Why are we not 'invading' Israel? Isn't Sharon's gov like Saddam's ?

and is rather inflammatory, don't you think? What you say is a gross, gross generalization.

Everybody wants to be nasty because their religion says so and because what somebody else did to them in the name of their religion. People don't think for themselves, they go by what some translated ancient text says, and we haven't a clue as to the ethics of those who made the translations!

Blessed aren't the peacemakers. They're naive and stupid for thinking humanity will ever get along. And I've been very naive...

This is one of the few reasons why I could ever respect Clinton. HE tried sincere methods to get people to work things out peaceably. With * and his ilk in charge, we've been set back 1000 years. Literally. And things will only get worse until we get true humans back in power. But oh, wait, it's time to vote for the latest American Idol... x(

Israel, and all it does, is holy and good.

Muslims, and all they do, is unholy and bad.

Please report to the Ronald Reagan Re-education department, room 112b.

Thank you.

This message will be repeated in 5 minutes......

Or at least it was in 1984

The truth obviously lies somewhere in the middle

That's exactly what we are supposed to think.

Sharon kill arabs indiscriminantly, Saddam did not.

for whatever reason.

Used poison gas in Jenin, lots of other attrocities, but he's our FRIEND!

I like Israel, but I don't like Sharon.

the I.D.F is not Saddam's Republican Guard my friends.


www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com

which is armies of barefoot 7 year olds throwing rocks.

the I.D.F. has the finest infantry in the world today....if our guys were twelve feet tall and hairy and if congress cut them off completely...they'd still beat us.


www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com

but if we "cut them off completely" Israel would be forced to make a sustainable peace or they would get the peace of the grave.

The onus is entirely on Israel for peace? That is the attitude that derailed Pres. Clinton and Prime Minister Barak's good faith attempt.

was to the point of "cutting them off completely".

I don't know how you wind up with the "Arab world" cap.

you suggested that if the US cut off aid to the Israelis, they would be forced to make peace or to all die--and I justifiably asked you why it should be entirely incumbent on the Israelis to make peace, since, it seems to me, it needs to be a two-way street. If I read the tone of your response incorrectly, I apologize...

I do believe that in the face of cyclical violence the onus to resolve the situation is on the more powerful of the two. That is of course only my humble opinion.

at Camp David?

and Israel....oh, wait a minute....never mind. For some countries a UN Resolution is "a line in the sand", and for others it's "maybe, if you want to, but you don't really have too, only if you feel like it" kind of thing.

Isn't Sharon's gov like Saddam's?

The people of Israel chose Sharon to head up the Israeli government.

The government of the United States chose Hussein to head up the Iraqi government.

I agree that that's taking things too far - I'm no fan of 50 years of violence and persecution of Palestinians, but it's like the Bush = Nazi thing - it just pisses people off (he's absolutely a facist but they're not the same) and makes one's argument look a little weak.

BUT I don't disagree with the comparison because "The people of Israel chose Sharon to head up the Israeli government."

As Israel rules over millions of people who have no say in the government who appropriates their land, puts curfews on their movement, arrests and detains them without charge etc. Then there's the fact that non Jews living within "Israel proper" DO NOT have the same rights as Jews I can not accept the statement that Israel is a democracy

haven't you noticed that?

oppressing brown people

I agree that Israel has been given a "free pass" for FAR too long.

They invaded foreign soil. They place refugees in camps. They attack civilian neighborhoods with rockets fired from helicopter gunships. They disregard UN resolutions.

I guess that sounds a lot like ol' Saddam to me.

Another poster said the people voted for Sharon, aren't Palestinians people?

Seth

Like your grasp of History.

Great post.

As far as I can tell, 90% of the world condemns Israel all the time, the UN spends about half their time draftng resolutions condemning Israel, and billions of dollars are spent trying to encourage Israel's destruction. That hardly sounds like a free pass to me. As for your grasp of history, I dare say that some of the current problems in the reigion would not have happened if Arab countries had not tried to repeatedly invade Israel, or if they had the decency to absorb Palestinian refugees into their countries--after all, most of historical Palestine is in present-day Jordan.

In no way am I justifying the behavior of Sharon's horrific government, however--clearly, the Israelis need to get rid of Sharon, dismantle all settlements, pull back to the 1967 borders, etc.

n/t

I thought I gave lots of examples of action. Or is your definition of "action" US Military action/regime change?

talk is extremely cheap when dealing with either party in this dance of death.

amid the cliches. I'm really being serious here--what are you advocating?

"if they had the decency to absorb Palestinian refugees into their countries"

so by that logic would Hitler's actions have been OK had other nations had the decency to absorb Jewish victims of the Holocaust?

Was it OK to expel Jews from Iraq because after all they could be absorbed by Israel?

What about the refugee's that fled (or were chased out of) Israel PRE the Arab Israeli wars? do you think that if those wars had not occurred that non jews from Haifa, Tel Aviv etc would have been welcomed back with open arms?

I don't know the answer to that question. Obviously the eviction of people from their homes in 1948 is a bad thing.

Comparing the situation to the Holocaust, however, is way out of line. As horrific as the Palestinian refugee situation is, it does not compare to the systematic genocide of 6,000,000 people.

Also, you didn't answer my question--why doesn't Jordan reabsorb the Palestinians that it expelled; most of historical Palestine is in Jordan, not Israel. Why isn't Hamas bombing Ammann? And isn't it hypicrosy for Arab states to decry the conditions in which Palestinians live and do nothing except encourage them to martyr themselves? If they are so morally superior to the Israelis, then why don't they allow the Palestinians to emigrate?

I didn't say they were comparable - you'll note previously in this thread I've said I do not like the Saddam's Iraq = Israel theory.

Again you are stating that to be "moral" the Arab states should encourage Palestinians to leave and emigrate to other Arab nations - effectively giving up any chance of their EVER being a Palestinian state.

Besides who the hell ever suggested that the Arab states WEREN'T hypocritical, although few of them actually claim to be a democracy as Israel does.

which is why Jordan gets a pass on the historical palestine issue. It's really not a matter of Arab states encouraging refugees to emigrate--it's the issue that they have closed their borders to refugees, and in the case of Jordan, to refugees from their own historical homeland.

Is a Palestinian state the ultimate positive endgoal? Of course. Do I think in the meantime it would do everyone some good if the Jordanians and Saudis stopped gnashing their teeth and cursing the Zionist devils and opened their borders to some of their Arab brethren? You bet.

One place we certainly agree is on the treatment of non-Jewish Israelis within Israel--lord knows I'm not in favor of religious states of whatever type. I just think Israel gets a disproportionate amount of abuse around here.

I can assure you that if Jordan opened its borders fully to Palestinian refugees the current Israeli gov't would use it as an excuse to further push them from their homes.

I agree that several other Arab nations could do more to help bring stability to the region, but I think in a cyclical conflict, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the responsibility to make the first move falls on the more powerful of the parties. Israel is clearly more powerful in this instance.

Destroying homes and leaving more than 10% of a population homeless does little to stop the circle of violence.

The sad thing is that our current administration is currently creating the same type of cycle in Iraq.

Violence begets violence.

I guess my point of view on it is that Israel did make the first move under Rabin/Barak, and got it thrown back in their face. We wouldn't have Sharon in charge if Arafat hadn't categorically rejected the Camp David proposals instead of using them as a basis for negotiation.

As for Jordan, you're probably right there as well, except that you say the Israelis would use it as an excuse to push people further from their homes. My point was that Jordan *is* their homeland to a large degree!

"if they had the decency to absorb Palestinian refugees into their countries"

Shouldn't the country that creates the refugees be responsible for this?

"the decency" comment is really bothering me. If I burn down a man's home and he comes after me, should I blame his neighbors for not taking him in?

which was that Jordan is actually more responsible for creating refugees since the majority of historical Palestine is within Jordan, not Israel.

And yes, I would think a good neighbor would offer shelter and food in your example, rather than just saying how nasty the arsonist was. Not that I think it's a very apt comparison.

"If I burn down a man's home and he comes after me, should I blame his neighbors for not taking him in?"

"And yes, I would think a good neighbor would offer shelter and food in your example, rather than just saying how nasty the arsonist was. Not that I think it's a very apt comparison."

I guess I should have said if I bulldozed my neighbor's house and shot missles at it then? Would that be more 'apt'?

11,000 homeless due to the creation of a buffer zone around a city of 90,000. That to me is inhumane and according to Amnesty International, a war crime.

I agree with you that it's terrible what has happened to many Palestinians

your comparison is still not good because you failed to mention the part where several murderers were hiding in the house using its residents as human shields. don't get me wrong--i'm still against the bulldozing and missile launching, but i think you're being dishonest.

but seriously are you going to address my point about Jordan or not? are you not addressing it because you don't want to think about it? because you can't put all the blame on israel?

Ok, perhaps it isn't a perfect comparison. I did fail to mention the 'several' murderers who were hiding in the homes that were destroyed leaving 11,000 homeless! What part of this is dishonest? I think the current Israeli gov't. has a history of punishing the masses for the crimes of a minority. The only thing this accomplishes is pushing more Palestinians to the extreme.

As for the your Jordan point, I basically disagree with the premise of that argument. Sure, Jordan could open up it's borders to the refugees, but that has nothing to do with the atrocities carried out by the current Israeli government.

War Crimes and Refugee issues are separate in my opinion. If I recall correctly (and I do believe I do), the UN has passed more than one resolution offering solutions to the refugee issue, resolutions that have been ignored. I can find the resolution numbers if you would like?

the Israeli response is inappropriately disproportionate.

But my Jordan point is still very relevant, I believe. All of the anger in the middle east is nominally over Palestinians being displaced from their homes--yet, almost 80% of their homes were in Jordan, and no seems to care about that. Israel only makes up about 10% of historical palestine!

He doesn't compare to Saddam. Hussein executed as many as half a million people throughout his reign.

I wont dispute it but it seems a little high unless it also includes soldiers/civilians killed during the Iran/Iraq war and the Gulf War - which to be fair where not executed

They contained around 300,000 people, according to Human Rights Watch.

most were war dead not executed - although one could argue it's much the same - either way Saddam's crimes were certainly on a different level to the crimes against the Palestinians - although Sharon himself is every bit a criminal

despite human rights abuses? Wait a second, I forgot which country I was referring to. Israel, Iraq-- oh, I know--Panama!