TYT: Who is wrong? Israel or Palestine?

[ejbr]

Run time: 04:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cydRpiFI4fc   Posted on YouTube: December 31, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 02, 2009 By DU Member: ejbr Views on DU: 6775

 
Some interesting advice for Palestine (under the circumstances and all)

[madeline_con]

1. "The people that you are basically imprisoning..."

YES!!! Thank you!!!!! :hi:

[ejbr]

3. Cenk says, "you're welcome"

I'm sure! :fistbump:

[ihavenobias]

2. K & R

[proud progressive]

4. someone, anyone, please tell why cenk does not have his own msm show.

he is intelligent, well-spoken, easy for the 'common' folk to understand, and what's more, he would be a bargain for some producer fight now

[Libertas1776]

5. ...

"he is intelligent, well-spoken,..." hmmm I think you just answered your own question.

[Seldona]

6. Right on. Someone has to break the cycle of violence.

Right now there is nothing but suffering, insanity, and death.

[Chulanowa]

7. The one problem is...

By doing so, Palestinians basically admits that all of Israel's land claims are legit. Which runs directly counter to what the Palestinians want. This is also why they don't recognize Israel's "right to exist" - because doing so actually means they give up on what their whole damn point has been for all this time.

Maybe back in 1967, it could have worked. Maybe. But now... A two-state solution is basically suicide for the Palestinian people, no matter how it goes down. Either they fight Israel for it and get killed off, or they stop fighting and cede Israel's claims to secure peace, and end up starving on a rock.

Unification is the only possible path to peace now.

[Cary]

10. So you're saying . . .

that Israelis should give up on what their whole damn point has been for all this time and basically commit suicide.

Sure, that's reasonable and very likely to happen. :sarcasm:

[Chulanowa]

26. Well, I guess if you know jack about Israel or Palestine, it could look that way

Israel's "whole damn point" has basically been "stop chucking rockets at us, you stupid bastards." And commit suicide? Yeah, sort of like how Alabama committed suicide when it finally accepted integration. Bull Connor, is that you?

[humbled_opinion]

30. LOL

Your position requires that both parties have a common goal. Alabama did not want to cede from the US so it capitulated. Palestine does not exist and it is not required to be part of the country of Israel. There is no Palestine so I agree, lets rebuild it somewhere. If Gaza area is not suitable for whatever reason then there is obviously some good land in Iran that those people would be happy in. Right? Its an Arab problem let the Arabs deal with it and LEAVE ISRAEL ALONE.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. Oh great. Another advocate of mass ethnic cleansing.

[Chulanowa]

65. Iranians aren't Arabs

But thanks for playing, you get a consolation prize basket of Burt's Bees skin care product samples!

Before you get your ass bumped by the door, do you mind if I point out the irony of you defending Israel by demanding that a new state for Palestinians be carved out of someone else's turf? 'Cause... Yeah, that's just a little ironic there.

Enjoy the exfoliants! :wave:

[DissedByBush]

68. He has the right idea, wrong land

If you want to take Palestine as the Romans defined it, the Palestinians could have just the Gaza Strip.

If you want later, Palestine has been defined as including big chunks of Jordan and Syria. But those countries don't want a big influx of Palestinians, nor have I heard about Palestinians demanding Syrian or Jordanian land for themselves. For some reason they only want the Palestinian land that the Jews are occupying, not the land occupied by their fellow Muslims.

[Chulanowa]

69. "For some reason" eh?

"For some reason they only want the Palestinian land that the Jews are occupying, not the land occupied by their fellow Muslims."

Frankly I'm astounded by the frequency with which I have to type the phrase "have you ever researched the history of the region?" on this subject.

The British Mandate of Palestine consisted of two regions - Transjordan, and Palestine. Transjordan was established as an autonomous state in 1922, while Palestine still remained under direct British authority. The Palestinians are interested in the part called "Palestine" amazingly enough. That is, the part of the Mandate that lay west of the Jordan River that did not become Transjordan (and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in 1946).

Thus the effective definition of Palestine, in legal terms, is exactly what the British called "Palestine" which is the area where the people who call themselves "Palestinians" are interested in. I imagine Palestinians who wanted to live in Transjordan or Transjordanians who wanted to live in Palestine probably got their shit straightened out in the three decades (almost to the day, in fact) that the two places sat next to each other.

Also hate to disappoint, but the Romans reorganized and reshuffled stuff when you weren't looking. The current Gaza Strip was, indeed, "Philistia" in the 1st Century AD. However by the 4th century AD the entire region (modern israel / Palestine, the GOlan Heights, and western Jordan) was three provinces - Palaestina Prima through Tertia. Still so eager to give them what the Romans called Palestine? By this logic the Jews should get the little wedge of land the Romans called "Judea", nestled between Philistia and the Dead Sea, with Samaria to the North and Idumea to the south, both Assyrian peoples.

Needless to say I find this sort of logic flawed, if for no other reason than the argument hangs on the administrations of an empire that's been extinct for well over two thousand years. WHy not just give the whole damn place to the Egyptians?

[DissedByBush]

76. Palestine has had many definitions

As many empires have controlled the region and redefined it. Britain was only the latest.

The point is that through much of history Palestine has included some of Jordan and Syria, but the Palestinians aren't demanding the modern-day Palestine be carved out of those countries, only Israel.

How about we go Byzantine borders, which are the simplest: The Jews can have Palaestina I, the Palestinians Palaestina II. Except I fear with this the Arabs would drain the Jordan dry so the Israelis don't get any water at the lower end that's in their territory. The Arabs restricting Israel's water was one of the reasons for the 1967 war.

[Chulanowa]

80. The point is stupid

Because we're talking about a situation created under the aegis of the United Nations, between two nations both of whom have significant UN recognition, who are created out pf a territory previously held by a UN founding member.

So how about we go by the territory that was recognized by the UN? You know, an organization that's relevant. Fucking Byzantium, are you shitting me?

[DissedByBush]

82. The Arabs rejected the UN recognition of territory

So to them UN territories are pointless. They want "Palestine."

My question of why not ask for a chunk of Syria and Jordan as part of the historical Palestine rhetorical since the answer is obvious. Those are already Muslim-controlled countries. They want the entire region to be Muslim-controlled and the only thing stopping them is the presence of Israel. They have proudly stated over and over that their goal is the destruction of Israel.

How do you negotiate peace with someone who is dedicated to the destruction of your country and the murder of your people, and even indoctrinates its children to that goal?

[Fedja]

86. If we roll back the world to Bysantine times

you need to hop a boat and leave the continent to the Native American tribes. It only sounds ridiculous when you're the one losing your home, doesn't it?

[Chulanowa]

89. You would reject it, too

The flaw of the UN Partition plan was that it was formulated and drawn up by western Europeans with the help of the men most interested in a nationalist Jewish state. The Arabs who lived there - of all four predominant faiths - were not consulted in this arrangement.

Thus the Jewish settlers (roughly 30% of he total population of the area) were to be awarded 60% of the land, and with it the vast majority of arable land. Not only that, but the Sea of Galilee as well as Lake Hula were going to be part of the new Israel - and thus Israel would control pretty much all the fresh water in the region. What's more, Israel was going to control all the ports, both at the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

In other words, the UN's plan was to assfuck the Arabs, shove them into the far corners, and grant all the riches to European colonists. Predictably, the Arabs told the UN to stuff it, and also predictably those colonists went ahead and declared the plan valid. Were you to find yourself in the shoes of either side, I'm certain you would agree with the decision that side made. I can't blame the Arabs for being pissed at being screwed, nor can I blame the colonists for taking a damn good deal when they see one.

Your question of "why not a chunk of Syria and Jordan" is ridiculous, for the reasons I have pointed out. The people who define themselves as "Palestinian" rather predictably identify with hte portion of land called "Palestine" which is the range of land that is now Israel and the Palestinian territories. This isn't rocket science, and your attempts at obfuscation aren't going to get you very far.

You're using "they" a lot, and you're also confusing a real conflict over land with a completely fabricated religious conflict. There's lots of Muslim Israelis. There are plenty of Jewish Palestinians. Christians and Druze have decent numbers among both groups. So who is your "they"? Does it encompass just Hamas, or the breadth of Palestinians, or the entire ethnic group of "Arabs" or the even broader group of "Muslims"? 'Cause once again, you're mooshing them all into one big pile.

How do you negotiate peace with someone who is dedicated to that shit? Same way you negotiate with anyone else. After all, if htey were your bestest best buddies, you wouldn't need to negotiate in the first place, would you? And the whole point of negotiation is to talk the other side out of the part of their platform that you disagree with - such as a constant barking about destroying your nation. Especially when you and they both know that said threat is nothing but barking bravado and that the dumbasses can't actually pose anything resembling a major threat.

[Fedja]

85. I hate to break it to you...

But "Israel" is a recent visitor in the Arab lands. Read up on it.

[Cary]

31. If Arabs had their way there would have never been an Israel.

I don't think that has anything whatsoever to do with Alabama and integration.

[Chulanowa]

46. If the Arabs had their way, the UN would have listened to them back in the 40's

You can't really expect the native population of an arid territory to accede to giving 30% of the population, all immigrants, 60% of the land (80% of the arable land) and 100% of the water along with control of all the main ports. This conflict is about land, always has been.

Neither you nor Humbled_Opinion have been able to explain to me his opinion that a one-nation solution would be "suicide" for Israel. The only way I can figure is that the two of you think that letting Arabs in will ruin the country. Thus my comparison to segregation in the American south.

But let me put it this way. The greater part of a century spent by both sides trying in their own ways to get two independent states going... Just ain't working. There is no way that Palestine can be a successful state with the current territory it holds and bisected by Israel, and there's no way that Israel will be safe from attacks by said failed state. It's just not going to fucking happen. Thus we either have the option of one side destroying the other (and nobody aside from a handful of crazy fucks wants that) or, a single state - Israelistine, Palesrael, whatever - where both groups are counted as equal citizens under an actual democratic constitution. Is it an easy solution? No, and though it'll be rocky, it'll work. Just ask Germany.

Or I guess that one side can keep blaming TEH JOOZ and the other can keep blaming TEH AY-RABZ and throwing bombs and rockets at each other's heads for another seventy fucking years, and our grandkids can bitch at each other on whatever they have for an internet that far from now.

[Cary]

49. They are not 100% immigrants.

Allowing the right of return, which is what you're essentially saying, would mean the end of Israel. I think that is unrealistic. I don't think Israelis would ever allow it.

They certainly have given no indication that they would allow the right of return.

[Chulanowa]

64. Would it, now?

How would it be the end of Israel? Please explain to me.

And unfortunately for your argument, no it is not the same as the right of return. Seriously, do you actually understand the concepts I'm presenting, or even the terms you're using, or do you just hawk up some canned responses and catchphrases you heard on the news the other night? Neh, let me explain it to you.

The Right of Return is not going to be implemented. On a moral level, it's a "good idea" - So is giving Manhattan Island back to the Lenape. However, both propositions are completely infeasible, simply from a practical point of view. The basic premise of hte Right of Return is that the Palestinians were forced out of their homes and they want their property back. Well, trouble is, other people live there now, and all that would happen is that the Palestinians move in, and whoever gets kicked out... Becomes Palestinians 2.0. It won't work, period. Not only that, but the strongest claimants - those who actually evacuated - are mostly dead now, either from age or from the years of the conflict. It also would allow for the return of Emigrant and refugee Palestinians... including all their descendants. Naturally, no country could handle such a rush immigration (or, return, I suppose... Whatever you want to call it) much less one so so small in size as Israel-Palestine

A single-state solution however, makes no promise of return of property claims, nor for the return of emigrant populations. It simply would open up full rights of citizenship to Palestinians within the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Beyond that notion, I admit I get a little lost. After all, I'm not an Israeli or a Palestinian, and I'd put my trust in either group to decide what comes after that.

My main point is that the two sides' approaches isn't working. Violence has not seen any achievements for either side in this fight. Do you see Israel making any gains from its efforts against the Palestinians? I sure as hell don't see the Palestinians getting anything out of violence against the Israelis. All this is over the two-state solution, as each side fights over who gets a strip of dirt, and then declares a biblical-level blood vendetta over every damn bullet fired between the two sides. It's ridiculous, it's not working, and a new approach is needed.

[ooglymoogly]

78. Your argument of no return of property does not work

reparations must be paid or the property returned, otherwise it is lawlessness or a cynical game of musical chairs and as we have learned lawlessness breeds lawlessness. Arabs and Jews were getting along more or less fine until the international community stepped in and began playing monopoly and war with the region. The big folks in the shadows have done well off this situation and will not be happy with peace. War is obscenely profitable for those manipulating it, whether it be land, stolen wealth, or war machines: They care not a farthing for the death, mayhem and suffering it causes.

[Chulanowa]

81. It works better than trying to return the property

While the Right of Return is morally valid, it is no more viable than doing the same for Native Americans. And I'm saying this as a Native American who does occasionally engage in a fantasy of having the continent to myself, lol

However, nothing would (in theory) stop claimants from offering suit to try to reclaim property they feel was stolen.

Simple fact is, neither side in this fight is ever going to get all their wishes fulfilled, no matter what the solution is. This problem is actually the major hurdle in trying to get something going. Neither Israel or Palestine is willing to give up its silly Dr. Evil-style demands of the other and accept that compromise doesn't mean "you have to agree with me totally".

[DissedByBush]

52. Go back a few more years before Israel's founding

When the grand mufti of Jerusalem was working with the Nazis on the Final Solution. The deal was that if the Nazis won WWII the Palestinians would finally be able to cleanse the region of Jews.

True, it is about the land. But the deeper problem is that the Palestinians don't want the Jews to have one square inch of land in the region. If they integrated into one country the elections would be interesting. If the Jews won there would be mass riots and more suicide bombings as the Palestinians will not accept being ruled by Jews. If the Palestinians won we'd be lucky if a pogrom didn't immediately follow.

All residents of all faiths there were treated fairly well when Saladin was in charge, but the Christians just wanted to slaughter everybody, Jews and Muslims, when they were in charge. Now it's flipped, with the Muslims being bloodthirsty zealots who only want peace when they're getting their butts kicked.

[DutchLiberal]

57. More ethnic stereotyping/vilifying is really not what we need.

[Chulanowa]

62. So your argument is...

Palestinian shit smells worse than Israeli shit. No, seriously, that's what you're arguing. "They did bad things back then, so they're worse!" well... What about Lehi terrorists prior to the Grand Mufti's alignment, bombing Brits, Arabs, and native Jews and Christians? Would that make Israeli shit worse than Palestinian shit? I'm sure we could go back a little further than that to find something to make Palestinian feces the smellier of the two!

And really, if we're going to say that all Palestinians are bad because of what one of their leaders did in the 40's, what does it say about Israelis that most of the founding fathers of Jewish Nationalism were strongly aligned with the Nazis as well? My estimation is it doesn't say much about Israelis, but it does say that those "founding fathers" were dicks - and so was the Grand Mufti. Seriuously, you have to be a dick to call yourself that... "Grand Mufti" sounds like a pastry item.

Anyway...

There are lots of Palestinian Arab Muslims who live in Israel, vote in Israel, and are, for all intents and purposes beyond whether they're allowed to bring a bag lunch to work without a security guard shoving a fist up their ass, Israeli citizens. They don't seem too prone to rioting when "The Jews Win". Nor when their Arab representatives lose, or, more frequently, screw their constituents.

So your secondary argument, in addendum to "Palestinian shit smells worse than Israeli shit" is "it might be hard so let's not try"? Seriously, the greater part of a century filled with violence on both sides, with no horizon in sight is what you think is preferable to... well, putting a horizon within sight? Am I just misreading you here or what, 'cause it really seems that you're advocating a position that has clearly failed while poo-pooing option #2 because it involves a little thought and effort.

[DutchLiberal]

56. As much as I agree with you, the comparison with Germany really makes no sense.

Last time I checked, Germany had always existed as a country and got split in two parts by the occupying powers, against the will of the people. There was never a situation where West-Germans occupied East-Germans or where East-Germans wanted to kill off West-Germans. They simply reunited both arts in 1990 into the one country it had always been.

[Chulanowa]

63. The idea of a unified Germany is a very recent one

And strangely it was only through the Nazis that actual German unification was achieved. Prior to that it was a bunch of regions and states and provinces and whatnot arm-wrestling one another for control of the country, resulting in high corruption and of course, awful inefficiency - As bad as the Versailles treaty was for Germany, the constant infighting between all its federates was probably what made it much worse.

Prior to that, it was just a bunch of little kingdoms that busied themselves by occasionally kicking the snot out of each other.

However, I do get what you're saying. And I (of course) have to argue. "Palestine" was similarly a single state (legally - the British simply refused to treat it as one) that got divided up by the UN against the wishes of the majority of people living there. No fault of Israel's - can't blame the settlers and whatnot from jumping at the offer, hell, I would too. I'm just saying hte similarities are there, even if the simile itself isn't flawless.

Just another shining example of the method by which the UK ended its empire - put enemies together and separate those who would be friends, to ensure former colonials and holdings would have as difficult a time as possible holding onto their own asses to keep western interests from buying it all back up.

[humbled_opinion]

28. Or the Arab world unites....

and supports the Palestinian people. This is not Israel's problem. Let the Arabs support the Palestinians. Israel will exist in its own lands.

[Chulanowa]

47. I have to argue, it IS Israel's problem

And flying pigs will shoot out my ass and sing "Lady Marmalade" before the Arab world "unites" about iddly squat except diddling or squatting.

[bdamomma]

8. Cenk always makes sense.

[PATRICK]

9. beside the question of right or wrong

The situation itself evokes a strong resemblance to the siege of Warsaw. To suggest that analogy provokes no doubt a hysterical debate or reaction. The end results however seem brutally stark. Israel may or may not obliterate the Palestinian ghetto or pacify it into some impossible model Arab community like one of old South Africa's phony satellite tribal nations or our own Native American preserves, but it is well on its violent way to bombing itself out of existence in the long run.

As a democracy it's throes in this anguishing resort to violence and the typical RW idiots, trained unwittingly by the fascists' whips, the people there are allowed to know and discuss this ironically repellent form of self annihilation encouraged by the usual RW idiots in our Silent America. What does mortal argument have to do with a gross evil in action? Twitterings of birds, impotence of patriots, bloodlust of bloodletters. In the end the already weak and often completely hypocritical supporters of Israel will have no grounding for continued support. Decent Israelis might immigrate or grimly entrench into moral hopelessness and inner loss. The bombings are hollowing out a nice shell that may or may not crack, but hollow, fragile and unsupported it will be.

In the end when the RW retreats like rich Cuban exiles to a new offshore community of hatred and resentment, the ashes will be blamed on everyone else and in their self protective lies they will be of course correct in that part of the truth. The disillusionment over a botched return and the evils of the larger world are not new. When the descendants of the Babylonian exiles arrived back during one great return, they immediately persecuted their own (lower caste)kind for assimilating to the culture around them and created extreme intolerance which led to another morally gutted loss. Spectacular events, glories, prophecy and debate occurred then too to amaze us for the ages. Repeating the errors and wonderful inadequacies of the past merely sheds new blood to make it easier for the world to shrug off not the issue of the survival of the Palestinians but of the modern state of Israel itself.

As to the alternatives, who knows the results? They are never seriously tried before the bombs start dropping again. Time and patience is always given for the men of blood and RW vultures(on all Sneetch "sides") to ring in another act in the tragedy, and mercy for their patriotism and zeal. You can take a side or just skip ahead to the fairly predictable result. This is how we get to the place where we wonder how we were ever so blind, vile or plain stupid to get there.

And then write a colorful chapter in the book of military glory, "tragedy" or war crimes concerning one of many long lost kingdoms, none of it worth a single drop of a child's blood or even a single anguished tear.

[Cary]

11. Cenk's position on this is absolutely reasonable.

In fact it is also the position of the majority of Israelis and the Israeli government, as I understand it.

In fact, too, no one wants the West Bank or Gaza. You didn't hear any clamor from Jordan for the return of the West Bank and you might note too that Jordan expelled the Palestinians and were saved from a would be invasion from Syria (for expelling Palestinians) by none other than Golda Meir. Nor do you hear any such clamor for Gaza from Egypt. Quite the contrary. They built a wall to keep Palestinians out.

[theFrankFactor]

12. Cenk is Correct But True Motives Undermine His Plan

(Eveything, by the way is of course, IMO)

Radicalism of the stripe practiced by both Israel and Palestine telegraph moral imbalance. This is a conflict solidly based on the "live by the sword, eye for an eye" philosophy. Greed driven warfare and terrorism of the kind America uses is horrible enough, add to that religious insanity and you have a no win situation.

Iraq will be the same situation if/when America pulls its dick out of it and goes home.

[Ron Green]

14. Both sides have a religion that allows for enemies and revenge.

Therefore, the Palestinians cannot adopt a Ghandi-like resistance, as Cenk suggests, and the Israelis won't take the high road (as the stronger power must) and lead in a diplomatic way toward peace.

Without the concepts of forgiveness and unity in their religions, they're doomed to fail.

[Duppers]

13. right on

K & R

[DissedByBush]

15. He's wrong. Look at the big picture.

The Palestinians aren't mad at being "prisoners" in Gaza (which Israel won fair and square in a defensive war) in the larger picture. They're mad historic Palestine (that whole region, including Israel) doesn't belong to Muslims and have stated there will be no peace until it does.

People keep picking out these small-picture truths, but they are irrelevant to the big picture, which is that there will be no peace until Israel is destroyed.

[DerekJ]

17. "which Israel won fair and square in a defensive war" ... WOW .. Just WOW!!

End of message because anything else I will say will come out really angry.

[liberation]

20. Indeed...

Regarding the post to which you were referring, I am having a hard time deciding what was more appalling: the atrocious grammar, or the myopic historical perspective of the author.

[DissedByBush]

27. Hiding from history

Israel was formed by UN mandate in 1947, giving the Jews a homeland that wasn't as big as they wanted, but they accepted it in the name of peace. Immediately afterwards the Arabs started a campaign of violence against Jews, including a complete blockade of Jerusalem (where right now Israel organizes food and medicine convoys to Palestinians).

Finally Israel declared its independence and the next day was unilaterally attacked by five Arab countries in concert with added troops from four other Arab countries. Israel gained ground while pushing back those enemies that attacked it.

Then a repeat in 1967 when Israel was attacked by three Arab countries aided by six others. After Israel had pushed back those armies it had possession of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights.

Gaining ground in a war of aggression is unconscionable, but gaining ground in a war where you are fighting for the very existence of your country is legitimate. Those who started the war have no right to complain about the losses they sustain from it. Gaza and the West Bank shouldn't be "occupied territories," but the sovereign land of the state of Israel.

[defendandprotect]

41. The UN, I believe, still keeps score on this ---

A I understand it -- though I don't see any awareness of it here at DU --

the Israelis broke the truce by killing a number of Palestinians.

The rockets were a response.

As the former Secretary General of the UN pointed out . . . "Israel is waging

full-scale war on the Palestinians." And that has long been true.

Israel is a nuclear nation being supplied weapons and money by the US superpower,

which just might have all these years been seeking a foothold in the ME for let's

say, perhaps, oil . . . ? It was Nixon who first armed right-wing religously

fanatical Israelis who ultimately killed Rabin in order to destroy "peace" and

hold onto power.

[DissedByBush]

44. The issue of the land still

Israel owns it. Won it fair in square in a defensive war for its very existence.

As for the current issue, Egypt brokered a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas five months ago. Five days afterwards Hamas started shooting rockets into Israel with no provocation, except that the very existence of Israel is provocation in itself. Israel did not fight back. Hamas used that five months and its money to buy and import around 10,000 rockets to fire at Israel and to train its fighters (surely n the art of using human shields), not to rebuild Gaza and help the people of Gaza. Israel only responded to the attacks with military action after the cease-fire expired.

Yes, I see they are waging full scale war. It's about time. Piddly military actions never bring a solution to a conflict. They only prolong it and increase the death toll.

[defendandprotect]

45. Are you sure America doesn't own it . . . ?

What could Israel have done without America's interest in arming their r-w and gaining

a foothold in the ME for oil?

WE supply the weapons and the money for all this --

Again -- Israel has been involved in wars of aggression -- a nuclear power fighting

Palestinians with only "terrorism" left to them. Israel won their own nation with terrorism!

There is another viewpoint -- i.e., Israel broke the truce by killing a number of Palestinians.

And, basically, what I am saying to you is that IMO the days when Israel will be supported

as it has been will soon be over. America is running Israel. We now have Israel and Iraq.

[DissedByBush]

50. Terrorism?

"What could Israel have done without America's interest in arming their r-w and gaining"

And where would Hamas be without funding from Iran and other terror-sponsoring states?

"a nuclear power fighting Palestinians with only "terrorism" left to them"

Being a nuclear power means nothing in a conventional war. Israel could only hold the threat of nuclear action, but the weapons are useless as long as the war remains conventional.

"Israel won their own nation with terrorism!"

Israel won their own nation in a conventional war following terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

"Israel broke the truce by killing a number of Palestinians."

Didn't you read? Hamas broke the truce soon after it was brokered by firing rockets at civilians. Israel fought back after the truce expired. And despite the fact that the Palestinian fighters hide behind women and children Israel has managed to keep the civilian casualties to a minority.

"what I am saying to you is that IMO the days when Israel will be supported as it has been will soon be over."

It looks like you are looking forward to that. Do you know what it means? When Israel no longer has the means for defense it will be erased from the map, its innocent civilians purposely slaughtered.

Israel is willing to live with its neighbors. Israel's neighbors are not willing to live with the existence of Israel.

[defendandprotect]

55. Another "massacre" . . .

"What could Israel have done without America's interest in arming their r-w and gaining"

And where would Hamas be without funding from Iran and other terror-sponsoring states?

Fact is that Nixon armed r-w religiously Fundamentalist Israelis --
Fact is that Israel and America's weapons production are so closely intertwined
that it is almost impossible to tell them apart.
Fact is that we supply the weapons and the money to Israel.

Whatever Iran is doing for them it looks like ineffectual rockets and
sticks and stones!

"a nuclear power fighting Palestinians with only "terrorism" left to them"

Being a nuclear power means nothing in a conventional war. Israel could only hold the threat of nuclear action, but the weapons are useless as long as the war remains conventional.

That's just it -- Israel has the option of nuclear weapons - it's a nuclear power.
AND, fact is they have been waging WAR -- "full scale war" -- on the Palestinians.
Look at the extreme reponses time and again -- this time another "massacre."


"Israel won their own nation with terrorism!"

Israel won their own nation in a conventional war following terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

You'd better have another go at the history -- Israel used terrorism to gain statehood.


"Israel broke the truce by killing a number of Palestinians."

Didn't you read? Hamas broke the truce soon after it was brokered by firing rockets at civilians. Israel fought back after the truce expired. And despite the fact that the Palestinian fighters hide behind women and children Israel has managed to keep the civilian casualties to a minority.

Not what I heard -- the truce was broken by Israel murdering Palestinians.

"what I am saying to you is that IMO the days when Israel will be supported as it has been will soon be over."

It looks like you are looking forward to that. Do you know what it means? When Israel no longer has the means for defense it will be erased from the map, its innocent civilians purposely slaughtered.

Israel is willing to live with its neighbors. Israel's neighbors are not willing to live with the existence of Israel.

Yes . . . I am looking forward to the days when citizens of the world take a hard look at
what has been going on in Israel -- "Murder In The Name of God" by right wing religious
fanatics to kill peace by killing Rabin.

Israel has had OVER-means for "defense" which they have carried forth in full scale war with
wink from Bush.

As I've said before, this is an issue for the UN, not for America's imperialist "deciders."
This is about taking over Israel to further America's interests in the ME -- including OIL.

[DutchLiberal]

88. Hamas thanks its existence to Israeli support.

Maybe you don't know this, bu Israel made Hamas big because they thought they could eliminate the PLO.

[Chulanowa]

70. Incorrect

Conquest is forbidden by the UN, no matter the circumstances. Jordan tried to pull a fast one by declaring it had annexed the West Bank, then ceded it to Israel, problem is, nobody except Britain and Pakistan recognized the Jordanian annexation - the Palestinians sure didn't. Even the Israelis were all "lol whut?"

Bottom line is, no nation can set boots on another nation's soil and go "mine now" without the first nation's agreement to said annexation. The "Right of Conquest" died shortly after the invasion of Poland.

[DissedByBush]

84. Why not?

"Bottom line is, no nation can set boots on another nation's soil and go "mine now" without the first nation's agreement to said annexation."

If they attack and they lose I see no moral problem with saying their land is now yours. I think it is good disincentive against starting wars.

[ooglymoogly]

18. Yeah fair and square. Israel with unlimited and unqualified

military and financial support from a small but powerful group of US neocons to the small but like minded neocons and zealots of Israel. It is these small in number but powerful folks here and abroad that will bring the world to chaos for nothing more complicated than greed and power. An out of control war hydra and all its nefarious, evil and kaleidoscopic heads is a terrible and astoundingly blinding thing to behold; Particularly when it controls the worlds propaganda mills and what information or disinformation is allowed.

[DissedByBush]

53. This was 1948 and 1967

Israel won that ground with financial help from us and the British twice, each time having been attacked and/or the attacks aided by NINE Arab countries including the ultra-rich Saudi Arabia. It was David vs. Goliath, and David won. And we even put pressure against Israel in the events leading up to the 1967 war. We were also financially propping up Jordan as a moderating influence (not that it helped since Jordan attacked). We were mainly in this not because of some Zionist conspiracy, but because the Soviet Union was propping up Egypt. It was another Cold War proxy.

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." -- Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser

Yet Israel won. So they can keep the spoils of war. If the Arabs want to complain I'd just remind them they shouldn't have attacked in the first place.

[DutchLiberal]

58. Little known fact: Israel started the 1967 war.

And later, they rewrote history by claiming it were the Arabs who attacked first.

[DissedByBush]

60. Arabs first

The first deaths in the whole thing were Israeli soldiers killed by an Arab mine.

Yes, they were ploughing with tractors in the demilitarized zone, which always got them shot at by Syria, to which Israel would respond. They were just stubborn in not stopping it as we pressured them to do. They also attacked Jordan after it was being used to stage attacks on Israel. They also fought for their water, which the Arabs were trying to cut off.

All of this preceded the 1967 war.

[DutchLiberal]

61. I've read accounts of Dutch soldiers who were there at the time. Israel started it.

And the Dutch soldiers were forced to be silent about it for decades.

[DissedByBush]

66. We don our tin foil hats now?

Israel wasn't a saint, but there's no conspiracy. Israel did make defensive military moves before the armed might of 10 nations tried to destroy it.

I'd like to know what military moves Israel made in the time leading up to the 1967 war that weren't a response to Arab action.

[Chulanowa]

71. You make it sound more impressive than it is

"The armed might of ten nations!" sounds impressive, until you realize that the Arab school of warfare is "Mill around making a lot of noise and hope the other guy runs away."

It's even less impressive when you realize that only five of those nations committed any troops, one went home early, and three were primarily armed with leftover stuff from World War One. Basically it was just Syria, Egypt, and Israel fighting while everyone else just, y'know, milled around making loud noises.

So then... two! Two nations trying to destroy it! Ah-ah-ah!

[DissedByBush]

74. I've stated earlier how many attacked

But the issue here included support from non-fighting countries so I include those countries that contributed money and equipment to the Arab side.

[Chulanowa]

79. You said "the armed might of ten countries"

I had to point out that it was actually the badly-armed yelling of four point five countries.

You're engaging in nationalist fantasy, wherein tiny valiant Israel stood boldly against the insurmountable armies of the evil hook-noses and miraculously emerged triumphant, huzzah and hurrah.

Don't worry, I don't think it's intentional on your part - American culture is pretty much based on doing that, and we're prone to injecting the "little guy triumphs over faceless evil horde" situation into whatever we're getting heated about

[DissedByBush]

83. Funny, that's the Palestinian line

The poor little Palestinians are getting picked on by the big bad US-backed Israelis. The Israelis stole their land and are persecuting them for no reason!

I'm trying to show that's not the case.

Yes, I simplified with saying "ten countries." I was adding up all the players just as the poster had in including those who supplied arms, people and money, and I didn't include the Soviet Union that backed Egypt with arms.

[Chulanowa]

90. It's the Israeli line, too

Both sides want to play the "wounded martyr" line.

"MOOOOM! The Israelis are picking on us for no reason!"
"DAAAAD, Palestine threatened to obliterate me with his pinky finger!"

Someone needs to turn this car around.

[DissedByBush]

91. Time for dad to tell them to shut up

But nobody in the world wants to take that role. It's like how we tried to keep the people in the Balkans from killing each other. It took the Romans IIRC 10 legions to keep the peace there using absolute authority and now question of "unproportional response."

[DutchLiberal]

87. Once the other person starts talking about 'tin foil hats', you know a discussion is hopeless...

[ooglymoogly]

75. As Zbigniew Brzezinski would say...Your ignorance is embarrassing

How was that hook line and sinker buffet....need a tums?

[Bushknew]

16. Israel has the right to *defend * itself but their response has been a MASSACRE.

What if someone decided that for historical reasons, they were
going to allow someone else to occupy your house? You don’t have
guns or the support of the world community. They do.

If you don’t resist, they don’t kill you and your family but they force themselves into your house and limit your access to water and other essentials. Gradually, they begin to occupy more & more space in your house.

Would you leave your house or would you fight for it?

[DissedByBush]

67. Are you talking about the Israelis?

I think the Israelis should stay and fight for their house. The Hebrews have lived there more or less for a few thousand years. Muslims came much later. You can't be talking about Palestinians, because the Israelis have been supplying them water and essentials through this. Unless you consider rockets to be essentials, then I admit Israel is trying to limit access to those.

Massacre. Hmmmm. It has been bloody. I think Israel wants to finally end this instead of spending the next decade having rockets launched at its schools and synagogues with no provocation.

To use your analogy, let's say your neighbor has been shooting randomly into your house for the last several months. Nobody does anything, not the police, nobody. You board up your windows, your cat gets killed. Finally you decide to respond.

You pump a few rounds into his house and he agrees to stop.

Next month he starts shooting again. You wait, then you shoot back a couple times and he stops.

This happens month after month for years.

One of those times he kills one of your children. As usual he agrees to stop when you shoot back.

Then it happens again and again.

How long would you let this cycle go on before you finally went over and just shot the bastard?

[happygoluckytoyou]

19. REAL JEWS WOULD NEVER ALLOW WHAT ISRAEL IS DOING TO HAPPEN TO ANYONE ELSE....

[oberliner]

21. Real Jews?

What the hell does that mean?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

29. It's kind of like "REAL Democrats"

...an epithet that the radical fringe (often of Nader supporters) likes to toss in the face of moderates: you're only a "real" Democrat if you think Che was a wonderful, misunderstood, prison commandant, and the artists and women he executed for not kow-towing to the Communist party line really deserved it.

I am willing to admit that Israelis haven't always been 100% perfect, but until the vast majority of the Palestinian people are willing to recognize that Israel not only does exist, but has a right to exist, then we will be stuck at this impasse. Land for Cease-Fire-So-We-Can-Rearm is not an acceptable or moral resolution to this conflict.

There isn't a nation on earth other than Israel that would have tolerated people firing rockets into their territory, for years on end. And if Gaza is beginning to look like a prison, the Palestinians have no one to blame but themselves. All they've ever had to do is to stop acting like murderous criminals, and they'd stop being treated like them.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[DissedByBush]

33. We almost went to WWIII because of rockets pointed at us

We went to the brink with President Kennedy because the Soviets were putting missiles in Cuba that could have been fired at us.

Imagine our response under *any* president if we actually had rockets fired upon us by the government of a neighboring territory.

[ooglymoogly]

35. real democrats are those that are not DLC or DINO's or Neocons or Rahm

recruits from the pug party for just changing the R to an D for electability's sake, into a significant pug Trojan horse within the Democratic party. Duuuuu

[ooglymoogly]

32. real human beings....Not neocons of any stripe aka the Borg.

[Lena inRI]

22. Excellent commentary, Cenk. . . .

. . .heck with a MSM job. . .Cenk would be terrific at the negotiating table. . .as a Turk and rationale person not afraid to speak the truth. . .what a perfect choice for a US Mideast negotiator.

Course, the so-called CHANGE in US foreign policy makers rest totally on the shoulders of Susan E. Rice and Samantha Power who, IMO, are the only officials who get what Cenk is saying. . these people are OUR TRUE HOPE for any resolution in this part of the Mideast.

We'll see. .we'll watch and see. . .what this next administration will do. . .I'm very cautiously optimistic since these rationale future policy makers have not been given leadership positions. . .yet.

Again, bravo Cenk. . .you have my continued admiration and appreciation!

:yourock: :fistbump: :yourock: :fistbump: :yourock:

[stray cat]

23. Life is seldom so simple or simplistic as that

however I'm doubtful that Hamas lauching missles into Israel benefited the citizens who elected them in Gaza

[defendandprotect]

39. In particularly complicated in that they were a RESPONSE to Israel killing

a number of Palestinians in breaking the truce . . .

[ChiciB1]

24. Israeli Policies Have Bothered Me For A Very, Very LONG Time!!

Probably longer than most others here at DU. I recall writing Bob Graham way back in the late 70's asking WHY we were giving them so much monetary aid. His answer was the usual one from back then... they were a Democratic country. Today I wonder if even HE feels the same way.

I have always respected Bob Graham immensely and still do, but I wonder what he's thinking now. Since he's no longer my Senator I don't write him, but sure would LOVE to see him back in the saddle!

[ooglymoogly]

36. The real question here is; How would any of us react to

say Russia occupying our land or if Hitler had managed to do the same, deciding what medical, food, and what necessities of life and even bare existence, are allowed, who lives or dies; Thereby creating a frightening ghetto out of our land; How would we react? Israel must learn to live within its borders and then be protected at all costs with an iron fist; But then we would not be in this situation nor could any of the present wars have been initiated if that were the reality and our World Trade center would still be standing and we would be living in peace. Occupation means; In order to occupy land, the people owning it and living there with their families must be systematically killed off or run out of town to god knows where and that by a less propagandistic name is "ethnic cleansing". Without that consideration Israel has few ground to stand on. No one, Israeli or Palestinian or anyone else for that matter should have to endure weapons, no matter how crude or far worse, on the cutting edge of destruction and killing, falling indiscriminately on their lands or homes.

[defendandprotect]

40. Obviously the US has had interested hooks into Israel with big eyes on a foothold in ME . . ..

As our own government changes, let's hope some of this changes, but

strongly doubt it.

Understand that peace-loving liberal Israelis are trying to rise again

and there are some refusing to serve in their military.

We would all be better served with religiously fanatical right-wing

warmongerers out of office ---

These are the Israelis who killed Rabin .... "Murder in the name of God."

[DissedByBush]

77. How would we react?

Depends. If they just invaded us I hope we'd fight to the last breath.

I'd be thinking differently if we invaded them with the single aim of destroying their countries and lost the land when they fought back. If I'm told that the land will cease to be occupied if we stop killing the enemy we lost to, I'd bide my time in peace until I could be free again.

Such are the hazards of losing a war. Don't start one if you can't take the consequences of losing. War and its consequences should be horrible that hopefully fewer people will try to start them. This idea of a clean war is just sick, making war fit for CNN, good entertainment for the people back home, no incentive to stop having wars.

[DutchLiberal]

59. That answer is SO funny!

He wrote he was in favor of giving Israel money because they were a democratic country? You should have asked: then why did our country overthrow so many democratic governments and install dictators? I would LOVE to see him answer that.

[libodem]

25. Excellent analysis

Please Palestine stop with the stupid little bottle rockets, it's like hurtling pebbles at a giant, and just pissing him off. You truly would be better to turn your other cheek and garner sympathy by being martyred. Plus, this is my conspiracy laden take: it's probably a CIA spook with dark skin and a fake beard propelling those worthless rotten eggs at Israel. I think with the formula, that the US is proxy to Israel and that Palestine is proxy to Iran, this dust-up has been fomented by out side influences that we'll never know about.

PS. I think you are brilliant, Cenk.

[OhioChick]

34. K&R

:kick:

[trthnd4jstc]

37. The Answer is Both are wrong. Thanks Cenk, and thanks "ejbr". n/t

[Shardik]

38. K&R

:kick:

[playgroundrules]

42. the real question is what does Palestine have that Israel wants...

West Bank geography/natural resources: highlands are main recharge area for Israel's coastal aquifers; arable land; land use - 27% arable land, 32% permanent pastures.

Gaza Strip geography/natural resources: natural gas; arable land; land use - 26% arable land, 39% permanent crops

Sources: factbook.org and wikipedia.org

Follow this link for the economic reasons behind Israel actions (note: article dates from January 2008): http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9245.shtml or Google "Gaza Strip natural gas" for an article from the Electronic Intifada, a resource for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, from a seldom heard Palestinian perspective.

Regardless of your religious/political perspective, the "follow the money" rule should always begin one's search for the real motivations behind military action.

[johnnyrocket]

43. Except it's not about Israel 'occupying' Palestine! The Arabs want EVERYTHING.

I'm sorry, but neither side envisions a compromise.

In reality, Israel wants the entire region to control and the Arabs want the Jews OUT.

Now, all the talk of occupation, and incursions mean what? Occupy what? Palestine? There is no Palestine. No, I'm not picking sides on Israel vs. Palestine...my point is: This is a much, much larger, systemic and fundamental problem with this region.

And it can't be rectified, because in the end, neither side wants justice, they want the other out of their way.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DutchLiberal]

54. Non-violence protest didn't really work for Tibet. Also, the US labeled Mandela a 'terrorist'...

And the ANC *did* use violence against the Apartheid regime.

So Cenk is wrong in so many ways.

[Chulanowa]

72. Sadly, nonviolence only works when paired with the threat of violence

Pure nonviolence, as you point out, has not worked for Tibet. That's why the young people of Tibet are looking Westward, towards the Middle Eastern conflicts, and starting to take notes. When the Dalai Lama dies, Tibet is likely to descend into a total bloodbath.

Cenk points to Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Though both of them wisely preached nonviolent noncompliance (which is a big step of difference from nonviolent protest, but that's another topic) they were both backed by a large number of restless and angry people, and facing down a force that knew exactly what those people were capable of thanks to earlier outbreaks of violence.

MLK and Gandhi presented themselves as "Option A". Option B was organizations like the Black Panthers and Bengal Volunteers, respectively .While I do not think either man supported or condoned violent groups, I do have to admit that, without the contrast violence gave to nonviolence, neither Gandhi or MLK would have been likely to succeed.

Modern states also have a nasty habit of answering nonviolence with violence, and usually doing so in a nonlethal (or well-spun) manner to "soften the blow", thus being able to defuse nonviolent movements without creating martyrs or mass outrage.

[formercia]

73. The Final Solution

The same people that instigated the pogroms against the Jews are instigating the Israelis against the Palestinians.

The Perfect 'Final Solution'. They get the Jews and Muslims to exterminate each other.