Footwedge wrote:

dwccrew wrote: This is sickening. How the jewish people can do this to the Palestineans after being only a few generations removed from the Holocaust is beyond me.

I don't think it is the Jewish people...but a very bellicose Zionist government that has a chip on their shoulder

This. That is why I stopped reading. Anyone who would make a comment such "how the jewish people can do this" obviously is grossly misinformed or just plain stupid

I already stated that I wasn't clear and mis-spoke. But, it is still sickening to me.

IggyPride00 wrote: The big difference is no one cared about the Native Americans. The land the Israeli's and Palestinians are fighting over happens to be of vital interest to 3 of the world's largest religions, a hands off approach doesn't work so well.

You are right no one cared about the Native Americans. But that doesn't diminish the point that this world is governed by the aggressive us of force. Changes in technology bring the horrors of war to a different level. It does not stop the aggressor it just changes how he operates.

No way no one would not have cared about the Native Americans with today's picture media. Today pictures can be distributed around the world revealing the human suffering that is the result of the aggression one group of people against another group of people. Today's world aggressors have this aspect of technology to deal with. Not that they can't overcome it with justified aggression or lies and propaganda.

As for this particular area of the world. The history of the last 2,000 years brought the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans, the construction of Roman Catholic religious sites in Jerusalem, the scattering of the Jews, the siege of Jerusalem in 614 by the Persians, the eventual construction of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, the reformation of the nation of Israel, and in 1967 the retaking of Jerusalem by Israel.

With religious Jews wanting to reconstruct the Jewish Temple (which means the destruction of the Dome of the Rock) and radical Palestinian factions wanting the Jews to be run into the sea, the aggressive use of force will be used by either side at some point in the future to accomplish their goals. History has proven it. Humans can only temporarily prevent its fruition.

That is just the religious significance. Factor in oil reserves in the hands of Israel's enemies and you really have the worlds attention.

IggyPride00 wrote: As long as we give Israel $3 billion dollars a year to buy guns, we are going to have some say in what goes on over there. We "allow" Israel to win right now so to speak, but we have to appear to be somewhat of a neutral broker because given our interests in that region we don't have the luxury of alienating the whole region to pander to Israel's whims and desires the way we used to.

True we should have a say in our dollars spent in this area of the world. But don't forget we give nearly an equal amount to Israel's immediate neighbor's to ensure they keep peace with Israel. Not to mention aid to the Palestinian Authority for the same reason. We invest this money in the hope that peace is kept and we are not drawn into a more costly war.

With the financial brink our Federal Government is bringing us to I see our continued investment there coming to an end. When this day comes the recipients of our financial aid in that part of the world will turn on each other like raving wolves.

Apparently, and of course the White is denying it, Biden made the argument to Bibi that Israel's actions are tied to American policy in the region and that the Israeli actions are costing American lives in Afg/ Iraq and Pakistan.

General Petraeus, in quote filled testimony yesterday, noted the linkage between U.S. operations in the region and the peace process, noting that improvement in the process can help U.S. operations elsewhere.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/16/petraeus_i_never_fomally_asked_for_command_of_the_palestinian_territories

At the end of the day it comes down to control of Jerusalem, particularly the area around the Western Wall and Dome of the Rock. The Jewish people will never relent on that, and the Palestinians will never fully accept a state that doesn't include Jerusalem.

In terms of it being a "Jewish" state, though the news may be focused on the growing number of Arab Muslims, many other ethnic groups are growing in the country. So the situation is far more complex than people think.

Even though BHO's 2 closest advisors and confidants are Jews, Bibi's brother-in- law apparently believes BHO hates Jews and is an anti-Semite.

Apparently if you don't fall in line with any and everything Israel does you are either an anti-Semite, or a self hating Jew (what Bibi called Axlerod and Rahm last year).

Here is the article:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171250

US President Barack Obama harbors anti-Semitism and the American Jews who voted for him are not pro-Israel, Dr. Hagi Ben-Artzi, the outspoken brother-in-law of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, said on Wednesday.

As others have said on this thread, this has nothing to do with some sort of hatred of the Jewish people as a whole.

The folks making those comments are no better than the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, et. al, who bring up race and the like to deflect from real issues.

This has to do with an out-of-control zionist GOVERNMENT, not the Jewish people.

Freaking ridiculous.

Interesting polls by Rasmussen Reports.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/march_2010/toplines_israel_march_15_16_2010

The assumptions Gen. Petraeus presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee wrongly attribute “insufficient progress” in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and “a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel” as significantly impeding the U.S. military mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in dealing with the Iranian influences in the region. It is that much more of a concern to hear this coming from such a great American patriot and hero.

The General’s assertions lead to the illusory conclusion that if only there was a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. could successfully complete its mission in the region.

Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive.

Whenever the Israeli-Arab conflict is made a focal point, Israel comes to be seen as the problem. If only Israel would stop settlements, if only Israel would talk with Hamas, if only Israel would make concessions on refugees, if only it would share Jerusalem, everything in the region would then fall into line.

The antidefamation league is now attacking General Petraeus because he suggested that the U.S's 100% support for Israel regardless of what they do (what AIPAC requires of all in order not to be labeled an anti-Semite) makes it hard for the U.S to achieve its foreign policy goals in the Middle East.

Given the credibility he has with the American people he is not the one I would be directing any anger towards over the current flap with Israel over the settlements.

http://washingtonindependent.com/79648/anti-defamation-league-goes-after-gen-petraeus



Here is the supposedly controversial statement made by Petraeus that he is being attacked for. Strikes me as common sense more than anything.

The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [CentCom's area of operation, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as much of the Middle East]. … The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaida and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/Petraeus%2003-16-10.pdf

IggyPride00 wrote:
Here is the supposedly controversial statement made by Petraeus that he is being attacked for. Strikes me as common sense more than anything.

It's called Hasbara. Israel and their propaganda machine are extremely good at it. They label anyone who criticize them as an anti-Semite to deflect attention and appear as the good guy. It's a common tactic, and they utilize it effectively.

Yeah, the ADL statement made no sense. Of course the situations are linked in the region. U.S. and Israeli policy, where people like it or not, are linked. Therefore, what the Israelis do can really screw up American policy and cost lives. It has been a problem for U.S. Presidents going back to Kennedy.

Oh, and it doesn't help to go after the most popular general in the U.S. right now.

Israel's leaders are stupid for straining the relationship with their only powerful ally. They're screwed without the US.

dwccrew wrote: Israel's leaders are stupid for straining the relationship with their only powerful ally. They're screwed without the US.

They know they aren't actually straining the relationship though. AIPAC controls most of the politicians in Congress and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

Support for Israel has somehow been linked with US patriotism. They attacked the Liberty and Americans still supported them. What else could they do worse than that?

eersandbeers wrote: It's called Hasbara. Israel and their propaganda machine are extremely good at it. They label anyone who criticize them as an anti-Semite to deflect attention and appear as the good guy. It's a common tactic, and they utilize it effectively.

Common practice in political demagoguery. Your a racist, bigot, or a homophobe. You don't care about the poor and want old people to die. Your are unamerican and not patriotic.

eersandbeers wrote: They know they aren't actually straining the relationship though. AIPAC controls most of the politicians in Congress and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

The Jews got us by the balls. That is as ridiculous as the ADL's statement.

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: They know they aren't actually straining the relationship though. AIPAC controls most of the politicians in Congress and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

The Jews got us by the balls. That is as ridiculous as the ADL's statement.

Who said anything about "the Jews?" I'm talking about the Israeli lobby that controls nearly every politician. This isn't some type of surprising statement I just made. The AIPAC lobby and their power is well known.

eersandbeers wrote: Who said anything about "the Jews?" I'm talking about the Israeli lobby that controls nearly every politician. This isn't some type of surprising statement I just made. The AIPAC lobby and their power is well known.

Take Jews out of it if you wish. AIPAC has influence just like any other lobbying group, but you say they have control of most of the politicians in Congress. That is ridiculous.

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Who said anything about "the Jews?" I'm talking about the Israeli lobby that controls nearly every politician. This isn't some type of surprising statement I just made. The AIPAC lobby and their power is well known.

Take Jews out of it if you wish. AIPAC has influence just like any other lobbying group, but you say they have control of most of the politicians in Congress. That is ridiculous.

I take out the Jews because it has nothing to do with race or religion. It has to do with a country and their government.

AIPAC has more control and influence than any other lobby in Congress. There is a reason very few, if any, members of Congress speak out publicly against Israeli actions. There is a reason Congress passes useless resolutions "affirming support of Israel."

If you want to read them, I can provide you with the documentaries and articles to show how powerful the group really is. It isn't just in the US either, the British version of AIPAC has just as much control in that country.

eersandbeers wrote: AIPAC has more control and influence than any other lobby in Congress. There is a reason very few, if any, members of Congress speak out publicly against Israeli actions. There is a reason Congress passes useless resolutions "affirming support of Israel."

You are saying they are more influential than the following lobbies: unions, oil, environmental, AARP, NRA, NAACP.

eersandbeers wrote: If you want to read them, I can provide you with the documentaries and articles to show how powerful the group really is. It isn't just in the US either, the British version of AIPAC has just as much control in that country.

Provide them and I will read them.

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: AIPAC has more control and influence than any other lobby in Congress. There is a reason very few, if any, members of Congress speak out publicly against Israeli actions. There is a reason Congress passes useless resolutions "affirming support of Israel."

You are saying they are more influential than the following lobbies: unions, oil, environmental, AARP, NRA, NAACP.

Correct. By far more influential than the NRA, NAACP, unions, AARP, and environmental lobbies. Oil may be the only lobby that might be able to rival AIPAC.

eersandbeers wrote: If you want to read them, I can provide you with the documentaries and articles to show how powerful the group really is. It isn't just in the US either, the British version of AIPAC has just as much control in that country.

Provide them and I will read them.
[/quote]

Let me get them all together.

1. CNN's piece on God's Warriors. This part has to do with the AIPAC, but the whole thing is worthwhile: Link

2. A 5-part documentary on AIPAC from American Free Press: LINK

3. A 5-part documentary from Dispatches on Britain's Israeli lobby: LINK

4. US politician promises to drop Israeli spy charges in return for favors: LINK


If you want to go deeper I can provide more. You'll be shocked once you realize the power of the Israeli lobby.

While I do agree that the current situation in Israel is problematic, I think it's important that people understand the history of Israel.

First of all the term Palestinian is interesting. That came about from the British mandate which created what is essentially modern Israel. Before this, the land known as Israel or Palestine today was under the control of various nearby countries.

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#The%20British%20Mandate

Even after 1948, the disputed territories were controlled by Syria, Egypt or Jordan. At no point was there ever an independent Arab nation.

To be clear, I'm not be any means condoning the actions of the Israeli government and although I have my reservations, I support a two-state solution if it would mean the end to questionable practices. However it bothers me that there is this idea of a deep Palestinian history.

Websurfinbird wrote: While I do agree that the current situation in Israel is problematic, I think it's important that people understand the history of Israel.

First of all the term Palestinian is interesting. That came about from the British mandate which created what is essentially modern Israel. Before this, the land known as Israel or Palestine today was under the control of various nearby countries.

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#The%20British%20Mandate

Even after 1948, the disputed territories were controlled by Syria, Egypt or Jordan. At no point was there ever an independent Arab nation.

To be clear, I'm not be any means condoning the actions of the Israeli government and although I have my reservations, I support a two-state solution if it would mean the end to questionable practices. However it bothers me that there is this idea of a deep Palestinian history.

The area known as Palestine appeared in references since 400 BC. It existed on and off and was taken over by different empires, but the land of Palestine is most definitely not a creation from the '48 UN Mandate.

Even if it was, does it matter? Borders change and states are created.

eersandbeers wrote:

Websurfinbird wrote: While I do agree that the current situation in Israel is problematic, I think it's important that people understand the history of Israel.

First of all the term Palestinian is interesting. That came about from the British mandate which created what is essentially modern Israel. Before this, the land known as Israel or Palestine today was under the control of various nearby countries.

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#The%20British%20Mandate

Even after 1948, the disputed territories were controlled by Syria, Egypt or Jordan. At no point was there ever an independent Arab nation.

To be clear, I'm not be any means condoning the actions of the Israeli government and although I have my reservations, I support a two-state solution if it would mean the end to questionable practices. However it bothers me that there is this idea of a deep Palestinian history.

The area known as Palestine appeared in references since 400 BC. It existed on and off and was taken over by different empires, but the land of Palestine is most definitely not a creation from the '48 UN Mandate.

Even if it was, does it matter? Borders change and states are created.

The land that today is defined as Palestine, was created by the mandate. However you are right that term originated long before that.

http://www.pitt.edu/~mmv/israel.htm#misnomer

According this article, and several others, the term never had an Arab connection.

The problem with history is that both sides have a pretty set view of it and use it to defend their arguments. History does not come down on one side or the other, it is a mixture of both. However, both sides like to play that history is on their sides, which is why you see a ton of different timelines, maps and websites.


Now, yesterday Bibi met with Obama twice for over 2 hours, closed door, no cameras, no pictures, no press releases, only bland, generic statements. Bibi also met with defense and NSC officials. It seems like the White House wants to not appear to be too friendly to the Israelis and really pushing them to move toward the middle. It will be very interesting to see how Bibi plays this off and if he continues to speak about restraint in one speech, and building more settlements in another. It will also be very interesting to see how the Palestinians play this off, will they be more willing to give on some issues, or will they stonewall any moves?