M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jun 7, 2010 1:23pm
The Economist has declined a bit in recent years with budget cuts along with many other international journals, but if I can find a link to their article on the middle east that was published 3 or 4 years ago I'll post it. It is the best description of the situation in a concise manner that I've read.
As Ptown mentions, it is complex, and it is more than just giving land back to people.
But back to Helen Thomas, her statements went beyond the complexity and into bigotry, she obviously has major issues with Jews and somehow thought this was the right time to let it be known....whether its is due to age, due to dementia, or due to the misguided notion that public opinion was on her side, I don't know. She just needs to go away.
As Ptown mentions, it is complex, and it is more than just giving land back to people.
But back to Helen Thomas, her statements went beyond the complexity and into bigotry, she obviously has major issues with Jews and somehow thought this was the right time to let it be known....whether its is due to age, due to dementia, or due to the misguided notion that public opinion was on her side, I don't know. She just needs to go away.
4cards
Posts: 2,551
Jun 7, 2010 1:37pm
No way, we paid them plenty of beads, blankets and shinny pieces of glass. Why do we have to enable them any more than we already have?bigmanbt;381603 wrote:Serious question here:
Let's turn around what she said into another argument. How many of you think we should give the US back to the Native American Indians? Technically, it was their land first and we took it from them through war, shouldn't we give this land back to them?
B
bigmanbt
Posts: 258
Jun 7, 2010 1:37pm
Well we will agree here. I am in no means racist or bigoted, in fact I believe in the freedom of everyone worldwide. Her comments were racist and bigoted and she should have resigned, but maybe it's time we review our relationship with Isreal. They have been the aggressors in this situation as well as the recipients of attacks. But I don't think our country, in a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty, can afford to prop up Isreal anymore with foreign aid, it's just not feasible anymore. Time for Isreal to sink or swim on their own merits.
Mr. 300
Posts: 3,090
Jun 7, 2010 1:44pm
At least we know that Helen was a rascist pig and is going to go away now. But, look for her on the speaking circuit for the lefties in the neasr future.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jun 7, 2010 2:05pm
Even after the Diaspora 2000 years ago when the Romans tried to drive out the Jews, they kept a presence "Palestine" till the foundation of Israel. "WE" did not give the Jews Palestine. We simply recognized Israe as did the Soviet Union. Besides that recognition the United States government did little to help in the foundation.. In fact it tried to enforce an embargo against all the warring bodies back then. Private US groups did provide arms. But Czechoslovakia with the endorsement of the USSR was the major arms supplier for Israel in its first war with the Arabs. It should also be remembered in second major war Israeli-Arab 1956 when Israel, Britain and France attacked Egygt and seized the Sinai and the Suez Canal , it was Eisenhower who forced them to withdraw.bigmanbt;381603 wrote:Serious question here:
Let's turn around what she said into another argument. How many of you think we should give the US back to the Native American Indians? Technically, it was their land first and we took it from them through war, shouldn't we give this land back to them? My point is, the Jewish people lost their homeland, and because we felt bad after WWII, we gave them their homeland back by stealing land from the Palestinians. If you are going to say the Jewish people should have the Isreal area because they were there first, then you should also feel the Indians should have the US back, unless you are a pragmatist, which means you'll give different biased valuations of each situation presented.
Furthermore, I don't really see the problem with Hamas. They were democratically elected and they have agreed to let the Jewish people keep the original homeland given to them, a HUGE concession, as long as they give back areas they've gained through war, like the Gaza Strip and West Bank areas. It's the Isrealites who won't agree to this and continue to push harsh penalities on foreign nations, all the while building more settlements on Palestinian land.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 7, 2010 2:57pm
isadore;381691 wrote:Even after the Diaspora 2000 years ago when the Romans tried to drive out the Jews, they kept a presence "Palestine" till the foundation of Israel. "WE" did not give the Jews Palestine. We simply recognized Israe as did the Soviet Union. Besides that recognition the United States government did little to help in the foundation.. In fact it tried to enforce an embargo against all the warring bodies back then. Private US groups did provide arms. But Czechoslovakia with the endorsement of the USSR was the major arms supplier for Israel in its first war with the Arabs. It should also be remembered in second major war Israeli-Arab 1956 when Israel, Britain and France attacked Egygt and seized the Sinai and the Suez Canal , it was Eisenhower who forced them to withdraw.
Isadore, don't you dare insert facts into the left wing opinions here
.
Apple
Posts: 2,620
Jun 7, 2010 2:59pm
Is it just me, or does Helen Thomas remind anyone of Marge Schott?
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Jun 7, 2010 3:24pm
just you
B
bigmanbt
Posts: 258
Jun 7, 2010 3:25pm
jmog;381780 wrote:Isadore, don't you dare insert facts into the left wing opinions here
I don't know if you are talking about me (which I assume you are since isa responded to me), but I was only responding to the idea of "who was there first" that was presented earlier in the thread. My views are certainly not left-wing, being a libertarian and all. My views of Isreal is that I would recognize the original sectioned land as their country, I wouldn't recognize their expansions into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (would be a different matter if done peacefully), and in our current economic crisis I wouldn't still be sending them billions in foreign aid. I realize our relationship with them is important, but I am in the school of "commerce with, allies with none".
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jun 7, 2010 3:35pm
^^^
Interesting. Hypothetical...Vancouver starts shooting missiles into Seattle, WA, endangering civilians as well as military establishments, Seattle people stop the force and establish order in the sense that the major offensive action is stifled. Decades later the group initiating the violence wants international recognition and recovery of the area where the force was borne...do you just give it to them? Maybe, in furthering peace. Do you just give it to them when you are threatened by the greater British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan (sp.?) area forces? Tougher question.
Interesting. Hypothetical...Vancouver starts shooting missiles into Seattle, WA, endangering civilians as well as military establishments, Seattle people stop the force and establish order in the sense that the major offensive action is stifled. Decades later the group initiating the violence wants international recognition and recovery of the area where the force was borne...do you just give it to them? Maybe, in furthering peace. Do you just give it to them when you are threatened by the greater British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan (sp.?) area forces? Tougher question.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Jun 7, 2010 3:41pm
bigmanbt;381603 wrote:Serious question here:
Let's turn around what she said into another argument. How many of you think we should give the US back to the Native American Indians? Technically, it was their land first and we took it from them through war, shouldn't we give this land back to them? My point is, the Jewish people lost their homeland, and because we felt bad after WWII, we gave them their homeland back by stealing land from the Palestinians. If you are going to say the Jewish people should have the Isreal area because they were there first, then you should also feel the Indians should have the US back, unless you are a pragmatist, which means you'll give different biased valuations of each situation presented.
Furthermore, I don't really see the problem with Hamas. They were democratically elected and they have agreed to let the Jewish people keep the original homeland given to them, a HUGE concession, as long as they give back areas they've gained through war, like the Gaza Strip and West Bank areas. It's the Isrealites who won't agree to this and continue to push harsh penalities on foreign nations, all the while building more settlements on Palestinian land.
The Indians have settlements on U.S. land and are always expanding with more and more claims of tribal land. You don't see people telling them to go home to Mexico and Canada and the U.S. firing rockets at them daily.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jun 7, 2010 4:05pm
54 40 or fightManhattan Buckeye;381842 wrote:^^^
Interesting. Hypothetical...Vancouver starts shooting missiles into Seattle, WA, endangering civilians as well as military establishments, Seattle people stop the force and establish order in the sense that the major offensive action is stifled. Decades later the group initiating the violence wants international recognition and recovery of the area where the force was borne...do you just give it to them? Maybe, in furthering peace. Do you just give it to them when you are threatened by the greater British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan (sp.?) area forces? Tougher question.
B
bigmanbt
Posts: 258
Jun 7, 2010 4:08pm
Manhattan Buckeye;381842 wrote:^^^
Interesting. Hypothetical...Vancouver starts shooting missiles into Seattle, WA, endangering civilians as well as military establishments, Seattle people stop the force and establish order in the sense that the major offensive action is stifled. Decades later the group initiating the violence wants international recognition and recovery of the area where the force was borne...do you just give it to them? Maybe, in furthering peace. Do you just give it to them when you are threatened by the greater British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan (sp.?) area forces? Tougher question.
I probably would because it would be decades later and I am a true believer in that more gets done with peace than it does with war. Our relationships are much better in the Vietnam area now that we have peace there instead of fighting a war there. I would tell the group that this land is now theirs (and I wouldn't have built civilians settlements on that land in the mean time like Isreal has), we will freely trade with them, but if they attack again, we will put them down again. You have to try to promote mutual respect, because the alternative is continuous war which never solves anything.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 7, 2010 4:08pm
bigmanbt;381821 wrote:I don't know if you are talking about me (which I assume you are since isa responded to me), but I was only responding to the idea of "who was there first" that was presented earlier in the thread. My views are certainly not left-wing, being a libertarian and all. My views of Isreal is that I would recognize the original sectioned land as their country, I wouldn't recognize their expansions into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (would be a different matter if done peacefully), and in our current economic crisis I wouldn't still be sending them billions in foreign aid. I realize our relationship with them is important, but I am in the school of "commerce with, allies with none".
Wasn't directed at you, was just a general statement.
However, I disagree with your "they should give up Gaza, WB, etc since it was gained in war".
Well, Egypt/Palestine should have thought of that before instigating the Six Day War.
In that same logic we should give Mexico back Texas/Arizona/NM, California, Utah, etc. We should give back most of the midwest to Brittain (since we got it in the war of 1812).
Its not like Israel started the war because they decided they needed more land.
Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Jun 7, 2010 4:20pm
Your "hypothetical" needs to ad during the last 20 years Vancouver occupied Spokane and forced the inhabitants to move to Seattle at Gunpoint. And after they left they bulldozed the entire city built new houses and had people from Ontario and Quebec move in.Manhattan Buckeye;381842 wrote:^^^
Interesting. Hypothetical...Vancouver starts shooting missiles into Seattle, WA, endangering civilians as well as military establishments, Seattle people stop the force and establish order in the sense that the major offensive action is stifled. Decades later the group initiating the violence wants international recognition and recovery of the area where the force was borne...do you just give it to them? Maybe, in furthering peace. Do you just give it to them when you are threatened by the greater British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan (sp.?) area forces? Tougher question.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jun 7, 2010 4:29pm
I think you have my hypothetical backwards.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 7, 2010 4:46pm
Devils Advocate;381889 wrote:Your "hypothetical" needs to ad during the last 20 years Vancouver occupied Spokane and forced the inhabitants to move to Seattle at Gunpoint. And after they left they bulldozed the entire city built new houses and had people from Ontario and Quebec move in.
I think you have it backwards too, but idk.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Jun 7, 2010 5:56pm
The hypotheticals are way too simple. If you add in about 5 other states, plus poverty, asymmetric warfare, battle for water, walls, settlements, and a host of other economic and social factors, then maybe you can make a comparison.
I always come back back to this conclusion. Both sides do not want peace and are so far apart that there is simply nothing that can bring them to the table. Both sides are also screwed up and only have their own power at interest and use "international law and legitimacy" in their defense.
I mean it is nearly impossible to have a rational discussion on the issue, with anyone really without it breaking down into the typical arguments.
I will say the Israelis are reaching a huge tipping point, to where they can be outnumbered, Israelis vs. Palestinians, inside Israel and the territories. Once you get to a minority ruling the country, how do you not compare it to at least South Africa, or Lebanon during Christian rule?
I always come back back to this conclusion. Both sides do not want peace and are so far apart that there is simply nothing that can bring them to the table. Both sides are also screwed up and only have their own power at interest and use "international law and legitimacy" in their defense.
I mean it is nearly impossible to have a rational discussion on the issue, with anyone really without it breaking down into the typical arguments.
I will say the Israelis are reaching a huge tipping point, to where they can be outnumbered, Israelis vs. Palestinians, inside Israel and the territories. Once you get to a minority ruling the country, how do you not compare it to at least South Africa, or Lebanon during Christian rule?
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Jun 7, 2010 7:04pm
This lady is nuts. But I respect her rights to say nutty things....just like Rush Limbaugh says nutty things.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Jun 7, 2010 7:47pm
And so says Footwedge.Footwedge;382059 wrote:This lady is nuts. But I respect her rights to say nutty things....just like Rush Limbaugh says nutty things.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jun 7, 2010 8:03pm
believer;382138 wrote:And so says Footwedge.
He's correct. She had the right to say it and she said it. No rights were violated. God Bless America!
Thread Bomber
Posts: 1,851
Jun 7, 2010 8:33pm
She also had the right to be silent...
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jun 7, 2010 8:34pm
Thread Bomber;382195 wrote:She also had the right to be silent...
but not the ability.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jun 7, 2010 9:19pm
I am sure new opportunities will be open to her.
The Hamas broadcasting network, The Light of Al-Aqsa” (Saraj al-Aqsa 1), is hiring
or she could go on HLN at 9 O'clock in the Joy Behar slot, they want someone with more sex appeal than the Joyster.
The Hamas broadcasting network, The Light of Al-Aqsa” (Saraj al-Aqsa 1), is hiring
or she could go on HLN at 9 O'clock in the Joy Behar slot, they want someone with more sex appeal than the Joyster.
dwccrew
Posts: 7,817
Jun 7, 2010 10:54pm
She has her right to express her feelings even if she says something as idiotic as this. While I may not agree with a lot of Israel's policy, I don't think it is practical for them to return to Germany or Poland because they have been in Israel for generations.
Although it is highly improbable, a peaceful solution must be forged by the Palestineans and Israelites.
Although it is highly improbable, a peaceful solution must be forged by the Palestineans and Israelites.