these border terrorists and protesters . When Hamas shields it's terror acts with armed and uniformed children in the front lines ; the news media shows the bleeding bodies of the then "poor victims " ; The media then displays IT'S OWN responsibility for death and destruction . Kenny MG:
I wrote this article based on my research and analysis.
https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Israe … t-Conflict- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Well if , especially as the left whines about constantly , we have to stop manipulating cultures , conquering -colonialism then why all the hype about Israel , a people most colonized , conquered , shifted , shaken and stirred ? All America has done in Israel is try to save the remaining half of a culture left over from the european Holocaust . A holocaust perpetrated by default by not just Hitler but ALL of Europe and Russia . A holocaust encouraged in one way or another by half of the countries in the world .
The news media is hyping one more phony outrage and the people here are swallowing it whole , is the story accurrate , fair and balanced ? No. Is it somewhat true , of course . But the greater evil is of the media manipulated" front lines" where children are marched in front of cameras , where truck loads of humanitarian aid are turned away by soldiers at the gates , where ONCE AGAIN , the U.N. stands by in blue helmets and does nothing , all of which is making the Israeli -Palestine a low ratings soap opera , except of course by Trump resisters . GA: I never thought I would say this, but thank you. Here is the elephant in the room that no one sees.
http://ifamericaknew.org/stat/usaid.htmlOh my, is that like getting the KKK's endorsement? :-)
I will accept your thanks as directed at the "honest broker" thought. As for the further inferences of your link - no thanks.
GAOn the other side of your elephant is the fact that you have absolutely no say in the fact that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem , so why not have all embassies in Jerusalem if Israel wishes it to be so ?
It's called quite simply "none of our business "! Especially you who are so against our "sticking our noses in where they don't belong" globally .ahorsback: If it's called none of our business, why do you side with Israel?
Peoplepower , If ever there is a nation , culture or a people more persecuted than the Jewish in this world all through history and deserving of the attentions of a big brother , then Israel is the one and probably the only nation we should be defending .
The historians will paint this cooperation between America and Israel any color they wish . For one , when someone like Israel is attacked on almost a daily basis by rockets , suicide vests or even rocks slung from a slingshot by all the Islamic hate filled nations at their borders , someone has to step up and at least recognize the state of Israel's wishes for diplomatic locations . Do you realize that within a couple hours drive in any direction there are enemies at Israel's gates .
Peoplepower , If Canada asked the US to move it's embassy to Victoria B.C , would you have an objection to that ? If The U.K. asked us to put our new embassy in Manchester by the sea , would you object to that ? No I didn't think so , ...... perhaps for you it's just that same old leftist prejudged opinion of those offensive Jews , you know , like most of the Socialist European countries had leading up to WWII ? Or maybe it's because Obama held such disdain for the Jewish people and you're expressing your Obama loyalties?
One thing I do know , Trump has shown the REAL support for Israel that at least five other U.S. presidents have continually promised to do while they were campaigning . Including Obama , Clinton and the Bushes . get used to the fact that the US no longer kisses the ring of Islam . I suggest you read more about the Jewish history and the "neighbors " that hate their guts AND imagine that someone from YOUR neighboring town wants to send rockets into YOUR neighborhood daily , "Think globally act locally" isn't that one of your favorite liberal sayings ? Try applying that strategy to your learning .
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
From well before WWI the Palestine- Israeli situation and directives of the League of Nations , and the repopulation of Israel by the refugee Jews after WWII the Jews have been conspired against by Jordan ,Iran , Syria , the Palestinians , ..........The Jewish haven't been allowed a moment of peace within their own country since the beginning of foreign interventions in decade of the 1910's , ..............
Yet today , many here are condemning the Jews for defending the UN's and League of Nation's own directives , It is STILL not fair to hold them as responsible for the regional violence when they haven't had a year of peace since they arrived . The 1967 war is the perfect example of the seemingly eternal infractions against the Jews . Recently , Israel became the first nation to use the U.S. provided F-35 in the battle for it's own defense. Good for them !
Related Discussions
- 397
All Things Israel and Palestine
by Scott Belford 13 hours ago
First, let me say that I support Israel's right to exist, always have and always will. I also support Palestine's right to exist as well.Let me also say that the Donald Trump of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is trying to destroy everything that Israel stands for. His one-state solution...
- 134
Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel
by TMMason 13 years ago
What is the truth of Israel and its founding? Are those Palistinians of today, really the Palistinians of yester-year?"Zionists stole Palestinian land: That’s the mantra both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas teach their children and propagate in their media. This claim has vast importance,...
- 40
Israel V Palestine What is your solution
by safiq ali patel 10 years ago
The topic of Israeli and Palestinian relations comes up often. Be it when bombs and shelling kick off in the disputed territories, or be it when either side steps up a campaign for recognition. We have all over the years got used to the Israel and Palestinian Issue being a hot topic of debate. In...
- 509
How to Become Vice President - Never use the P-Word!
by Dave McClure 2 years ago
In a 90 minute 'debate', neither Joe Biden nor Sarah Palin even once used the dreaded P-Word. Both candidates made a point of declaring their unquestioned support for their no.1 ally and friend in the Middle East, Israel. Biden, once only, allowed for the possibility of a "2-state...
- 63
Q+A-What's all the fuss about a Palestinian U.N. upgrade?
by Thomas Byers 11 years ago
The Palestinian Authority is expected to win an upgrade of its observer status at the United Nations on Thursday from "entity" to "non-member state," which would amount to implicit U.N. recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine.WHAT IS NON-MEMBER STATE STATUS?The...
- 172
"Israel is now a lunatic state"
by Shinkicker 10 years ago
In 2010 Norman Finkelstein said "Israel is now a lunatic state"His words have never been more prophetic. Israel is conducting one atrocity after another in Gaza right now. This is a prolonged and sadistic massacre of a civilian population.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BchxN2Y9NIk