A GREAT article from Jerusalem Post

I'm glad someone said this, too bad those talking heads on TV 24/7 never have the sack to do such:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/28/News/News.35448.html

 

Corey,
Though some of that advice is good, I would hasten to add that our terroristic problems are different from Israel's.

Israel has their terroristic attacks for taking land away from Palestinians. What we see in much of the Arab world is a solidarity with the suffering of these Palestinians similar to what we have for the victims of the attacks on Sept 11. The view of us from some Arabs is based on our association with Israel and because of our strength, we are seen as someone who prevents justice for the Palestinians from being carried out.

Now I am not saying that we should desert Israel. If some Palestinians would have their way, they would do to Israel what Israel did to them. We should not support that. However, neither should we overlook the injustices that have occurred at the hands of the Israelis against the Palestinians.

If we want to reduce future terroristic attacks, our nation has to change our approach both to Israel and the Palestinians. If the Jews deserve a homeland, why don't the Palestinians? If the Jews in Israel can live in freedom, why can't the Palestinians live the way they see fit in their own nation? If the nation of Israel can prosper, why can't the Palestinians have a prospering nation as well?

We should keep Israel as an ally. But we should work for a situation where we can become allies with a Palestinian nation as well. This approach against terrorism could simply be summarized as attacking the reason for becoming a terrorist. It might not effect present-day terrorists. However, it might reduce the number of future terrorists. Remember that many of Israel's leaders were former terrorists for Zionism.

 

Hey C-day, dare I say that you're full of sh#&. I know I haven't posted here in a while but I do check on things on occassion. Israel took nothing from Palestine. Perhaps, I am somewhat biased but that is Israel's land to begin with. For us to condone the Palestinians would be a huge mistake. I don't guess I'm an Arab sympathizer at all. Palestine isn't even a country I don't know why we even recognize them as being one.

 

CURTIS CURTIS CURTIS!!! While I may agree with your thoughts on Penn State Football...You are as far off base as anyone could possibly be regarding Israel! You need to sit down..read up.. get some facts my man about Israel>... "NEVER AGAIN!" regards jif

 

Guys,
I don't condone the terrorism. However, Israel became a Jewish nation again approximately in 1949. Before that, the land was governed by England from 1917 to 1949. Zionists sympathizers, which initially were secular Jews, so not including the Ultra Orthodox, were at work back in the beginning the England's reign over the land to turn it into a Jewish state. The religious conservatives were against that back then because the only way they saw Israel becoming a nation again was during the Messianic age. Before England's reign over the land, it was apart of the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

During the end of the British reign of the Holy land, you have Zionist terroristic attacks against the British. The bombing of the King David Hotel is such an example where, if memory serves, approximately 100 people were killed. The homes of Palestinians, if memory serves, were taken from them after Israel became a Jewish state. A question you can answer is whether an non-Jewish person can have equal citizenship and voting rights as a Jewish person.

In addition, I am not the only one with these opinions. I knew those who were concerned about Palestinian people who had the same view. In addition, I have a friend who is a non-Zionist Jew who sees Israel's history the same way. In addition, just do some historical research.

The situation over there is messy because you have atrocities on both sides and for the terrorism to stop, both sides will have to give in some. The point is that you have Arabs, of differing degrees, who are in solidarity with the plight of the Palestinians. When a group of people are oppressed enough, the effects of punishment and personal losses decrease. Thus we have more and more suicidal missions. These missions can in NO WAY be justified. However, their concerns can be legitimate. Their behavior regarding those concerns is not.

It is one thing to say someone is wrong, it is another to show it. BTW, one more historical point--especially for Jif. It is a common historical sequence of events for oppressed people to, when they gain power, become oppressors. Our own nation's forefathers felt oppressed by England. Once they gained their independence, they oppressed both the Indians and the Blacks. Take a look at Russia and how they inhumanely ruled Eastern Europe after repelling the Nazi invation. I agree in the NEVER AGAIN. But that should be NEVER AGAIN regardless of one's race. Israel might have a democracy. But without tolerance the freedom there is limited at best. That is because freedom and tolerance imply each other.

 

Aquila,

Glad to have you back here but please tone down just a smidge... Telling someone that they are full of "excrement", especially with the verbal wars we have had over the last few days, is a little over the edge. Curtis has had his fill of that lately, and rightly so.

Thanks in advance,



------------------
Tennessee Tom McCord
Go Vols! '98 National Champions!!!<B>
It's Football Time in Tennessee!!!</B>
tbmccord@austin.rr.com

 

Curtis,

I agree that a new approach must be taken in the Middle East... HOWEVER, I have some real bones to pick with the Palestinians..

First of all, so many of these "civilian" casualties are not just the fault of the Isrealis. In many cases, they are innocent bystanders. Sometimes, they are not but are claimed to be.. Far too often, PA forces launch attacks and then retreat to civilian positions as a defense. This is done INTENTIONALLY so that Isreal will look aweful in the world's eye when the Isrealis counter these attacks... The PA INTENTIONALLY put their people at mortal risk.

Far too often, we read about the dead civilians of Palestine but are not fully informed of the suicide bomb or military attack of the PA that brought the Isrealis to strike back...

I do appreciate your recap of the history in the region HOWEVER you can't simply take it back to the Ottoman Empire and leave it at that.. The history goes far deeper. The Jewish people have every right to be there. This near genocidal approach by the Isrealis is the result of 50 years of nonstop terrorism and warfare waged against them.. Since we can't turn back the clock, we can't undo the harm. I agree with you that we need to look to the future but we must keep in mind the risk in the present day...

One thing that some in the Middle East have perfected is the art of "international politics".. For centuries, they were subjected to brutal European colonialism and international treaty that kept them defeated as people...It took them a while, but they learned and have mastered it.

The approach of some in the ME, such as Arafat, can be predicted by turning back and reading the history from which they learned. They attack, and then want to negotiate "peace" but first they want you to understand "what you did wrong" to draw this attack.

Then you reach a peace, and they attack again.. this time, taking some land or whatever objective it was they were seeking. Then they ask for peace talks again. In the name of "peace" more land or concession is given in to them, only to be met later by more violence. It goes on an on until Isreal strikes back... Now the peace talks are splattered with the memory of the "poor Palestinians" who were lost due to "Isreali aggression."

It's all hogwash... If you want a good comparison, study the political practices and international peace negotiation process implemented by Adolph Hitler in Nazi Germany. Then look at that of Yasser Arafat. You will not only find they are similar, they are one in the same...Only VERY recently has Arafat started to attempt to cater to "western interests." He only does this to the western media though.. Aman (Isreali intelligence) has countless records for you to go and read where Arafat has pledged "peace" to the Western media and then turned around THAT NIGHT and praised further attacks and bloodshed of the Jews to the people of Palestine.

I've been following this too long to believe for one second that this is about people wanting their "homeland". This is about genocide. This is about a FASCIST empirical tyranny under the guise of religious and national self determination and heritage..We've seen this act before, I just wish more people would drop the PC act and call a spade a spade here..The last time someone tried this in Europe, the world came together to swat it down. Let's hope that it can be done again.

 

Cory..Very well stated. You have an excellent "take" on whats happening in I srael/ Palestine. Curtis is an educated man and I cannot believe him to be so far off base on this. The Jewish people very recently (1937 to 1945) lived through this, Got their own state in 1948, and thus they say " NEVER AGAIN". jif

 

Corey,
What I am against in the middle east is intollerance--regardless of who exercises it. As I said before, atrocities have been committed by both sides. For our country to significantly reduce terrorism, then this struggle over the land by these two peoples must be resolved with both peoples in homelands where they can prosper and exercise their religion freely and tolerance given in both homelands to those who are different.

I am also against this notion that the Jews have every right to the land of Israel as a homeland. NOT that I agree with those who would slaughter them to remove them. But I think they should stay in Israel because to expel them now would be to treat them as they have mistreated the Palestinians. In addition, a serious effort to expel them now could lead to a WW.

If you argue that because of the holocaust they deserve the homeland, then you are merely having them compensated for the horrific crimes committed against them. The problem is that we are using someone else's collateral to compensate them. Many Palestinians have had their homes taken from them to compensate the Jews for the holocaust. Now who is going to compensate the Palestinians for their losses? And with what will they be compensated? Are the Jews more deserving than the Palestinians because of what they suffered at the hands of Hitler? What we see today is that the victims of terrorism are becoming this compensation.

The irreversible mistake of Zionism was made in the middle of the last century (does that make me feel old to know I was alive in the middle of the last century). Now we need to move the societies of both sides away form coerced conformity into tolerance if this is to be resolved. And I am talking about both sides here. Since on a daily basis I read the Septuagint (Greek OT) and the Koran, I see how intolerance can spring from believers of the 2 major faiths involved (Judaism and Muslim). An objective view of Israel is needed here. One that still supports them as an ally but will take swift non-military action to correct abuses they commit. BTW, as a Christian, I see more similarities between these two religions with regards to personal piety than I do between Judaism and Christianity.

A country whose gov't is elected but does not tolerate those who are different is a democracy without freedom. That is because Freedom and tolerance imply each other. The degree to which you are free is measured by how different you can be and still have rights and equal standing with others. The degree to which Israel runs a democracy without tolerance, and therefore without freeedom, shows they do not believe in the same principles on which our country runs.

Finally, the analogy between Arafat and Hitler is wrong. The correct analogy is between Arafat and Monachim Beigin. It was Beigin who was in charge of a Zionist terrorist association. I believe it was Beigin who was in charge of bombings like the King David Hotel where many British citizens (including soldiers and civilians) were killed. And it was Beigin who became a head of state. Arafat wants to become one.

 

To Tom:
I apologize for the remark that I made. I knew at the time that I made it that it could be out of line. However, when it comes to Israel I have very strong feelings. So I apologize to you, Tom and to you, C-day.

Now, I was going to respond with many of the things that Corey has already made clear about Israel having more right to this area than Palestine. However, I don't think C-day understands what exactly you were talking about Corey. Israel had this land in ancient times. We're not talking about World War II here or any other time in recent memory. You said, C-day, that you were a Christian. However, you seem to be forgetting that King David was a Hebrew king in ancient Jerusalem. Also, being a Christian I would think that you would understand the importance of the Jewish people to the Christian world. The Bible perfectly describes the Jews as being GOD's people. Now that GOD that I'm talking about is the same GOD that you worship as a Christian if you worship Jesus Christ. That is also the same GOD that told Abraham that whoever blesses you, I will bless and whoever curses you, I will curse. With that in mind, do a little studying of the Good Book and you might want to reconsider some of your stances. Just a suggestion, not trying to force anything on you here.

 

1. It was nice reading that article telling the US what to do to stop future terrorist attacks. Only problem is, the people making the suggestions don't seem to be very successful at stopping terrorist attacks.
2. When the American Indians want the land I'm living on back, must I give it to them?
3. Are reparations being paid to those that had the land before the new "settlements" are built. Or are reparations only paid by Swiss banks.
4. Can the Catholics have Ulster back?
5. If American aid and support to Israel really sets off these terrorists, why not double our aid and encourage them to expand their borders every time the terrorists strike? That's my recommended response.

 

Curtis,

We are all entitled to our opinions and I can see that there is no way that you and I will agree regarding this matter.

You say that the comparison between Arafat and Hitler is wrong. Then I can say, without any doubt in my mind, that you do not know the first thing about Arafat and his political/family backround..

I'm not ripping into you here so don't take it that way. You can compare his acts to whatever Jewish leader serves your purpose but it's off base. I do think it's wonderful that you read the Koran and the Bible every day. My problem is that the actions of people in that region are often done in a perversion of what is actually written in those books.

All I can say is this, read about Arafat and his family. Read about who the SINGLE GREATEST INFLUENCE on Arafat's way of thinking in... Who is it that Arafat uses as a backbone to his entire political process.

He was the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini... He was related to Arafat. I believe he was a cousin or something to that effect but anywho... Do your own reading and make up your own mind. The facts are that this guy was very close to the Nazi Party. The Mufti worked hard behind the scenes meeting with politicians from Hungary, Belgium and most certinaly Germany to ensure that not only were visas to Palestine denied, but that the Jewish prisoners were not sent to either Belgian or Hungarian concentration camps. He wanted them sent to Poland. This guy used political influence that may have directly led to the death of between 300 to 500 THOUSAND people...

I won't bother with this since I honestly believe that your mind is already made up on the issue and I really don't feel like totally bringing out the whole Holocaust "card".. That is always one topic people think is played by someone desperate in a discussion to earn point.. I'm not that.. Just read up on this SOB and how close Arafat AND HIS POLICIES are to him... It's Nazi sympathetic rhetoric pure and simple.

 

Mike,

Actually Isreal has lots of success stopping terrorists.. El Al is the safest airliner on the planet. The "openings" that the terrorists use to attack Isreali people are the forced openings that the Americans and the UN make them keep..

The PA and Arafat have been playing the 'race card' before the UN for about 10 years now trying to reach a "racism sympathetic" American media and public..When Isreal follows these "peace treaties" they are literall watching assassins roll right into their country. Very often they know who they are and what they are doing. They are powerless to do anything until these people walk in and start shooting, or appear out of a hotel with a bomb strapped to them.

I happen to like your suggestion to the situation there. One thing that always gets me. Each time we have a peace accord, it isn't Isreal that moves across any borders or attacks any people, it's the PA.. But then somehow when some Isreali snaps and goes apesh*t, the actions of Isreal in retaliation are considered as being the same as those of the Palestinians in striking out..

The Arab nations talk the talk about whiping out Isreal but they can't walk it. If we got out of there, IMHO, an attack using weapons of mass destruction led by Iraq would be launched against Isreal..That's a fact that many Arab sympathizers don't talk about..

IMHO, Isreal's backlash would be real nasty.

 

Cory.. Indeed if we left Israel to fend for herself..there would be no more Palestine. Thanks for enlightening Curtis. jif

 

Corey
I agree about El Al but it has so many advantages over US carriers. First of all, Isreal is so small it really doesn't have a domestic industry. The number of flights is limited and almost all involve international travel. This allows much more security to occur. Also passengers expect that the security will be stringent.
It's one thing to go through 2 1/2 hrs security checks before you go from Israel to the US. It's another to do the same between Boston and NYC. At that point the train or driving might be faster.

 

Gipper,

Good point.. I don't suppose AMTRACK is too upset about that?

Speaking of industry... Is that NAFTA coming back to bite us in the butt again or what?? While trying to clamp down on the borders and various immigration laws, some aspects of the NAFTA regulations have made that difficult.

I know from living in Duluth for two years that the border FROM Canada to the US and especially the trade ships coming into the states are virtually wide open.. So now we're trying to clamp down in our interest of national security meanwhile we are slowing down shipping into the states from Canada...

 

Aquila,
First, you do not owe me an apology. Sometimes, what is said is just an expression of intense feeling about the subject and does not represent opinions about that person.

I want to answer your objections first because I think we have more things in common. How one interprets the relationship between the land of Canaan and the Jewish people depends greatly on one's eschatological viewpoint. In Christian fundamentalism, I myself am a flaming fundamentalist, there are two distinct eschatological viewpoints: Dispensationalism and Covenantal Theology. While Dispensationalism sees the land of Canaan as belonging to the Jews, the chosen people of God, because of the promise made to Abraham; those from the Covenantal School of theology no longer see the Jews as the chosen people of God. Rather, God's people are dispersed through the nations rather than to be associated with any particular nation or ethnicity.

From a Covenantal viewpoint, since God's people, the meek, inherit the earth, and Canaan is a subset of that land, then the promise made to Abraham is fulfilled. This group of meek are not just any group of timid people, rather it is those whose faith is truly in God to be their deliverer through his Son.

In additions, from an evangelical concern, how could you witness to a Palestinian when prior to that, he was obligated, from your Biblical viewpoint, to leave his home in Israel to make room for the "true" owners of the land?

Corey,
We need to remember that there are extremists and moderates on both sides of the fence. The enemy for many who object to the current state of Israel is not the Jews but Zionism. That is because it is in Zionism that we see intollerance, the same intollerance as we see in the extreme Palestinian positions.

You have to remember that Zionism exhisited prior to WWII and the holocaust. Some of those non-Jewish sympathizers with Zionism saw the goal as a compensation for all of the contributions made to mankind in different fields. But like those post-holocaust sympathizers to Zionism, they closed their eyes to who was paying the bill. It was the resident Palestinians. And btw, not all Jews were or are Zionists. Many Christian sympathizers to Zionist saw the restoration of the Jewish nation of Israel as a way of expiditing the 2nd coming. In addition, some supported Zionism from an anti-semetic viewpoint--as a way of moving the Jews from their own countries. Their concern was the world-wide influence of
Judiasm because of their dispersion.

Those opposed to Zionism did so either out of a anti-semetic viewpoint or out of a fairness objection. I am of the latter. How is it fair when people have their land taken from them and they are forced to move elsewhere? And what kind of response do you expect from the victims of such a practice? We would probably have no less terrorism here if this happened to us than there is there.

The intollerance of Zionism and extreme Palestinian reaction is the enemy here. Both cause atrocities to be committed. Both are intollerant and suppress freedom--even if public officials are elected. It is a tyranny of a manipulated, the free influx of Jewish people vs any other group, majority from the Israeli side. Democracy contributes to our freedoms here. But by itself, it cannot guarantee our freedoms. But in conjunction with the Bill of rights and the checks and balances of our gov't, we ensure that if you wish not to conform to the majority, you still have an equal rights in society provided that you do not infringe on someone else's rights. That is freedom. Freedom and tolerance imply each other. Democracy alone does not give us freedom. The question now becomes is Israel a fellow free society?

There are moderates from both sides. What we should do is to try to increase the number of people from this viewpoint. We cannot do that while supporting Zionism.

As for Arafat, he is not white as the driven snow but again, he is not darker than the Jewish terrorists who existed before him. Or should we start listing the terroristic actions and philosophies of the Zionists while rising to power.

Jif,
You need to read my notes more carefully. In my support for the Palestinian concerns, not necessarily actions, I stated explicitly that we should remain allies with Israel while trying to foster a situation where we can also become allies with the Palestinians. This can only happen when the two sides are at peace. Perhaps it is you who do not know enough--in particular what actions were taken against the Palestinians to make Israel what it is today. Again, NEVER AGAIN is not just a saying that should apply to the Jews only, it should apply to every group.

For the moderators,
I am sorry for the brevity of the note. But at least I didn't use any of them foreign words.


[This message has been edited by CDAY (edited 10-01-2001).]

 

Curtis...unlike another gentleman who you talk with , I will not get entangled..or allow you to entangle me in a War of Words. My Sunday school teacher must have instilled the wrong knowledge into me. jif

 

Corey
If we didn't get all those illeagle Canadian aliens, who'd pick our crops.
Good thing that no one ever gets into California illegally from Mexico. That would be awful.
The most lax border point I ever experienced was the one in El Paso. Compared to getting into Mich. from Windsor Ca. it's a breeze.

 

Curtis,

Like JIF, I do not want to become entangled in a war of words, but I do feel obliged to make the following points:

Last year at Camp David Ehud Barak offered Arafat a most generous offer (Clintons belief as well) to resolve the Mideast conflict. This offer included recognition of a Palestinian State, a capital in parts of East Jerusalem, and compensation for displaced Palestinians.

The deal breaker was Arafat's insistance on the right of return of 3 million Palestinians to Israel. This position of course insured the failure of these talks. For Israel to take in 3 million Palestinians makes about as much sense as the US government giving Texas back to Mexico.

Most disturbing is the current attitude of hate towards Israel and the United States that is encouraged by Arafat and the PA.

Celebrating the destruction of a Piazza parlor where over 20 innocent civilians died is plain sick.

And what do you call dancing in the streets when 6,000 innocent civilians lie in a heap of rubble?

No amount of grievances can justify this type of behavior.






[This message has been edited by tom silver (edited 10-01-2001).]