Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 22, 2014, 04:50:51 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83751 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Israel, and its neighbors
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 41 Print
Author Topic: Israel, and its neighbors  (Read 245835 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12176


« Reply #600 on: May 25, 2009, 09:14:30 PM »

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/nuclear_iran_israel/2009/05/24/217793.html

The Death of Israel

Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:31 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann   

From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu's government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel to "read the riot act" to the government warning against an attack on Iran.

More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, "...we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the U.S. will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy."

She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that "as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran's nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself." She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel's doing, not Iran's.

In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb.

Obama's end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action. As Metternich wrote, "diplomacy without force is like music without instruments." By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat. The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons.

All this means is that Israel's life is in danger. If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews. No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence. Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility. Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons. And Israel will be dead and gone.

Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel. We are in the same moral position as our ancestors were as they watched Hitler’s rise but did nothing to pressure their favorite liberal Democratic president, FDR, to take any real action to save them or even to let Jewish refugees into the country. If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust.

Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton.

Obama may have held the first White House seder, but he's not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #601 on: May 26, 2009, 09:50:35 AM »

I believe BO is resgined to a nuclear Iran.
His comment about giving talks another year is a joke.

It is probably already too late.
Bush was hamstrung by politics.  If Rumsfeld and Cheney did not lose their political power this might very well have been dealt with before the Iranians had years to dig in.

BO is selling Israel down the river.  No surprise there. 
Ironic so many liberal Jews are helping him do it.





Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31846


« Reply #602 on: May 26, 2009, 10:20:31 AM »

 angry cry angry cry angry angry
Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 192


« Reply #603 on: May 27, 2009, 10:19:08 PM »

Why is obama marginalizing Israel?HuhHuhHuh? he is going to force them to hit iran.

Obama to visit Saudi Arabia to discuss peace, Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090527/pl_nm/us_obama_saudi_5

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama will meet Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in Riyadh next week to seek his support over the nuclear standoff with Iran and reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Obama will visit Riyadh on June 3 in a surprise addition to his scheduled three-day trip to Egypt, Germany and France, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday.

Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, is a staunch U.S. ally in the region and potentially a key player in the drive for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which Obama has declared a top foreign policy priority.

The Obama administration has embraced the 2002 Arab peace initiative, a proposal authored by Saudi Arabia that offered Israel normal ties with all Arab states in return for a full withdrawal from the lands it seized in the 1967 Middle East war, creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees.

Gibbs dismissed the idea the Saudi stop was added to persuade Arab states to make conciliatory gestures to Israel.

"The president believes it's an important opportunity to discuss important business, like Middle East peace, but it's not born out of anything specific," he said.

Gibbs last week scotched speculation that Obama would use his much-anticipated speech to Muslims, which he is due to deliver in Egypt on June 4, to unveil a new Middle East peace initiative.

Obama has held talks with Jordan's King Abdullah and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent weeks as part of efforts to jumpstart stalled Palestinian-Israeli peace moves and will meet Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on Thursday.

ANTI-IRAN ALLIANCE

The visit to Saudi Arabia comes as Obama is seeking to build an alliance of moderate Muslim nations to put pressure on Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, which Washington fears is a cover to build a nuclear bomb.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal called in March for Arabs to agree on how to tackle Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for electricity generation.

Obama's administration has been at pains to reassure Saudi Arabia that Washington's efforts to reach out diplomatically to Iran will not affect bilateral relations.

Saudi Arabia, which sees itself as the leader of mainstream Sunni Islam, fears the growing regional power of non-Arab, Shi'ite Iran, which backs Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamist factions such as Hamas and has considerable influence in neighboring Iraq.

The United States has raised the idea of sending Yemeni terrorism detainees held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, which Obama has said he will close by next January, to Saudi Arabia, as Riyadh has a program to rehabilitate militants.

Saudi Arabia is among the United States' top 15 trading partners. Last year, two-way trade was $67.3 billion, which equaled about 2 percent of total U.S. exports and imports.

Saudi Arabia exported $54.8 billion worth of oil and a few other products to the United States in 2008 and imported $12.5 billion of U.S. goods.

(Additional reporting by Doug Palmer in Washington and Ulf Laessing in Riyadh; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 192


« Reply #604 on: May 27, 2009, 10:21:45 PM »

France denounces Netanyahu's Jerusalem 'forever' vow


French Foreign Ministry spokesman accuses PM of prejudicing outcome of Middle East peace process by declaring that city would forever be Israel's undivided capital. 'Jerusalem should, within the framework of a negotiated peace deal, become the capital of two states,' he says

AFP Published:  05.22.09, 16:21 / Israel News 




France accused Prime Minister Benjamin Neyanyahu on Friday of prejudicing the outcome of the Middle East peace process by declaring that Jerusalem would forever be Israel's undivided capital.

 

"The declaration made by the Israeli prime minister yesterday in Jerusalem prejudices the final status agreement," Foreign Ministry spokesman Frederic Desagneaux told reporters in Paris.

 

Netanyahu's Vow
 
PM: Jerusalem will always be ours / Ronen Medzini
 
State ceremony marking Jerusalem Day sees Netanyahu, President Peres vow capital will never again be divided. Abbas aide: Israeli occupation of east Jerusalem illegal
Full story
 
 
 
The international community doesn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the city's status is a stumbling block in negotiations with Palestinians, who want east Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state.

 

Desagneaux said the internationally sponsored "Middle East Road Map" to peace called on both parties to negotiate an agreement on Jerusalem.

 

Likud: France won't agree to divide Paris
Knesset Member Ofir Akunis (Likud) said in response to the French criticism that "the Israelis don't agree to divide Jerusalem, just like the French won't agree to divide Paris."


 

According to MK Akunis, "Our policy in every agreement is that Jerusalem will remain under Israel's sovereignty."


 

On Thursday, at a ceremony marking Jerusalem's unification in the 1967 Six Day War, Netanyahu said, "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It has always been, will remain so forever and will never be divided."

 

Reacting to the speech, the French spokesman took the opportunity to restate Paris' position on the future status of Jerusalem and to criticise Israel for allowing Jewish settlers to build on disputed land.


 

"In France's eyes, Jerusalem should, within the framework of a negotiated peace deal, become the capital of two states," he said, adding that President Nicolas Sarkozy had told Israeli lawmakers this in a speech last year.


 

"Actions such as the destruction of Palestinian homes or the transformation of Arab districts risk provoking an escalation in violence. They are unacceptable and contrary to international law," Desagneaux said.


 

 
 
   
 
"In broad terms, France condemns the ongoing settlement, including in East Jerusalem. We reiterate the need for a freeze on colonisation activities, including those linked to natural population growth," he added.


 

The previous Israeli government said it might agree to give up sovereignty on some Arab neighbourhoods in east Jerusalem, but Netanyahu has ruled this out and has refused to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #605 on: May 28, 2009, 03:02:41 PM »

"Why is obama marginalizing Israel?? he is going to force them to hit iran."

I was asking one of my patients who is Israeli about his thoughts on the Middle East:

"very bad, very very bad".

When I asked him about Iran,

"We have no choice but to hit Iran".

He added,

"I didn't vote for him but Bush was behind Israel 100%".

I guess he voted for Obama because I asked him why then are so many Jews for BO.  He just looked away.

He said Israel will wipe out all of Irans nucs but it will "take a million lives" with it.

I said how ironic the victoms of thousands of years of oppression (egyptians, hittites, babylonians, philistines, assyrians, persians, romans, most european countries, turks, and probably a dozen more) and the holocaust will now be put in the position of having to do this.

He said with a nod, "thank you" on that thought.

If and after they do this -

We know the world will of course blame the Jews, once again, or rather, as they always have.

BOs popularity will probably go up.  And that is what he is all about - staying high in the polls so he can rearrange the wealth of this country and in so doing make us weaker not stronger.

And the duped liberal Jews will of course make all sorts of excuses for him.








Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31846


« Reply #606 on: May 31, 2009, 06:48:13 AM »

In Defense Of The Constitution

News & Analysis
May 31, 2009


Why, Jew?


     According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) world fact book, the State of Israel occupies a total of 20,770 square kilometers which includes 440 sq km of water.  To put this in perspective, the entire country of Israel is smaller than the US state of New Jersey. 

     The total population of Israel is listed as 7,233,701; this includes non-Jewish Arabs whom are Israeli citizens.  Israel is 76.4% Jewish with a minority of Muslims (16%), Arab Christians (1.7%) with “other Christians”, Druze, and unspecified making up the remaining religious groupings.

     The government of Israel is a parliamentary democracy with a number of factions making up the Knesset, which includes members who are not only anti-Israel, but anti-Semitic as well.
 
     In short, Israel, excepting its parliamentary form of government, is somewhat a microcosm of the United States; a multi-religious society with a participatory government that includes those dedicated to its destruction from within.

     The US president is expected to present a “Peace Speech” in Egypt on June 4.  President Obama is expected to announce his support for a “settlement of the Jewish question” by calling on Israel to accept the two state “solution” that will make it impossible for Israel to effectively defend itself.  To be blunt, Israel is being asked to commit national suicide first by division into indefensible borders and secondly by massive immigration that will destroy the country from within.

     Israel, a country occupying a fraction of the Middle East; a country re-born following the Holocaust; a country that makes a home even for those dedicated to its destruction; is being demanded of by the rest of the world to commit national suicide by dividing itself into two; one side that is expected to live with a false promise of peace and the other that is totally dedicated to destroying the other by any means necessary.  Israel must win every war; her numerous enemies only one.

     We shall not have peace by any division of Israel; nor will we “solve the Jewish question” by partnering with countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or any other Muslim-majority country in the Middle East.  History has proven, time and time again, that political agreements with Muslim-majority countries are not worth the paper they are printed on and that all “agreements” are viewed by Muslim-majority governments as concessions to their religious ideology.

     Let us ask the Saudi’s, the Syrians, and the rest of the Muslim world why they accept the presence of refugee camps housing multi-generations of Palestinians; why they refuse to take these refugee’s or provide them any meaningful assistance?  Are not the Palestinians their Muslim brothers and sisters?  Why do these Muslim countries turn their back on their brethren and demand of the Jews to destroy their country to accommodate those who have absolutely NO RIGHT to Israel?

     The next time someone says “Why, Jew?” when the question of Israel arises, turn your back on him.  For an American to pose such a question; given our own history with tyranny at our founding; clearly demonstrates a lack of appreciation for our own freedoms, it would be impossible for such a person to understand other people’s right to the same. 

     President Obama may get his wish for what could lead to the destruction of Israel; but this would only show the world, again, that the United States stands for what is expedient, not for what is right.  How many of our allies will continue to trust us if we turn our backs on Israel? 

     As for me, I stand for a united Israel…from the river to the sea.


Andrew Whitehead
Director
Anti-CAIR
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31846


« Reply #607 on: June 02, 2009, 10:54:45 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 Administration blocks helicopters for Israel due to civilian casualties in Gaza
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has blocked Israel's request for advanced U.S.-origin attack helicopters. ShareThis
Government sources said the administration has held up Israel's request for the AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopter. The sources said the request was undergoing an interagency review to determine whether additional Longbow helicopters would threaten Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.
"During the recent war, Israel made considerable use of the Longbow, and there were high civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip," a source close to the administration said.
The sources said Israel has sought to purchase up to six new AH-64Ds in an effort to bolster conventional and counter-insurgency capabilities. They said Israel wants to replenish its fleet after the loss of two Apache helicopters in the 2006 war with Hizbullah.
The Israel Air Force has also requested U.S. permission to integrate the Spike extended-range anti-tank missile into the AH-64D. Spike ER, developed by the state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, has a range of eight kilometers and was installed on the Eurocopter Tiger and AgustaWestland A129 helicopters.
The sources said the deployment of Spike would require integration into the Longbow's millimeter-wave fire control and acquisition system. They said this would require permission from both Boeing and the U.S. government.
Israel's Defense Ministry and air force have discussed procurement of additional Longbows with the U.S. firm Boeing. But the sources said the Longbow as well as other defense requests have been shelved by the administration amid its review of the potential use of American weapons platforms by Israel.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...0424_05_27.asp






Egypt - AH-64D APACHE Longbow Helicopters (Source: US Defense Security Cooperation Agency; issued May 26, 2009) http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...licopters.html WASHINGTON --- On May 22, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified
Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Egypt of
12 AH-64D Block II APACHE Longbow Helicopters and associated equipment,
parts, training and support for an estimated cost of $820 million.
The Government of Egypt has requested a possible sale of 12 AH-64D Block II
APACHE Longbow Helicopters, 27 T700-GE-701D Engines, 36 Modernized Targeting
Acquisition and Designation Systems/Pilot Night Vision Sensors, 28 M299
Hellfire Longbow Missile Launchers, 14 AN/ALQ-144(V)3 Infrared jammers, and
14 AN/APR-39B(V)2 Radar Signal Detecting Sets.
Also included: composite horizontal stabilizers, Integrated Helmet and
Display Sight Systems, repair and return, transportation, depot maintenance,
spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical
documentation, U.S. Government and contractor technical support, and other
related elements of program support.
The estimated cost is $820 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national
security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a
friendly country which has been and continues to be an important force for
political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. This sale is
consistent with these U.S. objectives and with the 1950 Treaty of Mutual
Cooperation and Security.
Egypt will use the AH-64D for its national security and protecting its
borders. The aircraft will provide the Egyptian military more advanced
targeting and engagement capabilities. The proposed sale will provide for
the defense of vital installations and will provide close air support for
the military ground forces. Egypt will have no difficulty absorbing these
helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic
military balance in the region.

Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 192


« Reply #608 on: June 02, 2009, 11:26:18 AM »

Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.

"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.

The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.

"Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.

Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.

"What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

Obama leaves in the evening on a trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia aimed at reaching out to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. He is due to make his speech in Cairo on Thursday.

Obama sounded an optimistic note about making progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although he offered no new ideas for how he might try to secure a freeze on new building of Israeli settlements. The United States has called for a freeze, but Israeli leaders have rejected that.

Asked what he would say during his visit about human rights abuses, including the detention of political prisoners in Egypt, Obama indicated no stern lecture would be forthcoming.

He said he hoped to deliver the message that democratic values are principles that "they can embrace and affirm."

Obama added that there is a danger "when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200947_pf.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31846


« Reply #609 on: June 02, 2009, 01:33:03 PM »

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/...9186990802.txt

State Dept.: Obama’s Demands To Stop West Bank Expansion Includes Jerusalem


By David Bedein, Middle East Correspondent

Published: Friday, May 29, 2009

Jerusalem — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued an unprecedented statement clarifying President Barack Obama’s demands for Israel to stop expanding Jewish communities in areas it acquired following the 1967 Six-Day War, including Jerusalem.

The statement, issued Wednesday, applies to the area known in Israel by their Biblical names, Judea and Samaria, and as the West Bank by the international community.

There are now 128 Jewish communities in these areas, with a population of almost 300,000 Jews.

Mrs. Clinton explained President Obama demands that there should be no expansion in these communities for the purpose of “natural growth.”

That would include an American demand to stop construction of kindergartens, schools and housing for young couples.

“West Bank maps” issued by the United Nations also include 18 Jewish neighborhoods inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, in areas inside the city that Israel formally annexed after the 1967 war.

One of the Jerusalem neighborhoods resettled by Jews after the 1967 war is the Old City of Jerusalem, which hosts the Temple Mount, the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people.

Ms. Clinton’s press spokesman was asked if President Obama’s demand to halt expansion of “West Bank Jewish communities” included a demand to stop expansion of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

The answer was affirmative. The U.S. State Department demands that Israel limit Jewish growth in these areas of Jerusalem, “whose status remains to be determined” in negotiations.

Israeli Government Press Director Daniel Seamen reacted to this Obama administration statement by saying: “I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem.”
Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 192


« Reply #610 on: June 02, 2009, 09:18:36 PM »

Israeli Government Press Director Daniel Seamen reacted to this Obama administration statement by saying: “I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem.”


That has got to be the quote of the year.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #611 on: June 03, 2009, 02:03:42 PM »

GM; your knowledge of the Israeli conflict/history is much (!) better than mine.  Rather I think
my understanding is equal only to the average American or European.

Could you, unbiased if possible,  smiley  explain to me why Israeli should not cease and desist
expanding settlements?  I am not looking for a fight; just understanding...

I would learn, and I am sure there are others like me who read but don't post here who
are curious.  It seems to me like a reasonable request.

Thank you.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12176


« Reply #612 on: June 03, 2009, 07:33:49 PM »

Well, the quick and dirty response is, just as the Obamas didn't get permission from the Iroquois tribe before convicted felon Tony Rezko, helped them with their home purchase, Israel need no permission to build additional housing for it's citizens in land it won in war. What native people used to live on the land your home now rests on?
Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 192


« Reply #613 on: June 03, 2009, 08:18:26 PM »

GM; your knowledge of the Israeli conflict/history is much (!) better than mine.  Rather I think
my understanding is equal only to the average American or European.

Could you, unbiased if possible,  smiley  explain to me why Israeli should not cease and desist
expanding settlements?  I am not looking for a fight; just understanding...

I would learn, and I am sure there are others like me who read but don't post here who
are curious.  It seems to me like a reasonable request.

Thank you.


A couple things off the top of my head;

Look into the Palestinians lineage, there is no such thing ethnically as a Palestinian.  They are simply Arab refugees.  Arafat, the most celebrated Palestinian of all time was Egyptian born.

Historically you can trace the Jews owner ship of the Temple mount back to the days of roman occupation.  Islam was not even created until the 600's

When Israel was re created in the 40's Jordan was also created, unlike Israel there is no mention of a nation known as Jordan in any history book prior to the 40's.  The kingdom/nation of Jordan was created as a home land for the Palestinians and was actually enlarged several times at the cost of Jewish land to appease the Arabs during the 40's.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #614 on: June 03, 2009, 10:26:37 PM »

Well, the quick and dirty response is, just as the Obamas didn't get permission from the Iroquois tribe before convicted felon Tony Rezko, helped them with their home purchase, Israel need no permission to build additional housing for it's citizens in land it won in war. What native people used to live on the land your home now rests on?

You are too intelligent; you can do better than that.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31846


« Reply #615 on: June 03, 2009, 10:37:50 PM »

Well, I will add to the mix that the United Nations created the modern state of Israel.

I will add that Jews have been the majority of Jerusalem since the Catholics threw them out of Spain.

I will add that, working from memory here, for the few decades of Israel, the majority of its immigration was emmigration from various Arab/Muslim lands due to the poor treatment there. 

I will add that Arabs are Israeli citizens, vote, have members of parliament, can sue and win, can have mosques, can have Korans and so forth.  Try finding that in Saudi Arabia.

Also, women are legally equal to men, and are not beaten by the religious police if they do not cover themselves in potato sacks from head to toe when it is 120 degrees out.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31846


« Reply #616 on: June 04, 2009, 06:59:27 AM »

Its the NYSlimes, so caveat lector:
================================================

JERUSALEM — Senior Israeli officials accused President Obama on Wednesday of failing to acknowledge what they called clear understandings with the Bush administration that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement “freeze.”

The complaint was the latest in a growing rift between the Obama administration and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how to move forward to achieve peace in the Middle East. Mr. Obama was in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday and is scheduled to address the Muslim world from Cairo on Thursday.

The Israeli officials said that repeated discussions with Bush officials starting in late 2002 resulted in agreement that housing could be built within the boundaries of certain settlement blocks as long as no new land was expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements and no new settlements were built.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could discuss an issue of such controversy between the two governments.

When Israel signed on to the so-called road map for a two-state solution in 2003, with a provision that says its government “freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements),” the officials said, it did so after a detailed discussion with Bush administration officials that laid out those explicit exceptions.

“Not everything is written down,” one of the officials said.

He and others said that Israel agreed to the road map and to move ahead with the removal of settlements and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 on the understanding that settlement growth could continue.

But a former senior official in the Bush administration disagreed, calling the Israeli characterization “an overstatement.”

“There was never an agreement to accept natural growth,” the official said Tuesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “There was an effort to explore what natural growth would mean, but we weren’t able to reach agreement on that.”

The former official said that Bush administration officials had been working with their Israeli counterparts to clarify several issues, including natural growth, government subsidies to settlers, and the cessation of appropriation of Palestinian land.

The United States and Israel never reached an agreement, though, either public or private, the official said.

A second senior Bush administration official, also speaking anonymously, said Wednesday: “We talked about a settlement freeze with four elements. One was no new settlements, a second was no new confiscation of Palestinian land, one was no new subsidies and finally, no construction outside the settlements.”

He described that fourth condition, which applied to natural growth, as similar to taking a string and tying it around a settlement, and prohibiting any construction outside that string.

But, he added, “We had a tentative agreement, but that was contingent on drawing up lines, and this is a process that never got done, therefore the settlement freeze was never formalized and never done.”

A third former Bush administration official, Elliott Abrams, who was on the National Security Council staff, wrote an opinion article in The Washington Post in April that seemed to endorse the Israeli argument.

The Israeli officials acknowledged that the new American administration had different ideas about the meaning of the term “settlement freeze.” Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have said in the past week that the term means an end to all building, including natural growth.

But the Israeli officials complained that Mr. Obama had not accepted that the previous understandings existed. Instead, they lamented, Israel now stood accused of having cheated and dissembled in its settlement activity whereas, in fact, it had largely lived within the guidelines to which both governments had agreed.

On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu said Israel “cannot freeze life in the settlements,” calling the American demand “unreasonable.”

Dov Weissglas, who was a senior aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, wrote an opinion article that appeared Tuesday in Yediot Aharonot, a mass-selling newspaper, laying out the agreements that he said had been reached with officials in the Bush administration.

He said that in May 2003 he and Mr. Sharon met with Mr. Abrams and Stephen J. Hadley of the National Security Council and came up with the definition of settlement freeze: “no new communities were to be built; no Palestinian lands were to be appropriated for settlement purposes; building will not take place beyond the existing community outline; and no ‘settlement encouraging’ budgets were to be allocated.”

He said that Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser at the time, signed off on that definition later that month and that the two governments also agreed to set up a joint committee to define more fully the meaning of “existing community outline” for established settlements.

In April 2004, President Bush presented Mr. Sharon with a letter stating, “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

That letter, Mr. Weissglas said, was a result of his earlier negotiations with Bush administration officials acknowledging that certain settlement blocks would remain Israeli and open to continued growth.

The Israeli officials said that no Bush administration official had ever publicly insisted that Israel was obliged to stop all building in the areas it captured in 1967. They said it was important to know that major oral understandings reached between an Israeli prime minister and an American president would not simply be tossed aside when a new administration came into the White House.

Of course, Mr. Netanyahu has yet to endorse the two-state solution or even the road map agreed to by previous Israeli governments, which were not oral commitments, but actual signed and public agreements.

In his opinion article in The Washington Post, Mr. Abrams, the former Bush official who was part of negotiations with Israel, wrote: “For the past five years, Israel’s government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians.”

Mr. Abrams acknowledged that even within those guidelines, Israel had not fully complied. He wrote: “There has been physical expansion in some places, and the Palestinian Authority is right to object to it. Israeli settlement expansion beyond the security fence, in areas Israel will ultimately evacuate, is a mistake.”

Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12176


« Reply #617 on: June 04, 2009, 08:21:30 AM »

Well, the quick and dirty response is, just as the Obamas didn't get permission from the Iroquois tribe before convicted felon Tony Rezko, helped them with their home purchase, Israel need no permission to build additional housing for it's citizens in land it won in war. What native people used to live on the land your home now rests on?

You are too intelligent; you can do better than that.



The point is valid. You live on land that other claim as theirs, that was taken by military might. Aside from Native Americans, Los Angeles was once part of Mexico, and may be once again in the future. So, explain how your case is different.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12176


« Reply #618 on: June 04, 2009, 09:14:59 AM »

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-cairo-speech-threw-israel-under.html

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009
How Obama's Cairo Speech Threw Israel Under the Bus

President Obama's speech in Cairo was historic.  No other President has gone to a foreign nation to so publicly throw a strong ally under the bus. Once again the President, pandered to the Muslim world by dissing Israel in a major way, he downplayed the role of terrorism, made Hamas look like a rowdy Boys Glee Club, called for the internationalization of Jerusalem, and used the Palestinian party line to describe the Israeli presence not only in the West Bank and Gaza but its VERY existence at all:

He started his Israel/Palestinian discussion by talking about the Holocaust and Anti-Semitism:
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

You notice that how he discusses Anti-Semitism, without mentioning the fact that the Muslim Middle East is the major supplier of Anti-Semitic fervor in the world.

Obama then goes on to talk about the 60+ years of Palestinian suffering, taking the Palestinian view that the very creation of Israel was bad. He mixes the "Christian" Palestinians with the Muslim ones, ignoring the horrible persecution of Palestinian Christians by their Muslim neighbors. Obama also discusses Gaza as an occupied territory. Er..Mr. President maybe you didn't read the newspapers in August 2005, but Israel pulled out of Gaza almost four years ago.  I know--I was in Jerusalem at the time.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
Obama also forgot to mention the role of Egypt and Jordan in making sure that the Palestinians stayed in camps and the fact that there were more Jews thrown out of Muslim countries in 1948 than Arabs leaving Israel. A mistake he repeats below:
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
Displacement? I am surprised he didn't use the word nabka (catastrophe) that's what the Muslims call it. Again accepting Muslim propaganda, the President doesn't make the point that the Arab Palestinian's weren't thrown out, the were told to leave by the Arab League states.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Violence? You mean Terrorism? No because in the next few lines he reaches out to HAMAS:
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
He makes Hamas seem like naughty children, "OK Hamas stop hitting your brother." Here again what Obama doesn't say is just as bad as what he says, "recognize Israel's right to exist." The words he missed is ..as a Jewish state. Neither Hamas or the supposedly moderate Fatah recognize Israel as a Jewish State, they both call for flooding the country with millions of Muslims to ensure that Israel becomes another Muslim country:
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
We have discussed this Ad nauseam during the past few days, by saying this, not only is Obama throwing Israel to the international wolves, but he is ignoring agreements that previous administrations made with Israel about natural growth of existing settlements.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
This was one of Bibi Netanyahu's campaign promises, but not as an obligation as a way to peace.  This is not Israel's obligation, this is the obligation of Egypt and Jordan who created the problem.

His discussion of the "humanitarian crisis" was a bit disingenuous. Maybe he should have mention why Israel closed the borders, and the fact that Hamas has been stealing many of the supplies heading to Gaza.
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
Again he doesn't call for the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Now he calls for the internationalization of Israel's capital Jerusalem:
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer

During the campaign, I warned all lovers of Israel, that Barack Obama would abandon the state of Israel, today he foreshadowed that abandonment to the Muslim world
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #619 on: June 04, 2009, 09:55:54 AM »

GM said; "The point is valid. You live on land that other claim as theirs, that was taken by military might. Aside from Native Americans, Los Angeles was once part of Mexico, and may be once again in the future. So, explain how your case is different."


I thought colonialism among the industrialized world was a thing of the past; I guess not...

And it seems the U.S. Government's position (not to mention most of the world) is that indeed the settlements are illegal.

"At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."


Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #620 on: June 04, 2009, 02:56:56 PM »

I guess that was the "genious argument" that will begin the healing process so we can all sing the pepsi generation song together.
I don't know if W is laughing or crying.

We "must do this", "we must do that" blah blah blah.
Thank God we finally have someone with all the answers.  How come no one had the brains and sense to figure this all out before?

Heavy on the sarcasm.

Not only are we screwed but so are the Israelis.

His middle name is todays gloriusly noted as Hussain.

Like I said all along, it ain't Joshua.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #621 on: June 04, 2009, 03:18:56 PM »

I meant that today he gloriously notes his middle name.

And even though

I don't know if W is laughing or crying but I know our enemies are laughing.

Of course they love BO.

He has put our country on full scale retreat.

He is not Pres of the USA.  He is president of the united world of Obama.

Yet, there is no alternative on the horizon in most people's eyes.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12176


« Reply #622 on: June 04, 2009, 06:21:59 PM »

GM said; "The point is valid. You live on land that other claim as theirs, that was taken by military might. Aside from Native Americans, Los Angeles was once part of Mexico, and may be once again in the future. So, explain how your case is different."


I thought colonialism among the industrialized world was a thing of the past; I guess not...

**I guess you are still living on colonialized land, yes? Is that alright?**

And it seems the U.S. Government's position (not to mention most of the world) is that indeed the settlements are illegal.

**Our current president's position, shocking given his anti-semitic associations. Funny how world opinion isn't so upset over China's brutal occupation of Tibet, as an example.**

"At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."



Barack Hussein Obama, standing with his muslim brothers. Big surprise!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12176


« Reply #623 on: June 04, 2009, 07:57:11 PM »


An Absolut Outrage
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The Border: A vodka maker's ad campaign in Mexico is more than a marketing faux pas that offends many Americans. There's a real movement out there that feels our Southwest is really occupied Mexico.

The first rule of marketing is know your customer base. So when the makers of Absolut vodka began an ad campaign in Mexico featuring what a map of North America might look like "In An Absolut World," it was well aware it might appeal to many Mexicans there and here.
The ad by the Swedish Absolut Spirits Co. features an 1830s era map where Mexico includes California, Texas, Arizona and other southwest states. The U.S. border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 and before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo saw the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico ceded to the U.S.
The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of the leading Latino advertising agency in the U.S., Grupo Gallegos.
"Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land," the Argentine native said of the Absolut campaign, "so this is their way of reclaiming it. It's very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea."
This isn't the first ad campaign targeted at what some Mexican activists call the "Reconquista" movement of those who dream and work toward the day when the American Southwest will be reconquered. To them, illegal aliens crossing the U.S. border are merely returning home.

In 2005, a Los Angeles billboard advertising a Spanish-language newscast showed the Angel of Independence, a well-known monument in Mexico City, in the center of the L.A. skyline, with "CA" crossed out after "Los Angeles" and the word "Mexico" in bold red letters put in its place.
The activists working for this cause actually see themselves as "America's Palestinians" and view the Southwest as their Palestine and Los Angeles as their lost Jerusalem.
An editorial in the newspaper La Voz de Aztlan in Los Angeles stated: "There are great similarities between the political and economic condition of the Palestinians in occupied Palestine and that of La Raza in the southwest United States."

The editorial went on to say: "The similarities are many. The primary one, of course, is the fact that both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have used military means to conquer and occupy our territories."
A key player in the "Reconquista" movement is the National Council of La Raza. Its motto: "For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing."
Few caught the significance of the warmly received words of then-Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo before the Council in Chicago on July 27, 1997:
"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders." During a 2001 visit to the U.S., President Vincente Fox repeated this line, calling for open borders and endorsing Mexico's new dual-citizenship law.
A secondary group in the "Reconquista" movement is an Hispanic student activist group known as MEChA, for Movimento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan).
It has spent the last three decades indoctrinating Latino students on American campuses, claiming that the American Southwest was stolen and should be returned to its rightful owners, the people of Mexico, under the name "Nation of Aztlan."
Aztlan is the mythical place where the Aztecs are said to have originated.
Former MEChA members include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was officially endorsed by La Raza for mayor and awarded La Raza's Graciela Olivarez award. Another MEChA member is former California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who delivered the keynote address at La Raza's 2002 annual convention.
We have an idea: Let's build the border fence and pay for it by selling ad space, even to an ideologically driven company such as the makers of Absolut vodka. We'll drink to that.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12176


« Reply #624 on: June 04, 2009, 08:08:16 PM »

So, JDN, when are you going to stop illegally occupying Aztlan ?
Logged
Boyo
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 74


« Reply #625 on: June 04, 2009, 08:08:48 PM »

Here is a history lesson for the obama frompalestinianfacts.org

Who was the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini?
  
Grand Mufti with Hitler
 
Muhammed Amin al-Husseini [many spelling variations] was born in 1893 (or 1895), the son of the Mufti of Jerusalem and member of an esteemed, aristocratic family. The Husseinis were one of the richest and most powerful of all the rivalling clans in the Ottoman province known as the Judaean part of Palestine.

Amin al-Husseini studied religious law at al-Azhar University, Cairo, and attended the Istanbul School of Administration. In 1913 he went to Mecca on a pilgrimage, earning the honorary title of "Haj". He voluntarily joined the Ottoman Turkish army in World War I but returned to Jerusalem in 1917 and expediently switched sides to aid the victorious British. He acquired the reputation as a violent, fanatical anti-Zionist zealot and was jailed by the British for instigating a 1920 Arab attack against Jews who were praying at the Western Wall.

The first Palestine High Commissioner. Sir Herbert Samuel arrived in Palestine on July 1, 1920. He was a weak administrator who was too ready to compromise and appease the extremist, nationalistic Arab minority led by Haj Amin al-Husseini. When the existing Arab Mufti of Jerusalem (religious leader) died in 1921, Samuels was influenced by anti-Zionist British officials on his staff. He pardoned al-Husseini and, in January 1922, appointed him as the new Mufti, and even invented a new title of Grand Mufti. He was simultaneously made President of a newly created Supreme Muslim Council. Al-Husseini thereby became the religious and political leader of the Arabs.

The appointment of the young al-Husseini as Mufti was a seminal event. Prior to his rise to power, there were active Arab factions supporting cooperative development of Palestine involving Arabs and Jews. But al-Husseini would have none of that; he was devoted to driving Jews out of Palestine, without compromise, even if it set back the Arabs 1000 years.

William Ziff, in his book "The Rape of Palestine," summarizes:

Implicated in the [1920] disturbances was a political adventurer named Haj Amin al Husseini. Haj Amin, was sentenced by a British court to fifteen years hard labor. Conveniently allowed to escape by the police, he was a fugitive in Syria. Shortly after, the British then allowed him to return to Palestine where, despite the opposition of the muslim High Council who regarded him as a hoodlum, Haj Amin was appointed by the British High Commissioner as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem for life. [P. 22]
Al-Husseini represented newly emerging proponents of militant, Palestinian Arab nationalism, a previously unknown concept. Once he was in power, he began a campaign of terror and intimidation against anyone opposed to his rule and policies. He killed Jews at every opportunity, but also eliminated Arabs who did not support his campaign of violence. Husseini was not willing to negotiate or make any kind of compromise for the sake of peace.

As a young man, al-Husseini worked with a native Jew, Abbady, who documented this comment:

Remember, Abbady, this was and will remain an Arab land. We do not mind you natives of the country, but those alien invaders, the Zionists, will be massacred to the last man. We want no progress, no prosperity. Nothing but the sword will decide the fate of this country.
In 1929, major Arab riots were instigated against the Jews of Palestine. They began when al-Husseini falsely accused Jews of defiling and endangering local mosques, including al-Aqsa. The call went out to the Arab masses: "Izbah Al-Yahud!" — "Slaughter the Jews!" After the killing of Jews in Hebron, the Mufti disseminated photographs of slaughtered Jews with the claim that the dead were Arabs killed by Jews.

In April, 1936 six prominent Arab leaders formed the Arab Higher Committee, with the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini as head of the organization, joining forces to protest British support of Zionist progress in Palestine. In the same month, riots broke out in Jaffa commencing a three-year period of violence and civil strife in Palestine that is known as the Arab Revolt. The Arab Higher Committee led the campaign of terrorism against Jewish and British targets.

Using the turmoil of the Arab Revolt as cover, al-Husseini consolidated his control over the Palestinian Arabs with a campaign of murder against Jews and non-compliant Arabs, the recruitment of armed militias, and the raising of funds from around the Muslim world using anti-Jewish propaganda. In 1937 the Grand Mufti expressed his solidarity with Germany, asking the Nazi Third Reich to oppose establishment of a Jewish state, stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, and provide arms to the Arab population. Following an assassination attempt on the British Inspector-General of the Palestine Police Force and the murder by Arab extremists of Jews and moderate Arabs, the Arab Higher Committee was declared illegal by the British. The Grand Mufti lost his office of President of the Supreme muslim Council, his membership on the Waqf committee, and was forced into exile in Syria in 1937. The British deported the Arab mayor of Jerusalem along with other members of the Arab Higher Committee.

According to documentation from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, the Nazi Germany SS helped finance al-Husseini's efforts in the 1936-39 revolt in Palestine. Adolf Eichmann actually visited Palestine and met with al-Husseini at that time and subsequently maintained regular contact with him later in Berlin.

In 1940, al-Husseini requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right:

... to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy.
While in Baghdad, Syria al-Husseini aided the pro-Nazi revolt of 1941. He then spent the rest of World War II as Hitler's special guest in Berlin, advocating the extermination of Jews in radio broadcasts back to the Middle East and recruiting Balkan Muslims for infamous SS "mountain divisions" that tried to wipe out Jewish communities throughout the region.

At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:

The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.
With the collapse of Nazi Germany in 1945, the Mufti moved to Egypt where he was received as a national hero. After the war al-Husseini was indicted by Yugoslavia for war crimes, but escaped prosecution. The Mufti was never tried because the Allies were afraid of the storm in the Arab world if the hero of Arab nationalism was treated as a war criminal.

From Egypt al-Husseini was among the sponsors of the 1948 war against the new State of Israel. Spurned by the Jordanian monarch, who gave the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to someone else, Haj Amin al-Husseini arranged King Abdullah's assassination in 1951, while still living in exile in Egypt. King Tallal followed Abdullah as king of Jordan, and he refused to give permission to Amin al-Husseini to come into Jordanian Jerusalem. After one year, King Tallal was declared incompetent; the new King Hussein also refused to give al-Husseini permission to enter Jerusalem. King Hussein recognized that the former Grand Mufti would only stir up trouble and was a danger to peace in the region.

Haj Amin al-Husseini eventually died in exile in 1974. He never returned to Jerusalem after his 1937 departure. His place as leader of the radical, nationalist Palestinian Arabs was taken by his nephew Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini, better known as Yasser Arafat. In August 2002, Arafat gave an interview in which he referred to "our hero al-Husseini" as a symbol of Palestinian Arab resistance.

Boyo

PS I know it doesn't quit fit but it is a good look into the history of the region and the web site is loaded with info.
Logged
Boyo
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 74


« Reply #626 on: June 04, 2009, 08:12:38 PM »

slight correction the website ispalestinefacts.orgnot the othetr one I posted earlier my bad.  embarassed

Boyo
Logged
rachelg
Guest
« Reply #627 on: June 04, 2009, 08:35:37 PM »

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/jewref.html
Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries
By Jacqueline Shields

Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. In 1945, there were more than 870,000 Jews living in the various Arab states. Many of their communities dated back 2,500 years. Throughout 1947 and 1948 these Jews were persecuted. Their property and belongings were confiscated. There were anti-Jewish riots in Egypt, Lybia, Syria, and Iraq. In Iraq, Zionism was made a capital crime. Aproximately 600,000 Jews sought refuge in the State of Israel. They arrived destitute, but they were absorbed into the society and became an integral part of the state. In effect, then, a vertible exchange of populations took place between Arab and Jewish refugees. Thus, the Jewish refugees from Arab countries became full Israeli citizens whereas the Arab refugees who fled their homes in Palestine, remained “refugees“ unaided by the neighboring Arab countries.

Little is heard about the Jewish refugees because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened the Jews living in their countries with expulsion and violence if partition were to occur. Egypt's delegate told the General Assembly: “The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by partition.“ Following the 1947 United Nations vote to partition Palestine, Arab violence against Jews erupted throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

On January 18, 1948, the president of the World Jewish Congress, Dr. Stephen Wise, appealed to U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall: “Between 800,000 and a million Jews in the Middle East and North Africa, exclusive of Palestine, are in 'the greatest danger of destruction' at the hands of Moslems being incited to holy war over the Partition of Palestine. . .Acts of violence already perpetrated, together with those contemplated, being clearly aimed at the total destruction of the Jews, constitute genocide, which under the resolutions of the General Assembly is a crime against humanity.“ The United States, however, did not take action to investigate these pleadings.

On May 16, 1948, a New York Times Headline read “Jews in Grave Danger in all Muslim Lands: Nine Hundred Thousand in Africa and Asia face wrath of their foes.“ The story reported of a law drafted by the Arab League Political Committee “which was intended to govern the legal status of Jewish residents of Arab League countries. Their bank accounts would be frozen and used to finance resistance to 'Zionist ambitions in Palestine.' Jews believed to be active Zionists would be interned and their assets confiscated.“ Pogroms and persecutions, and grave fears for their future, regularly preceded the mass expulsions and exoduses of the Jews, whose ancestors had inhabited these regions from time immemorial. Beginning in 1948, more than 650,000 Jews left their homes in the Arab world to become refugees, and were eventually integrated into Israel, even as the country was being threatened with annihilation by neighboring Arab League states. Since their belongings were confiscated as the price of leaving from their repressive homelands, they arrived in Israel penniless, but they were welcomed and quickly absorbed into Israeli society. Approximately 300,000 more Jews found refuge, and a new homeland, in Europe and the Americas.

The mass displacement of the Jews from Arab countries has been a breach of international law. The 1945 Nuremberg Charter made wartime mass deportation a crime against humanity, and the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Civilians in Time of War also prohibits deportations and forcible transfers, whether mass or individual. Decrees and practices discriminating against Jews in Arab countries, especially denationalization, is eerily similar to the Nazi Nuremberg Laws on Citizenship and Race, and the victims are the same, the Jews.

Roughly half of Israel's 5 million Jews are Jewish refugees from Arab countries or their descendants, and they received no humanitarian aid from the United Nations. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing their homelands. Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees.
Logged
rachelg
Guest
« Reply #628 on: June 04, 2009, 08:39:21 PM »

JDN,
Please explain why you think America has right to tell  Israel what to do with their borders.
Why no calls for the freedom of Tibet or Kashmir first.  Tibetans and Kashmirians certainly deserve it more

There were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Arab refugees from Israel

A different question about is whether or not Settlements are good for Israel.

Israel has a choice to make  It can pick two of three things.--  greater , Jewish, or democratic. 

I  am not Israeli ( it being their choice) I  would personally choose Jewish and democratic.   I would wold like to see the Palestinian state be Jordan it is already a majority Palestinian.   
A huge problem is that  Israeli withdrawals  from territory only increases violence.  I used to think that people who said that were right wing nut jobs.
 Right wing nut job or not the statics are in their favor.

 I think there will be peace in Israel last after there is peace in the rest of the middle east.     

I don't think there will be peace in the middle east until there are very different borders in the middle east. 
The British (GM Colonialism/The British  absolutely sucked for the middle east) created  terrible borders for the Middle East
An excellent book on this topic is  A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East  by David Fromkin
Logged
rachelg
Guest
« Reply #629 on: June 04, 2009, 08:43:36 PM »

Analysis: Cairo scorecard: The good, the bad & the omitted
Jun. 5, 2009
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

The address US President Barack Obama delivered in Cairo on Thursday was one of the most anticipated and hyped speeches in recent memory. And now that the 5,804-word address has been delivered, every sentence will be dissected for days, weeks and months by various states and groups trying to figure out just how they fared.

Leading the pack, of course, will be the Jews and Israel, obsessed - not unjustifiably - with how we are seen in the eyes of the strongest power on earth.

What follows is an Israeli Jewish primer on the good, bad and omitted.

The good

• Although it often sounds banal, it is not insignificant for the president of the United Sates to go the center of the Arab world and declaim that America's bonds with Israel are unbreakable, and based on cultural and historical ties.

The premise of a strong, unshakable Israeli-US relationship is the basis for any diplomatic process. As Dennis Ross wrote in his book, The Missing Peace, "Would the Arab world even believe it had to accommodate itself to Israel's existence if it had reason to question the staying power of the US commitment to Israel?"

Peacemaking, Ross wrote, required that the Arabs understand "that no wedge would be driven between the United States and Israel, and that Israel was not going to disappear."

Obama made that clear.

• There was something powerful about hearing Obama address the Holocaust, Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism in a city where Holocaust denial and vile anti-Semitism are a major export.

"The Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust," he said. "Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

One would be hard pressed to find other examples of world leaders stating this case to the Arab world so unequivocally.

• Obama put paid to Saudi Arabia's contention that it doesn't have to make any gestures to Israel because it initiated the Arab Peace plan in 2002. The initiative called for a normalization of ties between Israel and the Arab world when Israel returns completely to the pre-1967 borders and agrees to a "just" solution to the refugee question.

Frankly, Obama said, this was not enough. "The Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past."

The bad

• While it was highly significant that Obama addressed Jewish suffering and the Holocaust in Cairo (see above) there was something rather problematic about his use of the term "on the other hand" in transitioning from Jewish to Palestinian suffering.

"Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today," Obama said, stating a fact. "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

On the other hand? As if there is room for comparison between the Holocaust, brought upon the Jews due to no fault of their own, and the suffering of the Palestinians, for which a cogent argument could be made that the Palestinians bear a good share of the responsibility.

• Obama's comparison of the Palestinian cause to the US civil rights movement struck a jarring note, though here he was not blazing new ground, but following former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who made similar comments in the past.

"Palestinians must abandon violence," he said, strongly.

"Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding."

The comparison is facile: the civil rights movement fought for integration and equal rights for black Americans. The movement was not fighting to destroy white America. The same can not be said of the Palestinian movement in its relation to Israel.

• The president was much too lenient on Iran.

"It is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point," Obama said. "This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path."

A decisive point? How about telling us, and the Iranians, something we don't know, like what the consequences of Teheran's continued intransigence will be, and how long they have to stop uranium enrichment, or else.

The omitted

• The biggest omission, from Israel's point of view, is not mentioning the Jewish historic and religious right to be in this part of the world.

Granted, Obama mentioned the Holocaust as a context for the Jews' right to a state, but he didn't mention their historic, religious rights. This omission strengthens the argument in the Arab world that the Palestinians are paying the price for European crimes against Jews, and that if it were not for the Holocaust, the Jews would never have come back to Israel.

The Jewish historic right to be in Israel is something Arabs have never acknowledged, and Obama could have seized the opportunity to stress the point. He did the exact opposite, however, when he said that "privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away."

Recognizing Israel because it will "not go away" is not the same as accepting its legitimacy, and the historic rights of the Jews to be here.

The don't-get-too-worked-up-about

• Some government officials complained after the address that Obama went overboard trying to appease the Muslim world, painting a picture of a moderate Islam that most Israelis don't know and exaggerating both the impact and influence of Muslims on American society.

Forget it; it doesn't matter. This is not a zero-sum game wherein if Obama praises Islamic civilization, he is thereby denigrating the Jewish one. Honoring Muslim influence in America isn't something Jews should feel threatened by.

Though some may get nervous when Obama says "Islam is a part of America," they don't have to. Just because "Islam is part of America" does not mean - as contemporary history has shown - that America will turn its back on Israel.

• Some will see in Obama's remarks about Jerusalem a call for internationalization of the city.

"All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear," he said. "When Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."

The story of Isra tells of how Muhammad was carried from Mecca to the "farthest mosque" on his winged steed, Barak. The location of this mosque is not explicitly stated in the Koran, but is traditionally considered to be the Temple Mount in Jerusalem - something which might explain the huge round of applause Obama received at this point.

Obama's comments on Jerusalem are not a blueprint for policy, but rather
an overall aspiration. It shouldn't be seen as a clarion call to wrest
Jerusalem out of Israeli control, because the issue of control, of sovereignty, was not mentioned. Who doesn't want peace in Jerusalem? The question, and one which Obama skirted, is how exactly to go about achieving it.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1244035003338&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Logged
rachelg
Guest
« Reply #630 on: June 04, 2009, 08:46:41 PM »

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

An alternative two-state solution
Jun. 3, 2009
JEROLD S. AUERBACH , THE JERUSALEM POST

A "two-state" solution for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems like an idea whose time has come - yet again. Everyone who is anyone, especially President Obama, supports it. But his two-state proposal is inexorably linked to a demand for a total freeze on Israeli settlements and, inevitably, their disappearance. They are, it is widely - and erroneously - assumed, illegal under international law.

Advocates of the two-state division of "Palestine" seem oblivious to the fact that partition already occurred - nearly 90 years ago. After World War I the League of Nations mandate for Palestine (then geographically defined as the land that now comprises Jordan, the West Bank and Israel) recognized "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and "the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

But Great Britain, the Mandatory trustee, retained the discretion to "postpone" or "withhold" the right of Jews to settle east of the Jordan River.

To satisfy the ambitions of Hashemite Sheikh Abdullah for his own kingdom, colonial secretary Winston Churchill removed all the land east of the river from the borders of Palestine. With that amputation, three-quarters of Palestine became the new Kingdom of Trans-Jordan.

Ever since, "Palestine" has referred only to the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

Following the Six-Day War, UN Resolution 242 authorized Israel to administer the West Bank until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" was achieved. Even then, however, Israel would only be required to withdraw its military forces "from territories" - not from "the territories" or "all the territories." The absence of "the," the famous missing definite article, was intentional. Israel would not be expected to relinquish all the spoils won during a defensive war for survival.

EVER SINCE 1967, two-state proposals for the division of shrunken "Palestine" have sprouted like weeds whenever the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proved too frustrating for outsiders to endure.

Nonetheless, hope springs eternal - especially in Washington, where the Obama administration seems determined to restrict, if not eradicate, the right of Jews to settle in their ancient homeland.

There are, however, complications. For one, there already are (at least) two de facto Palestinian states, one (governed by Fatah) in the West Bank and another (ruled by Hamas) in Gaza. They have yet to make peace with each other, much less with Israel. For another, two-thirds of the population of Jordan is Palestinian, suggesting that a Palestinian state already exists - in historic Palestine - in all but name.

An obvious two-state solution presents itself: Israel would remain the Jewish state that it has been for 61 years. Israeli settlements, now home to 300,000 Jews, would become part of Israel. Jordan, Gaza, and West Bank Palestinian cities, villages and lands would converge to comprise the state of Palestine.

Each state would police and protect its own people (as Israelis and Palestinians already do); a joint Israeli-Jordanian/Palestinian police force would maintain law and order between communities and supervise border crossings.

It may not seem perfect, nor even sound plausible. But it has two distinctive virtues: It neither ethnically cleanses Jews from their biblical homeland in Judea and Samaria nor would it permit minority rule anywhere within its boundaries. Palestinians will govern Palestinians; Israelis will govern Israelis; and they will each have their own state - in historic Palestine. And the weary debate over Israeli settlements would finally evaporate.

It seems worth a try.

The writer is professor of history at Wellesley College and the author of Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel, to be published by Roman & Littlefield in July.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1244034989184&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12176


« Reply #631 on: June 04, 2009, 08:49:29 PM »

Rachel,

I'd agree that the borders created by the British empire created a real mess that we face today.

My tribe traded land for peace and let's say it didn't work out real well for us.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #632 on: June 04, 2009, 09:07:53 PM »

JDN,
Please explain why you think America has right to tell  Israel what to do with their borders.
Why no calls for the freedom of Tibet or Kashmir first.  Tibetans and Kashmirians certainly deserve it more

I'll try...  smiley

When I was growing up, I was very lucky, my parents provided for me and loved me very much.  But occasionally,
I would rebel.  "I'm going to move out".  My father would look at me and say, "Fine, and how are you going to
pay for it?"  "What are you going to do?"  Now mind you, the situation was never so dreadful that I ever left, but
also, I considered his words.

We are like the "father" in this story.  Without our money, we give billions to Israel, without our weapons and protection, Israel
would cease to exist.  Yes, Israel is a very good friend, loved I think like my father loved me, but...  it is the way of
the world, if I keep taking your money and handouts, you have a price to pay.  And others will argue that America
has paid a huge price by supporting Israeli in dire times, yet I argue that is the right thing to do.  But in exchange...

But because we are the "father" in this story, one who loves his child, there is a reasonable expectation of obedience.

In contrast, Tibet and Kashmir for whom I am sympathetic receive little from us.  They are not one of our children
whom we support.  The world is full of good causes, each one deserving, but we must pick and choose for many reasons.
There are orphans in the world that I or America cannot help.

But occasionally, although there is love, in exchange, I think it is reasonable to expect compliance.  Or Israel can "go it alone".
They can "move out".  And I doubt if they would last much longer than I would have lasted if I have moved out in High School.


Logged
rachelg
Guest
« Reply #633 on: June 04, 2009, 09:46:29 PM »

JDN,
A longer response will have wait but the US has not always been a great friend to Israel.   The US needs Israel more than Israel needs the US. 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #634 on: June 04, 2009, 10:29:52 PM »

Mmmmm I wonder if today, "The US needs Israel more than Israel needs the US"
Frankly, I disagree. It is sort of like the song, "He's my brother..."
Yet I think we should be there for Israel, but it is a burden, obligation/love matters, but it is not a benefit...

But I look forward to your reply. 
And I always enjoy and respect your opinion.
Until tomorrow...   smiley
Have a nice evening.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 10:31:32 PM by JDN » Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 192


« Reply #635 on: June 05, 2009, 07:55:24 AM »

JDN,
Please explain why you think America has right to tell  Israel what to do with their borders.
Why no calls for the freedom of Tibet or Kashmir first.  Tibetans and Kashmirians certainly deserve it more

I'll try...  smiley

When I was growing up, I was very lucky, my parents provided for me and loved me very much.  But occasionally,
I would rebel.  "I'm going to move out".  My father would look at me and say, "Fine, and how are you going to
pay for it?"  "What are you going to do?"  Now mind you, the situation was never so dreadful that I ever left, but
also, I considered his words.

We are like the "father" in this story.  Without our money, we give billions to Israel, without our weapons and protection, Israel
would cease to exist.  Yes, Israel is a very good friend, loved I think like my father loved me, but...  it is the way of
the world, if I keep taking your money and handouts, you have a price to pay.  And others will argue that America
has paid a huge price by supporting Israeli in dire times, yet I argue that is the right thing to do.  But in exchange...

But because we are the "father" in this story, one who loves his child, there is a reasonable expectation of obedience.

In contrast, Tibet and Kashmir for whom I am sympathetic receive little from us.  They are not one of our children
whom we support.  The world is full of good causes, each one deserving, but we must pick and choose for many reasons.
There are orphans in the world that I or America cannot help.

But occasionally, although there is love, in exchange, I think it is reasonable to expect compliance.  Or Israel can "go it alone".
They can "move out".  And I doubt if they would last much longer than I would have lasted if I have moved out in High School.



Kahsmir is another western social experiment gone wrong.  The land called pakistan used to be part of India.  As the the muslims in that area became more violent the british gave them a homeland and carved up india.  How is that working out?HuhHuhHuh?? 

As for Israel, the U.S needs them more then Israel needs the U.S.  Here is why, the western world cannot survive with out cheap fossil fuels (oil, gas).  Imagine now that the U.S throws Israel under the bus and war breaks out.  Israel is going to start tossing nukes around if it looks like they are going to lose.  If Iran gets thumped they may every well close down the straits of Hormuz, sink a few tankers and the next thing we know oil is at $200 a barrel and this current down turn becomes a pleasent memory.
Why would we throw Israel under the bus when we are fighting two war in the same region for the purpose of installing democracy?  do you think with israel gone hamas and hez will suddenly embrace democracy and act kindly towards the west? if you believe that i suggest you read up bit more on islam. it is not just a religion, its a complete political system that governs an individuals life in every aspect.  If you read the Koran through and look at what is happening in the west you will also realize that its imperialistic in nature and that they are slowly infiltrating western culture (CAIR is a good example, a group of convicted terrorists are still abel to recieve tax payer money).  Keep in mind, the crusades were reactionary, they did not begin until 1095 but parts of europe had been over run as early as 711.


Here is a translation that i read - http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #636 on: June 05, 2009, 08:22:09 AM »

I think unfortunately there are a lot of western social experiments gone wrong.

You are right, the world cannot survive without fossil fuel.  Israel doesn't have
any, but the Muslims do...

However, I truly hope Israel would not "start tossing nukes"...


Thank you for your translation reference link; I definitely will read that one since it is published at my alma mater   smiley
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31846


« Reply #637 on: June 05, 2009, 08:26:59 AM »

An additional point to consider on the benefits and merits of Israel as an ally:

History Question:

How did it happen that Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, all of which were once Soviet client states, ceased being such?
Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 192


« Reply #638 on: June 05, 2009, 08:40:10 AM »

I think unfortunately there are a lot of western social experiments gone wrong.

You are right, the world cannot survive without fossil fuel.  Israel doesn't have
any, but the Muslims do...

However, I truly hope Israel would not "start tossing nukes"...


Thank you for your translation reference link; I definitely will read that one since it is published at my alma mater   smiley

I think you will be surprised that even with a very liberal school doing the translation the book is extremely violent and hostile towards non muslisms........ which is exactly how mohammed lived.

As for Israel not having oil and the muslims having it.............. i think your are making the assumption that with Israel gone the arabs will live in peace with us and act rationally.  Never in history have they done that, why do you feel they would now?  thats a dangerous bet.  It also makes us hypocrites should we abandon Israel as we are fighting two wars on the pretense of installing freedom.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #639 on: June 05, 2009, 09:14:17 AM »

Huss, I'll have you know USC is a very conservative school; definitely not liberal.   smiley

And yes, I agree to expect the "arabs to live in peace with us and act rationally" is maybe asking too much.
But that is the best hope for peace and prosperity for all.

And I have never ever suggested we abandon Israel...
This post's recent turn was in response to Rachel's question to me, "why does America have the right to
tell Israel what to do with their borders."  I gave the analogy of the wayward disobedient son.  While father/son might be
in disagreement, and the father thinks he has authority to impose certain rules, underlying, there is always still love.
Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 192


« Reply #640 on: June 05, 2009, 11:06:13 AM »

And yes, I agree to expect the "arabs to live in peace with us and act rationally" is maybe asking too much.
But that is the best hope for peace and prosperity for all.


If our best hope for peace is to hope that people who have lived a certain way for 1500 years will suddenly change because we changed our policy towards israel, we are so screwed its not funny.  Islam as i said before is imperialistic in nature and in its current form, as mohammed created it.  With out a reformation that removes 99% of what mohammed did we have no hope of living in peace with them.  As an experiement, name me one single country that has an islamic majority that does not mistreat its non muslim citizens (excluding turkey whose constitution is based on secular values).
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #641 on: June 05, 2009, 01:11:59 PM »

Not trying to dodge the question, but could you define "mistreat".

For example, I sincerely like Japan, go there often, and can speak a little.  IF I became
a citizen of Japan, I assure you I would still be "mistreated" in comparison to ethnic
Japanese (I am a caucasian).   Deep down, I think most Japanese are racist.

Now, I wouldn't be severely beaten if that is what you mean by "mistreated", but I would have
difficulty getting a loan, entering some bath houses, finding an apartment, being questioned
by the police, entering management levels at a company; many jobs would be off limits, i.e.
police, fire, almost any government employment, and I would always be "watched" etc. 
I'm always gaijin - an outsider even if I could speak perfectly and my citizenship papers were
all in order.

My attitude; accept it and go with the flow.  I know I am a minority so I need to adjust; the
majority does not need to adjust for me.  And enjoy the good, but accept that I am not "equal".

So what do you mean by mistreated? 
Logged
Boyo
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 74


« Reply #642 on: June 05, 2009, 01:47:49 PM »

An example of being "mistreated" . Friend of mine worked corperate security after he retired from the state police.He was sent to Saudi Arabia with some auto execs.One unsuspecting wife walked off the US compound in some capri pants:OOPS  tongue.She was beaten by a group of men, with switches, until she reached the compound and security was able to protect her.Sharia law and how it deals with outsiders is worlds apart from being a minority "gaijin" in Japan.They are living in the dark ages and like it there. grin

Boyo
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #643 on: June 05, 2009, 03:25:55 PM »

I agree, they do seem seem to live in the dark ages and seem to like it there.

So if you live/visit there, you better know the rules.  Sorry; she was stupid to walk around in capri pants.
And the same punishment would have been meted out whether she was muslim or not;
maybe even worse for the muslim woman.  That seems "fair" to me.  Hardly, a "mistreatment" of
non muslims.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #644 on: June 06, 2009, 01:03:43 AM »

Boyo posted: "One unsuspecting wife (in Saudi) walked off the US compound in some capri pants (non-Muslim behavior) OOPS  .She was beaten by a group of men, with switches"

JDN actually wrote: "Sorry; she was stupid to walk around in capri pants. And the same punishment would have been meted out whether she was muslim or not...seems "fair" to me.  Hardly, a "mistreatment" of non muslims."

Repeat:  a western woman wore NORMAL western clothing, was beaten by a group of men, and that is hardly a mistreatment of a non-Muslim???
---

Crafty, you really want us to IGNORE that level of comment rather than react/over-react?  Besides offensive and not genuine (he also wrote: "they do seem seem to live in the dark ages), these posts are tiresome.  IMO he is just trying to bring down the conversation; these posts don't fit anyone's pursuit of the truth.
Logged
Boyo
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 74


« Reply #645 on: June 06, 2009, 05:57:36 AM »

So who are you tired of Boyo or JDN? I showed one example of a vistitor in the middle east being mistreated.then make a sarcastic comment.JDN answered big whoop.Its fun. cheesy

Its not like we go over there and put in holy water dipensers in public schools using public money.That happens here at the University of Michigan Dearborn with islamic foot baths, or at the indianapolis Airport. Its not like we force church bells to ring calling people to worship over there . They now have a call to prayer 5 times a day in a predominatly Polish Catholic neighborhood in Detroit.Its not like when they give speeches that we get all up in arms and kill nuns.Oh thats right they did after the Pope quoted a Byzantinian emporer warning about islam.

Boyo
Logged
HUSS
Power User
***
Posts: 192


« Reply #646 on: June 06, 2009, 08:04:02 AM »

Not trying to dodge the question, but could you define "mistreat". 

Not allowed bibles, churches, voting rights and in some countries like saudi they still have slave markets and collect the jizya from non muslims.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31846


« Reply #647 on: June 06, 2009, 08:15:15 AM »

@Doug: You have a PM

========

I would add to Huss's post the enforcement mechanisms behind "not allowed" can be pretty severe. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #648 on: June 06, 2009, 08:16:03 AM »

Boyo,  I have found all your posts to be right on the mark.  Sorry if I sugar coated my criticism of the other poster so badly that it lost all its meaning.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #649 on: June 06, 2009, 09:06:39 AM »

Huss posted; "As an experiement, name me one single country that has an islamic majority that does not mistreat its non muslim citizens (excluding turkey whose constitution is based on secular values)."

The implication being that Muslim countries mistreat, i.e. discriminate against their non muslim citizens.  I didn't even disagree, I merely asked for a clarification of "mistreat".

Boyo posted a tragic incident where a wife of a friend was "beaten with switches".

Is this "pretty severe"?  Yes, by our standards it is extremely severe and uncalled for.  But that is the law for all; muslim and non muslim.
Her "normal western clothing" is not normal in that country; it is illegal and not acceptable for either a muslim or non muslim.
And I am sorry, but I do think it was stupid that she was allowed off compound and/or went off on her own without knowing the rules and the law.
She should have been either not there (many don't bring their wives) or educated in the proper rules and regulations before venturing off base.
Your friend took the big bucks to work in Saudi Arabia (I have an engineering friend who did the same), but in exchange you put up with their rules and the heat.

But... my point, my response to Huss is that this is not an example of how a Muslim country discriminates against non muslims since that is the law and further, if it had been
a muslim women she too would have suffered the same consequences or probably even worse.

That is the "TRUTH".  We might not like that law or many others, but they are not discriminatory towards non muslims; "fair" in that it is simply the law applicable to ALL citizens
and guests in the country, muslim OR non muslim.


And yes, I do agree they do seem to live in the dark ages.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 09:51:48 AM by JDN » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 41 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!