|
Post by lakhota on May 20, 2011 14:57:27 GMT -5
Funny. Where do you get your news?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 20, 2011 14:58:49 GMT -5
Dezi, since you seem to be a self-proclaimed expert on Israeli/Palestinian affairs, I will not attempt to argue the finer points with you. But I will say this... Do I believe the OP is 100% accurate? I honestly don't know. But this I do know: It portrays a much different historical perspective than the one usually coming out of Israel. Also, I'm 64 years old, and the OP portrays Israeli/Palestinian history more closely to how I remember it during my lifetime. You can try to dismiss/smear me as anti-Semitic all you want. If it's anti-Semitic to not totally condemn Palestinians and exalt Israel - then I guess I'm anti-Semitic. However, I think it's very telling of those who condemn people as anti-Semitic just for not praising Israel and bashing Palestinians. There are two sides to this conflict, and neither are saints. However, I believe Israel has historically been the bully. To not agree with all of the States actions is NOT being Anti Semitic..hell, Israeli's do it all the time. If you think the rhetoric here, the States is over done with the negativism, you have never visited and observed the rhetoric in the State of Israel, or have paid attention to the English printed web sites of the many Israeli newspapers who are at it every day. There is great debate as to how the State should act on all their dealings on this issue. I could easily take your article above and demolish it, even though there are truths there too, but just part of the story. "Dezi, since you seem to be a self-proclaimed expert on Israeli/Palestinian affairs, I will not attempt to argue the finer points with you" I am no expert, but I am knowledgeable and I have criticized the state , I have questions I would like answered, and have stated them here. In some ways I believe Obama hasn't understood the pressures the PM has from the right in Israel, thus those apartments, though I believe the PM also has acted in a , 'In your Face " way toward the Palestinians , not helping Abbas as much as he could in dealing with Abbas political problems. All these leaders have political concerns that they have to deal with. To me good leadership from the other side would be for those leaders to understand better the problems of the other guy and TRY to mitigate them as best they can, and I don't see that. "You can try to dismiss/smear me as anti-Semitic all you want." I would like not to, I would hope you aren't, but from some recent posts of yours, on this I am the expert, you are not, you wouldn't be expected to be , due to your background, and I tried to correct one glaring post to you, you did not pick up on that, so I have to believe what I see. As concerned and interested in American Indian affairs as anyone not being of that back ground as anyone here, I don't suggest I know a bit of what you know on the facts of and the current affairs of the American Indian. The same of you on these events, though admittingly a lot more is published and mentioned on these events in the media and the zones such as this, regarding the middle east and definitly Israeli / Palastinian going on's. If your not anti Semitic, if you just have issues with the treatment of the Palestinian, think it is over done in severity, then I suggest be more careful in the articles you bring up, not all are as you see on the surface and if intelligent disses of actions of the State toward this problem, then go to it, but also it behooves you to try to read between the lines, and try to understand both sides better. One of the problems is that the ones who are on the front lines facing the Palestinians, this is my opinion, from observation, as well as a bit of life experience, they have been there in that position to long. These are not superman by any means, in many cases not even well trained as far as urban insurgency, though Israel has a state of art training facility now, one of the most modern in the World, in the Negev, good enough that US troops are run through it constantly. Nothing like it in the States, yet with all that, been there to long, influenced by peers, have experienced losses of fellow soldiers, been under attack, to react in all situations with restraint and intelligence at all times..just not going to happen.{That was just a little aside I threw in} Lakhota, I would hope your not anti Semitic, if you are there is little to discuss, I won't change your views on that, and to be honest, not interested in it, not worth it to me. If you have some questions, rather be private between you and I, PM , me, and we can thrash out, go back and forth and possible clear the air, or if not , at least get off the personals. all such, kept personal as I do. I usually agree with many of your posts and when you express them occasionally, your personal thoughts.[Occasionally not too, but I don't agree at all times with some of my own after errors are pointed out} On this one however, well you see my feelings...
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 20, 2011 15:05:12 GMT -5
Well, dezi, let's just agree to disagree: I won't call you an idiot and you won't call me anti-Semitic.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on May 20, 2011 15:05:44 GMT -5
What is it about " synopsis" that you don't understand? The 1967 War and the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and GazaDid the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.” Was the 1967 war defenisve? — continued“ I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68 Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights“Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] ‘They didn’t even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.’” The New York Times, May 11, 1997 www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.htmlEgypt amassed 7 divisions in the Sinai. I don't pick winners, losers or bullies I study history to understand how events have consequences.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 20, 2011 15:19:35 GMT -5
Well, maybe Rabin was confused or lying... Or...maybe Rabin was telling the truth and Israel later inflated the two divisions to seven divisions to justify its surprise air attack?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 20, 2011 16:14:25 GMT -5
Good point but also to consider, not having been there in conference, but my thinking.
There was more to that time period then just he moving of divisions..there was the Soviets egging Nasser t to commit, through Syria at the time, the closing of the straits, the Suez canal, and as the leaders of the State are taking it all in, while possible not that immediate threat, that week, but knowing possible the Soviets agenda through sources, seeing what was happening, just a matter of time and time when not so good for the State.
Action taken when it suited them.
This is not the Germans committing to "Barbarossa"...invasion of the soviet Union, big surprise, a half a continent to fall back on, losing armies, not divisions, whole fleets of aircraft and with our help on materials and the sacrifice of over 20 million of their people, not counting the maiming and wounded, able after a long period to come out victorious.
Israel can never ever lose a war, if so, it is over and the end results , as said by their leaders over eons, and today every day by the religious leaders in the Mosques, the feeling of they, Jews , are there for the blood letting, it would not be pretty.
Thus as I said in a previous post, these hi points you bring up, there is most likely, in fact not most likely, but the way it is, more to them then just the posted , printed rhetoric you put up.
What was discussed , that never seems to get into print, but is just as important...there is more to the story then meets the eye.
In this particuler case, this attack of, the saving of the State, time decided on, the choosing by the State, and it was successful.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 20, 2011 16:35:56 GMT -5
Well, maybe Rabin was confused or lying... Or...maybe Rabin was telling the truth and Israel later inflated the two divisions to seven divisions to justify its surprise air attack?The Arabs miscalculated. This doesn't justify their actions. It was provacative and sometimes when you mess with the bull, you get the horns.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 20, 2011 16:56:53 GMT -5
There are a lot of good books on the wars and the events
I have one by "Chaim Herzog ", "The Arab-Israeli Wars ", I am sure out of print now, 1982, but possible available on line, possible very inexpensive or in the local library, at one of the branches and to get it just put in a request, my Library gets books out of print, or not available in the particuler stacks from branches all the time, just takes a week or so.
Excellent book up to 1980's of those conflicts as well as the story behind certain evens, example the capture of the Russian MIG-21 from Syria, how it came about about how , from their testing and flying it and the tactics of the Soviets that were taught by the defector to the Israeli's , had a lot to do with the success of Israeli fighters against Egypt, Syria in the war that followed.
The same on this particular one that Lakhota put up, all the behind the scenes manipulations of the Soviets through Syria and Nasser's reluctant decision to do what he did, miscalculations true, but from the other side a opportunity to successfully upset the time table and win the war, when they were ready, their time line, not the enemys, see Yom Kippor war, niscalculations by the israelis, almost lead to their losing the war, actually, four NUC's of the Israeli's were loaded and on istraeli Jets ready to be used, that is how close the Israeli's thought the thing , war, was going.
These events, a Foot Ball game with rules they are not...not even close, and in the case of Israel, little dust ups say between India, Pakistan in Kashmir today, though with Nucs now available, more serious if gotten out of hand, usually they are not thought of as nation defending, just a letting off of steam.
In Israels case, the size of, the cost of mobilization on the State, there really are not many little dust ups between the major parties when they get involved.
Lebanon, Gaza, Hezballah and Hamas, possible but even there, see latest one with Hezballah in Lebanon, escalated out of control.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 20, 2011 17:52:29 GMT -5
As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational “terrorists” who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes — on both sides — inevitably follow from this original injustice. The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs’ inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today. The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present). The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years) In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people. One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930’s and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation. But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic “land without people for a people without land” was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is the root of the problem, as we shall see. More: www.ifamericansknew.com/history/origin.html
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 20, 2011 17:59:16 GMT -5
As in all things there are different views on the same subject and when it comes to groups they ALL have a agenda as does the source your posting from. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Justice_for_Palestinians"Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP) is a pressure group based in the United Kingdom that advocates human and civil rights, and economic and political freedom, for the Palestinian people. It opposes the current policy of Israel toward the Palestinian territories, particularly the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and seeks a change in their political status. The membership of JfJfP is primarily made up of British Jews" How large a group, members, the support of , I haven't a clue. What seems to be the big thing , to me, of this group, is that it is a Jewish Group, members are British Jews, who oppose the current policy of Israel in their dealing with the Palestinians, and as I have said before, there are Israeli's who also find fault with their governments policy, and over the years, being a Democracy, some times their spokesman have been in office and power. Now it is more the right that is there, yet with all these changes in Government, and proposals put forth and some have been drastic, yet still turned down by the opposite side. One in particular which would have given as much, suggested, 90 % of the demands , give or takke a bit, the wants of the Palestinians, that was when Arafat was President of the PLO, he turned it down, and subsequently the Israeli PM who proposed those agreements, was assassinated by a young member of the Israeli right. Actually the assasin is thought of as a hero in some circles, as if that is a appropriate reaction now in their society, , even though the one assassinated was revered, the most decorated military man in the country. Just because this group your posting the article from, still no personal comment on it, [sigh] has such ideas, , does not make what is posted all fact..there is always more to the story as I have said before. Till you , and I don't expect it to change, look into both sides of a topic, notn just take a blurb your comfortasble with as fact and present it as such, you are like the two patys we are discussing, neither hearing the other , just seeing who can get the most sound bytes in, wasting everyones time with the yadda, yadda..
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 20, 2011 18:05:19 GMT -5
Yep, I've read that link a couple times. Did you also notice it's editable...?
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 20, 2011 18:08:08 GMT -5
As in all things there are different views on the same subject and when it comes to groups they ALL have a agenda as does the source your posting from. I agree they ALL have an agenda. However, isn't it refreshing to finally hear about the Palestinian side for a change...?
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 20, 2011 18:18:11 GMT -5
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 20, 2011 18:38:42 GMT -5
Your interpretation, no they are not going to get the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish State, but if they want their own State, they will have to make concessions , vs regarding the realities of today. Security for Israel, and some territorial movement , which may not be as drastic as you think, that I , you and all don't know, has to be negotiated. The President did say Palestinian State has to be a viable one, which I read he knows it can't be a bunch of little enclaves all surrounded by the Israeli's..here , there , over there, when ever they set foot out their personal homes. One of the realities of today, in my opinion, is the emergence of Iran as a major player in areas surrounding Israel that they are concerned with. Their influence in Egypt, in Lebanon, Syria, even with that regimes current problems, and most important to Israel with Hamas in Gaza, and if after Palestinian elections in October, now supposedly on again, and they win, thus are the ruling party of not just Gaza, some what controllable but also the West bank,. possible happening, and with their ideas toward Israel and Iran being sworn to want to destroy the state plus the possibility of acquiring NUC's, there is a change in the playing field and if you can't see that possibility , understand Israeli concerns, it means your really not interested in security for Israel, actually the weaker they are , in your mind the better it will be..for what ever., something that you might welcome.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 22, 2011 12:40:02 GMT -5
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 22, 2011 12:47:19 GMT -5
"it means your really not interested in security for Israel, actually the weaker they are , in your mind the better it will be..for what ever., something that you might welcome. " Yep have you figured out , right on the button..so be it. A lot like ed on your thoughts, just from the other side.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 23, 2011 0:40:33 GMT -5
Obama's Middle East: Rhetoric And Reality The extreme hostility of Netanyahu’s reaction on a single point may have obscured how much he got substantively from Obama. For an unmistakable message was sent by omission in Obama’s speech at the state department—namely, that the administration has no present plan to broker talks between Israel and the Palestinian unity government. There was not a word about Gaza and only a spectator’s advice about the West Bank. Practically speaking, therefore, one more American president has been turned away from active engagement with the challenge of the occupation. No further pressure for an independent Palestine is likely to be initiated by the US before the 2012 presidential election. From the evidence of a growing mass movement on both sides of Israel’s borders, Obama, for his part, seems to have calculated that Israelis in the next few years will come to treat his words of May 19 as a kindly prophecy. Much More: www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/may/22/rhetoric-and-reality/
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 23, 2011 0:55:48 GMT -5
Obama's Middle East: Rhetoric And Reality The extreme hostility of Netanyahu’s reaction on a single point may have obscured how much he got substantively from Obama. For an unmistakable message was sent by omission in Obama’s speech at the state department—namely, that the administration has no present plan to broker talks between Israel and the Palestinian unity government. There was not a word about Gaza and only a spectator’s advice about the West Bank. Practically speaking, therefore, one more American president has been turned away from active engagement with the challenge of the occupation. No further pressure for an independent Palestine is likely to be initiated by the US before the 2012 presidential election. From the evidence of a growing mass movement on both sides of Israel’s borders, Obama, for his part, seems to have calculated that Israelis in the next few years will come to treat his words of May 19 as a kindly prophecy. Much More: www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/may/22/rhetoric-and-reality/ "Israelis in the next few years will come to treat his words of May 19 as a kindly prophecy." Yep
|
|