Any one wish to discuss Israel vs. Palestine here?

[syrenn]

I agree, there never was a palestine..... but if there was in my opinion it was what we now know as jorad.

 

[sealadaigh]

The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.

Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody. And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.

Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.

I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.

jews are a religion for the most part, not a people. judaism has some ethnic and cultural components, sure, but so do all religions.

persecution and abuse is horrible but it is not an olympic event. i have no idea who is or is not the most persecuted or abused, nor do i think persecution and abuse equates to a right to have a "homeland."

i think, given the human rights that israel has ignored, and some would allege the acts of genocide it condones or otherwise turns her back on, that there is no reasonable expectation that they be allowed to be who they are without intererence. just the opposite is true.

the arabs were not determined to drive the jews out of israel or annihilate them. the arabs were determined, after WWI and WWII, to prevent further dominance by european culture in the region, and make no mistake about it, the jewish immigrants were europeans. jews had lived in the region peacefully before the advent of zionism. those indigenous jews were also, in large part, opposed to the usurping of palestinian land by the european zionists.

england had no title or anything to the land. they were colonialists and had no right there. even the zionists said that after they had no more use for them.

my country, the country i live in, the USA, has a moral imperitive to support democracy and oppose human rights abuses. it has no moral imperitive to prop up an apartheid state that makes a mockery of democracy by occupying a territory brutally and depriving the occupied people of their human rights.

thank you though, and i mean this with the greatest of sincerity, for attempting an answer that i have seen avoided by most people who defend the israeli state.

 

[Foxfyre]

The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.

Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody. And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.

Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.

I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.

Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun. Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions. Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile. And zionists got hostile right back. Both sides are guilty of the violence.

But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.

The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination. They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land. For peace to occur, that has to end.

This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.

The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.

The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.

 

[sealadaigh]

i don't think you can impose your, or a western european culture's, idea of "existence" upon peoples of other cultures, especially in this day and age. that's like saying australia didn't exist until the mid 1700s. many aboriginal cultures throughout the world had and have tribal governments that exist without political boundaries, and i respect that.

i very sincerely doubt if israel, or other tribes in the region, had well defined political borders two or three millinia ago.

I don't have to impose a damn thing, the Israelis are doing a good job on their own.

you're right, they are.

NAZI germany and stalinist russia did a better job though, huh?

but i will give you that. the israelis, indeed, are doing a great job of imposing their iron will on another culture. we finally are in a point of agreement.

 

[Swagger]

The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.

Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody. And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.

Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.

I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.

Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun. Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions. Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile. And zionists got hostile right back. Both sides are guilty of the violence.

But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.

The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination. They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land. For peace to occur, that has to end.

This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.

The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.

The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.

Yes it has. Google the Lavon Affair.

 

[sealadaigh]

The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.

Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody. And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.

Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.

I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.

Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun. Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions. Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile. And zionists got hostile right back. Both sides are guilty of the violence.

But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.

The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination. They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land. For peace to occur, that has to end.

This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.

The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.

The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.

perhaps you would provide us with some o your sources for this history. i myself generally rely on mainstream sources, many of them jewish, like Bt'selem, haaretz or the jerusalem post...and i supplement these with such sources as wiki and UN reports and etc. i look at things written by muslims and/or arabs with a suspicious eye, or sources that only have negative things to say about jews or israel, i discount those for the most part. if i am in doubt about something, i generally look deeper into it from a more reliable source.

 

[Foxfyre]

i don't think you can impose your, or a western european culture's, idea of "existence" upon peoples of other cultures, especially in this day and age. that's like saying australia didn't exist until the mid 1700s. many aboriginal cultures throughout the world had and have tribal governments that exist without political boundaries, and i respect that.

i very sincerely doubt if israel, or other tribes in the region, had well defined political borders two or three millinia ago.

I don't have to impose a damn thing, the Israelis are doing a good job on their own.

you're right, they are.

NAZI germany and stalinist russia did a better job though, huh?

but i will give you that. the israelis, indeed, are doing a great job of imposing their iron will on another culture. we finally are in a point of agreement.

Are they? What other culture are they imposing their will on? There is no restriction on Arabs fully participating in their mosques in Israel and they are restricted in no way whatsoever. You cannot find unrestricted Judaism in any Muslim country, however. The Israelis do maintain a healthy majority of Israelis on the Knesset because that is the ONLY way they can ensure protection of the Jews in Israel, but there are Arabs on the Knesset too. Can you name many/any Arab countries that accept Jews in their governments?

Outside of the United States, you will find few places on Earth that are less aggressive, more free, or more democratic than Israel.

 

[Foxfyre]

Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun. Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions. Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile. And zionists got hostile right back. Both sides are guilty of the violence.

But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.

The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination. They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land. For peace to occur, that has to end.

This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.

The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.

The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.

Yes it has. Google the Lavon Affair.

I actually did a paper on the Lavon Affair way back when in one of my history classes though there is a lot more information available now than there was then to draw from. But don't get me wrong. Do I see Israelis as necessarily saints any more than anybody else? No I don't. Am I prepared to say that Israel has never engaged in overreach or overreaction or dubious policy? No I am not.

But in Israel's defense, it was never 'official' policy and they never attempted to defend it as 'the right thing to do'. Sort of like our own Iran Contra affair. We all know our government allowed it in a quasi fashion and condoned it, but official policy it was not and heads rolled as a result of it. You won't find any vote in the Knesset either authorizing or approving the Lavon Affair.

Israel's official stance since its inception is not to attempt to destroy or conquer its neighbors and it has restricted its official policy to a purely self defensive one.

 

[Swagger]

This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.

The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.

The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.

Yes it has. Google the Lavon Affair.

I actually did a paper on the Lavon Affair way back when in one of my history classes though there is a lot more information available now than there was then to draw from. But don't get me wrong. Do I see Israelis as necessarily saints any more than anybody else? No I don't. Am I prepared to say that Israel has never engaged in overreach or overreaction or dubious policy? No I am not.

But in Israel's defense, it was never 'official' policy and they never attempted to defend it as 'the right thing to do'. Sort of like our own Iran Contra affair. We all know our government allowed it in a quasi fashion and condoned it, but official policy it was not and heads rolled as a result of it. You won't find any vote in the Knesset either authorizing or approving the Lavon Affair.

Israel's official stance since its inception is not to attempt to destroy or conquer its neighbors and it has restricted its official policy to a purely self defensive one.

Except Israel officially honored the surviving members of the operation in 2005, ending decades of denial. Although they're among many countries that have denied false flag operation, yours and mine respectively.

Personally speaking, I think they're both as bad as each other, for a myriad of different reasons.

On the one hand, you have the Palestinians, whose land was forfeit on behalf of all the guilt harboured by Europe and America for what the Jews endured under the Third Reich. It was almost like saying to the Jews: 'We're so sorry for what happened. Here, have Achmed's television to make you feel better.' Achmed had nothing to do with it, yet he's the one who's lost out. In that scenario we can all sympathise with poor Achmed. Coupled with the fact that the Palestinians/Arabs/Brown People (whatever you want to call them) have occupied that stretch of sand since the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Palestinians have a much stronger claim under law than the Jewish diaspora that flocked there after WWII. And the Israelis lean so heavily on Holocaust sympathy - either directly or implied - when they're in the hotseat that it's beginning to get old and tiresome. Not to mention the undeniable influence AIPAC has in the U.S. governemnt, among both parties.

Then, on the other hand, you have a people arrive that don't allow their religion to obstruct the progressive development of infrastructure, fostering foreign relations, irrigate the land, responsibly exploit natural resources, enforce the law with a modern police force, etc. Muslims do none of this. They do the complete opposite. Despite a few glass towers in the Emirates, there's no middle class; and you either go to work on a donkey or in a bullet-proof Mercedez. They sit with their balls in the dirt and, in order not to offend Allah, permit their respective countries to resemble one great big gypsy camp in the desert. Then, after letting everything go to wrack and ruin, they have the gall to demand aid money. It's kind of like justifying the presence of squatters in favour of the landlord on account of all the underpinning and remedial work the squatters - the Jews - have undertaken at their own expense.

In the long run, the odds are aginst the Israelis. With fewer Jews settling in Israel and the younger generations departing for safer pastures in Europe and N. America, that makes for poor competition against rising muslim birth rates (though their infant mortality will draw that factor into doubt). Not to mention being encircled by aggressive neighbours who've collectively sworn nothing short of a blood oath against their mutual enemy. This is all compounded by the fact that Israel's benefactor, the United States, finds itself in dire financial straits.

 

[sealadaigh]

I don't have to impose a damn thing, the Israelis are doing a good job on their own.

you're right, they are.

NAZI germany and stalinist russia did a better job though, huh?

but i will give you that. the israelis, indeed, are doing a great job of imposing their iron will on another culture. we finally are in a point of agreement.

Are they? What other culture are they imposing their will on? There is no restriction on Arabs fully participating in their mosques in Israel and they are restricted in no way whatsoever. You cannot find unrestricted Judaism in any Muslim country, however. The Israelis do maintain a healthy majority of Israelis on the Knesset because that is the ONLY way they can ensure protection of the Jews in Israel, but there are Arabs on the Knesset too. Can you name many/any Arab countries that accept Jews in their governments?

Outside of the United States, you will find few places on Earth that are less aggressive, more free, or more democratic than Israel.

i was speaking of imposing western concepts like boundaries and governments on people who are culturally tribal peoples if you follow it back. furthermore, israel used to just ask arab states to recognise her "right to exist". all the arab states and palestine did ust that. then israel insisted that these very same states now recognise her "right to exist as a jewish state". tell me that isn't an imposition of culture. it is estimated that in 20 years or so, the USA will be predominantly catholic. it is already at 25%. i am a catholic. if i and the other catholics were to insist that, in our dealings with other states, that they acknowledge us as a catholic country, then i would be imposing my culture on those non catholic citizens of the USA.

israel is one of the most aggressive states i have ever seen in the post WWII world. they have committed acts of war or have engaged in war with all of their neighbours. they threaten to attack all kinds of people. they have nukes and shake them at everyone.

i hate to say it, but the USA is pretty aggressive too. where exactly are iraq's WMDs. israel is free for the ewish citizens. black people were "free" after the civil war...well, except that they couldn't drink at white water fountains and a thousand etcs. as for democracy, the palestinians in the occupied territories are governed essentially by israeli law and the PA exists on the whims of the knesset and yet those palestinians in the occupied territories, or if you prefer, disputed territories, have no say in the making or execition of those laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah the honoring of the participants in the Lavon affair was curious though it would not be unlike those involved in our own failed and semi-illegal Bay of Pigs fiasco being recognized as the patriots they intended to be now. A subjective consideration for sure.l

And I really am not concerned whether Israel will succumb to the high Muslim birthrate sometime in the future. The same fate has been projected for the U.K. and France and some other European countries just as the U.S. is supposed to be overwhelmed by the high Hispanic birthrate sometime in the future.

For now, I prefer to focus on more simple concerns. The Palestinians are in the miserable state they are in because they have repeatedly attacked and terrorized and worked for the destruction of Israel. No country should have to stick its hands in its pockets and just endure that without taking any self defense measures whatsoever.

If the Palestinian leadership had not engaged in such behavior, the Israelis and Palestinians would most likely be living in quite amicable peace now.

The Jews have not had a homeland since the Romans ousted them from Jerusalem in 70 A.D. until the U.N. gave them one more than 60 years ago. They now occupy a teensy tiny little strip of land that is but a speck within the larger area.

They should be left in peace to live peaceful lives.

 

[WillowTree]

I repsectfully disagree.

We, America, need to remove our support of Israel and let the region decide for itself who stays and who goes.

I double respectfully disagree. WE need to stand firm with Israel. Edited

 

[Vidi]

i am not sure if they are in violation of over 200 UN resolutions. .

Here's what I've found so far...

Since 1948, the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel 's violations of international law, including the occupation of Palestinian lands, unilateral incursions into the Lebanese and Syrian soils, developing nuclear weapons, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their homes and building illegal settlements in the West Bank .

That's quite a bit!

What if Iran was in violation of that many?

Boom Boom Boom'

Shock and awe

But not Israel!

 

[Vidi]

The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.

Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody. And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.

Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.

I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.

Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun. Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions. Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile. And zionists got hostile right back. Both sides are guilty of the violence.

But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.

The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination. They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land. For peace to occur, that has to end.

This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.

The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.

The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.

So provoked terrorism is ok?

And how exactly were the Zionists "provoked" when they were the "invading" force?

 

[Vidi]

I repsectfully disagree.

We, America, need to remove our support of Israel and let the region decide for itself who stays and who goes.

I double respectfully disagree. WE need to stand firm with Israel.

So self governance and self determination only applies to America then?

 

[Billo_Really]

This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.

The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.

The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.

An "occupational force", cannot claim self-defense.

BTW, I'm getting the history of this area from UN documents.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It was nice to see Shimon speak so highly of President Obama today. If you listen to the R's, he's the anti-Jew made real.

Romney was his usual Court Jester in Israel and if elected prez, will spend most of his time saying that what he meant to say ...

You can blame it on Obama or Romney but that won't change that what Obama said is true - They really do need to take responsibility for their own country's borders. They need to duke this out between themselves and, never mind what the R says, we can't and should not do this for them.

Obama is right about this. Romney is dead wrong. Especially about sending them even more money. (Why is it that the R always wants to spend more money on other countries than on their own?)

 

[sealadaigh]

i am not sure if they are in violation of over 200 UN resolutions. .

Here's what I've found so far...

Since 1948, the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel 's violations of international law, including the occupation of Palestinian lands, unilateral incursions into the Lebanese and Syrian soils, developing nuclear weapons, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their homes and building illegal settlements in the West Bank .

That's quite a bit!

What if Iran was in violation of that many?

i am always suspect of articles where the author has a vested interest in the subject. kourosh ziabari is an iranian muslim and i find what he says a bit disengenuous and dramatic. i always have. also, i think the 'centre for globalization research" has a clear bias. it impresses me as the other side of the MEMRI coin, although it has a broader scope. i see no need to exaggerate or distort israel's violation of humanitarian practices and laws. i think thye word "condemnation" was used erroneously and deceptively in his statement "the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel 's violations of international law..."

The Futility of UN Security Council Resolutions

the security council passes numerous resolutions of concern or position that do not amount to condemnations.

i think this is a more accurate list of the now 224 resolutions passed at the security council level CONCERNING israel.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if you look through the resolutions, you will see a lot of really minor things and duplicates but you will also get a better and more accurate picture of what is going on in actuality without having the accusation of a biased source being thrown back in your face. i think the bare facts condemn israel far greater than an opinion piece, no matter how accurate that opinion piece may be or how much i agree with it.

here is another one though regarding the USA vetoes on behalf of israel...

http://wikispooks.com/wiki/UN_Vetoes_for_Israel

i think that says a lot as well.

all i am really saying is that i think we (people who speak for justice for palestine and her people) should be very hard on ourselves and our arguments and be very wary of our sources. if i open the door for global research etc, i am allowing them to open the door for MEMRI and CAMERA. also, i want to be squeaky clean when i bring up unbiased sources like mearsheimer and walt, or be able to hammer them when "fourteen members resign from carter center advisory board in protest over peace, not apartheid" and blah, blah, blah when, what, twelve of theem were jewish. that is a signiicant fact. the fact that the carter center had almost twice the jewish presence on his advisory board than their presence in the general population would indicate flys in the face of jewish claims of his anti-semitism.

all i am really saying is we win by playing our game, and our game has always been truth and hard facts from reliable, unbiased sources. their game has always been propaganda, which they are good at and which we should point out constantly. they are beginning to fail at tthat game big time. also, there are quite a few honest jews who oppose zionism to speak out against the zionist propaganda.

just my opinion.

 

[jillian]

It was nice to see Shimon speak so highly of President Obama today. If you listen to the R's, he's the anti-Jew made real. LOL

Romney was his usual Court Jester in Israel and if elected prez, will spend most of his time saying that what he meant to say ...

You can blame it on Obama or Romney but that won't change that what Obama said is true - They really do need to take responsibility for their own country's borders. They need to duke this out between themselves and, never mind what the R says, we can't and should not do this for them.

Obama is right about this. Romney is dead wrong. Especially about sending them even more money. (Why is it that the R always wants to spend more money on other countries than on their own?)

we have never "done" for israel. we aid our ally the way we aid allies elsewhere. the difference is that israel doesn't fund terrorists who want to attack us with the aid we give them. i'll also point out that we are obligated by treaty to give certain funds to egypt and israel. last i check, those treaties hadn't been terminted or broken in any way.

my main question is why is israel the only country that certain types of people complain about aiding...

i don't hear the same people complaining that we gave billions to the pals and to the saudis...

 

[sealadaigh]

This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.

The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.

The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.

Yes it has. Google the Lavon Affair.

I actually did a paper on the Lavon Affair way back when in one of my history classes though there is a lot more information available now than there was then to draw from. But don't get me wrong. Do I see Israelis as necessarily saints any more than anybody else? No I don't. Am I prepared to say that Israel has never engaged in overreach or overreaction or dubious policy? No I am not.

But in Israel's defense, it was never 'official' policy and they never attempted to defend it as 'the right thing to do'. Sort of like our own Iran Contra affair. We all know our government allowed it in a quasi fashion and condoned it, but official policy it was not and heads rolled as a result of it. You won't find any vote in the Knesset either authorizing or approving the Lavon Affair.

Israel's official stance since its inception is not to attempt to destroy or conquer its neighbors and it has restricted its official policy to a purely self defensive one.

i think you really do need to tell us specifically what sources you are getting your information from...or even generally would be a start.

i read "The Story of the Irish Race: A Popular History of Ireland" by seamus mcmanus. it was a good book and fairy accurate factually. i enjoyed reading it...but it was biased as all heck and i would never reference it in any kind of dispute or argument.

i think you need to back up some of the things you are saying.