|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 14, 2014 17:21:30 GMT
Has anyone on this thread accused anyone else of being anti-Semitic? I don't think I have, nor do I remember anyone else doing that. I'm actually quite critical of a lot of things Israel does....right up until Hamas, or Hezbollah starts throwing rockets in my direction. I agree that the Palestinians deserve a place to call their own....it's too bad their leaders don't feel the same way. Yes it has been thrown around on this thread and in threads in the past. I only saw people explaining the impossibility of claiming to be "pro-Israel" but "anti-Zionist". I didn't see anyone being called anti-semitic for showing compassion or empathy for Palestinian civilians. I thought I read this thread very carefully, but I suppose I may have missed something.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 14, 2014 17:21:32 GMT
Except that they chose to VOTE Hamas into power. Hamas was already well established as a terrorist group whose goal was and is the annihilation of Israel, when their candidates were voted into control of the Palestinian Parliament in 2006. The Palestinian civilians voted Hamas into power, so, not exactly pawns - and they got exactly what they voted for: a government that is more concerned with engaging in terrorist activity against Israel than taking care of its own citizens.
There was no government overthrow, no surprise change of party platform, this is what the Palestinian civilian majority voted for. Right- I was referring to Hamas keeping their rockets in highly populated areas and then using those tragic deaths and injuries as propaganda tools. They have swallowed Hamas's BS hook, line, and sinker. It's just so sad. Gotcha! Yes, they are storing munitions and using civilians as shields, and then using their horrific deaths as propaganda when Israel justifiably destroys the weapons. It IS sad that their own leadership values war over their well-being.
|
|
|
Post by KiwiJo on Jul 14, 2014 17:28:33 GMT
Guys - please don't let this thread deteriorate into one of sarcasm, or blaming, or half-truths.
Knee-jerk reactions don't help anyone.
PLEASE let it remain a thread of explaining, teaching, sharing information, understanding.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 14, 2014 17:30:10 GMT
For anyone who is interested, here's a link to the Hamas Charter.... Hamas Charter
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jul 14, 2014 17:32:48 GMT
Guys - please don't let this thread deteriorate into one of sarcasm, or blaming, or half-truths.
Knee-jerk reactions don't help anyone.
PLEASE let it remain a thread of explaining, teaching, sharing information, understanding.I'll add my voice to that. I am not at all knowledgeable about this situation or the history and I would like to be able to read more and learn more.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 14, 2014 17:35:42 GMT
How are we supposed to have a debate if we are all in agreement? Makes me crazy when people say 'I'm leaving now because no one is allowed to disagree with you'. Of course you can disagree, that's what a debate is. It might well be that we agree to disagree, but to bail out because you feel like no one is agreeing with you is just a cop out.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 14, 2014 17:46:53 GMT
For anyone who is interested, here's a link to the Hamas Charter.... Hamas CharterThanks for the link. I hadn't read the whole thing before. Some of the oddest things make it into political documents. I did LOL when I read that Rotary Clubs are considered dens and nests for saboteurs and sabotage. I think of a room of older men in rural WV - my FIL's Rotary Club - and I can't imagine any group of people being less capable of being spies or combatants.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 14, 2014 17:47:56 GMT
You know what I don't like about this. If anyone dares to show any compassion towards the Palestinians they are labeled anti-Semite. That is just not cool. People are people and most are just innocents trying to survive. They all deserve a homeland and life. I don't disagree with this sentiment. I have no problem with individual Palestinians, especially ones who seek peace with their neighbors. In addition, I have zero patience for the ultra Orthodox Jews who show little regard for the rights of anyone besides themselves. My objections in this thread are mainly to the concept that Israel is expected to conform to rules that no other nation would hold itself to if it were under constant attack, and the Palestinian Authority is held to no rules at all.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 14, 2014 17:54:56 GMT
^^^ What Lucy Said ^^^
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:26:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 17:58:53 GMT
How are we supposed to have a debate if we are all in agreement? Makes me crazy when people say 'I'm leaving now because no one is allowed to disagree with you'. Of course you can disagree, that's what a debate is. It might well be that we agree to disagree, but to bail out because you feel like no one is agreeing with you is just a cop out. I didn't bail out because of the disagreement in the original topic of this thread but I have my very personal reasons not to participate when it comes to including non related issues to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 14, 2014 18:00:20 GMT
Guys - please don't let this thread deteriorate into one of sarcasm, or blaming, or half-truths.
Knee-jerk reactions don't help anyone.
PLEASE let it remain a thread of explaining, teaching, sharing information, understanding.Where are you seeing knee-jerk reactions, sarcasm, or half-truths? Are we reading the same thread? I see real life stories shared from multiple perspectives. What is (and should be) dismissed are links to known terrorist/anti-semitic sources. As for blaming, well we are looking at a conflict that has very deep roots. We are going to disagree on who shoulders most blame. Though even the most vocal Israel supporters have clearly recognized that Israel has not always reacted well. Most of us feel responsibility falls upon the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah who perpetuate anti-semitic propaganda and make martyrs of their own civilians for the sake of stirring up more hatred. I do think, given the opportunity and the full truth, most Palestinian civilians would happily exist in peace with Israelis. But their leadership prevents that from becoming a reality and the neighboring nations that still don't recognize Israel on their maps will keep adding fuel to the flames.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 14, 2014 18:10:32 GMT
My contribution to this post is an opinion piece submitted to our local newspaper by a neighbor, a Palestinian-American. I highly recommend reading the full account. It's only ten paragraphs, and effectively brings to life - via a painfully personal reflection - many of the points offered in this thread. (It's two years old, but still timely.) Full articleIt is a sad story. I feel badly for her, but she could have seen her father by either 1) applying in advance for permission to enter Gaza from the Israel checkpoint when she was still in the U.S.; 2) men over 40 can leave Gaza into Egypt at will, she could have met her father in Egypt ; or 3) she could have entered and left Gaza through Egypt. I am not sure who, especially someone with so much experience in the area, wouldn't know that permission would need to be obtained ahead of time to enter and exit Gaza through Israel. She also would have known that she could visit her family through Egypt. So, while I feel badly for her, I'm confused as to why she didn't plan better if she is from the region originally. She could have visited her parents, just not by showing up at the Israeli checkpoint unannounced, without permission obtained ahead of time, and expect to be let come and go freely simply because she has an American passport.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 14, 2014 18:11:38 GMT
That was a really good article. Well written and obviously from the heart. It bothers me that they were denied entry, but in all fairness, nobody who shows up at the checkpoint to Gaza, flashing a passport from any country, is just going to be allowed to walk on in. There is a process that these folks apparently did not go through to get clearance to enter Gaza. Had they done so, they may well have received the permission they desired.
This is simply incorrect. The tunnels are dug for one reason, and one reason only, and that is to smuggle in weapons of destruction. All supplies for the Gaza (medicine, food, clothing etc.) drive through the checkpoints on trucks. They are checked for contraband, but if they are carrying what they say they are carrying, they are passed through with no problem. It is incorrect that the residents of Gaza are reliant upon tunnels to get the 'most basic of necessities'. That is a piece of propaganda that the Palestinian Authority would like the world to believe, but it simply isn't true.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Jul 14, 2014 18:27:01 GMT
Nobody addressed my question re: whether in 1948, right or wrong, to some, the imposition of the will of the UN into the region looked more like imperialism than reparations for the war. So I shall try to address my confusion from another direction.
Why didn't the UN/USA/UK set up peacekeepers in 1948, stick around do the work at the time to get them all to get along, and set up a gov't that would work? I'm thinking along the lines of Sarajevo during the Yugoslav conflict. And I admit, there's a risk in that, too... it might have meant those forces would never have been able to leave. But having the UN in charge and ensuring that both sides are fair to each other still seems like a better alternative than this mess. Hamas wouldn't be allowed to be running in elections. Heck, they may not have elections. I'm good with that, if need be. Just form a presence there and force them to coexist peacefully. Maybe instead of going into Iraq, W & Co should've go in to Gaza and area and taken over for both the Palestinians & Israelis... "You children can't seem to play nicely together, so Mama is just going to sit between you and take your toys away."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:26:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 18:41:22 GMT
How exactly do you think that could have been accomplished? And how is an outside country setting up a government supposed to be successful? Has that ever worked in the past?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 14, 2014 18:56:34 GMT
Elaine and I-95, I don't know the answers to your questions. The author is a successful businessman, has an MBA from the University of Chicago, and is presently president of our (very cantankerous) village, so he is no doubt resourceful. Perhaps he had only recently learned his father was dying, so travel plans were hasty. (He mentions he worked with a travel agent). I offered it as an interesting account and perspective; I'm not able to champion the veracity of all its claims. Amelia, I know that you can't vouch for him. If he did travel as he stated, I do not doubt he was turned away at the check-point. So I do believe the basics are true. My issue with the article, and even more so given his level of education, is that his whole premise is that by preventing him from seeing his parents when he just showed up at Gaza, the Israelis were treating him unfairly as the enemy, instead of expecting him to go through the same process as everyone else to obtain permission to enter. If his main goal was to see his parents, even hastily, he could have gone through Egypt. If his main goal was to be able to write an article to evoke Palestinian sympathy, go through a process sure to end in your not being allowed to see your parents, return home without making the short trip to Egypt to see them, and write a story about it. I'm sorry he didn't see his father, but he could have, and I would feel he was more genuine if he mentioned that. The average reader will read the story and assume that Israel doesn't allow family visits to people living in Gaza.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 14, 2014 19:01:11 GMT
(In response to cycworker's posts.)
Maybe they could have done more to make it work, I don't know enough to say. The main thing is that the Middle East has always been as unstable as it is now. None of the Muslim countries wanted partition. They weren't going to be sweet-talked into it, although there may have been other (word) weapons to use to corral them. The U.N. was so new, I don't even know if they had the logistics in place to take charge of the situation as you suggest.
There was also the issue that the world was only two years out of World War II at the time the U.N. vote was taken, and pretty much everyone was war-weary. Who wanted to send more soldiers into another volatile situation? And they were broke. They wanted to pick up the pieces and fix their own countries, not some God-forsaken bit of desert in the Middle East.
And let's face it, no one else wanted responsibility for the surviving Jews or to take in all of refugees themselves. They felt guilty about the Holocaust; they wanted to deal with the problem and make it go away. And there was this group of Jews in Palestine who actually wanted to take in the survivors. They just needed the security of a state of their own in their long-lost homeland, that had already been promised to them years earlier by the British Empire.
So easy to vote yes; so hard to resolve the repercussions.
|
|
|
Post by LauraTen on Jul 14, 2014 19:15:52 GMT
This conflict started when 3 Israeli teens were kidnapped and killed.
|
|
mimima
Drama Llama
Stay Gold, Ponyboy
Posts: 5,073
Jun 25, 2014 19:25:50 GMT
|
Post by mimima on Jul 14, 2014 19:21:36 GMT
I am happy to report that the anti-Semitic Alison Weir is not the same Alison Weir as the British historian and novelist. In case anyone besides me was worried! I wondered, thanks
|
|
mimima
Drama Llama
Stay Gold, Ponyboy
Posts: 5,073
Jun 25, 2014 19:25:50 GMT
|
Post by mimima on Jul 14, 2014 19:37:14 GMT
Nobody addressed my question re: whether in 1948, right or wrong, to some, the imposition of the will of the UN into the region looked more like imperialism than reparations for the war. So I shall try to address my confusion from another direction. Why didn't the UN/USA/UK set up peacekeepers in 1948, stick around do the work at the time to get them all to get along, and set up a gov't that would work? I'm thinking along the lines of Sarajevo during the Yugoslav conflict. And I admit, there's a risk in that, too... it might have meant those forces would never have been able to leave. But having the UN in charge and ensuring that both sides are fair to each other still seems like a better alternative than this mess. Hamas wouldn't be allowed to be running in elections. Heck, they may not have elections. I'm good with that, if need be. Just form a presence there and force them to coexist peacefully. Maybe instead of going into Iraq, W & Co should've go in to Gaza and area and taken over for both the Palestinians & Israelis... "You children can't seem to play nicely together, so Mama is just going to sit between you and take your toys away." You know, I think that you are correct in many ways. After World War I, as you know, there was the Kingdom of the Serbs and Croats, which attempted to unite the Balkans who were dealing with the repercussions of the fall of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires. I think you can definitely make the analogy with the creation of Israel, which came about after World War II. I once read an interesting book about the Middle East after World War I, which is clearly before the creation of Israel, but I think may be of interest A Peace to End All Peace - it talks about the way that the Middle Eastern map was redrawn at the same time as the Kingdom of the Serbs and Croats was being created. (I'm a fellow Eastern European history geek )
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 14, 2014 21:27:44 GMT
I'll also add that all the pro Israel links and the advice to read a variety of " novels"on this thread isn't going to give anyone looking to further their knowledge of the conflict an understanding of both sides. Whether one agrees with one side or the other isn't relevant but linking one side of the debate isn't helpful for anyone in getting a clearer picture of the historical reasons that has led to what is going on there today. There is always two sides to any conflict. I like to read both! If it's any consolation I happen to think there's faults on both sides but from a purely humanitarian point of view I'll side with the Palestinians. I disagree that the historical novels of Leon Uris will not help people to understand some of the background history of the conflict. He spent years researching each of his books to make sure he got his facts right. Weaving in some fictional characters and dialog does not negate the basic facts of history and how the situation came to be as it is post-WWII. There are plenty of events that don't have a "side," they happened. There has been non-fiction work suggested as well. My own suggestion was an autobiography written by the son of one of Hamas' top leaders. If you want to get "the other side" first-hand, it is a fascinating read. As Jo said earlier " Where are they going to go".......Maybe the same way as what happened in the Deir Yassin massacre in 1948? Do the words of Menachem Begin at the time still stand today? quote....... "We created terror among the Arabs and all the villages around. In one blow, we changed the strategic situation." Yes, Israel have had their terrorist groups too namely Irgun and Stern Gang! There are innocent people being killed and far more on the Palestinian side than there is on the Israeli side. There has to be a better solution with some give and take on both sides. I always find it interesting when people bring up events in which innocent Palestinians are killed, but fail to bring up the numerous and frequent attacks on innocent Israeli's. Before Deir Yassin, the Arabs had blockaded the roads and were firing on innocent Israeli civilians. Deir Yassin was a battle gone wrong by inexperienced fighters. It wasn't a shining moment in history, but there was plenty of shooting going on by the other side as well. Israel has indeed made mistakes and bad judgment in some cases over the years, however, they have never ever made it a stated - and very public goal - to wipe out Palestinians. Or anyone else, for that matter. And as stated several times already, the Israeli's bend over backwards to prevent deaths of civilians. Palestinians, however, kill Israeli's because they want to kill each and every one. They couldn't care less if they are innocent civilians or on the battlefield. It's kind of a non-starter for negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on Jul 14, 2014 21:47:42 GMT
I need to catch up on thread but wanted to say Thanks. Read first two pages this morning and was surprised yet prepared when the kid started talking about videos on Vice this afternoon.
Thanks for synopsis Lucy. I
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 14, 2014 21:56:28 GMT
How exactly do you think that could have been accomplished? And how is an outside country setting up a government supposed to be successful? Has that ever worked in the past? The bolded part of the quote sticks out to me as well. No foreign organization (especially, as Lucy pointed, out one so new and run by war-weary nations after WWII) could go into the Middle East and "get them to all get along". They really did TRY. They proposed an independent nation for the Palestinians and an independent nation for the Israelis with shared access to Jerusalem for all. It was offered. Israel accepted. Palestinians, even though they had never ever had their own independent nation, turned it down. It was actually the opposite of imperialistic if you look at the situation. The region HAD been a part of the British Empire until WWII. Britain had been running Palestine as a colonial outpost and there were more than just Palestinians living there. After WWII, they took that territory and offered it to the UN to create TWO nations- one for Israel and one for Palestine. The Arab nations surrounding that region encouraged the Palestinians to reject the offer and allow them to help them wipe out Israel right away to give ALL the land to the Palestinians. As Lucy explained earlier, those neighboring nations attacked Israel on the very day of its independence. Their plan backfired- Israel miraculously won and they did so pretty much on their own. Palestinians had counted on Israel being wiped out before it could begin. When that fell through, they were left homeless. I often ponder whether those neighboring Arab nations would have really given any land to the Palestinians had they been successful in defeating Israel right away. What would have bound them to their word to win that land for a Palestinian nation? When their plans to ruin the new country of Israel failed, none of those surrounding Arab nations that encouraged Palestinians to reject partition offered to take in the homeless Palestinian refugees. Who ultimately made room for them? Israel. And as a thank you, Palestinians established a terrorist leadership that sends rockets, militants, and suicide bombers into Israel. Sure, there have been mistakes made by Israel and by other western nations who stick their noses into the region. But it's not like nobody has ever tried to go in and help them all get along. You can't negotiate with people who pretend you don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelgurl on Jul 14, 2014 22:43:31 GMT
That is the US turning it's back on Israel and it's shameful.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jul 14, 2014 23:17:19 GMT
a repeat of some basics -
After WWII, they took that territory and offered it to the UN to create TWO nations- one for Israel and one for Palestine.
The Arab nations surrounding that region encouraged the Palestinians to reject the offer and allow them to help them wipe out Israel right away to give ALL the land to the Palestinians. As Lucy explained earlier, those neighboring nations attacked Israel on the very day of its independence. Their plan backfired- Israel miraculously won and they did so pretty much on their own. Palestinians had counted on Israel being wiped out before it could begin. When that fell through, they were left homeless. When their plans to ruin the new country of Israel failed, none of those surrounding Arab nations that encouraged Palestinians to reject partition offered to take in the homeless Palestinian refugees. Who ultimately made room for them? Israel. And as a thank you, Palestinians established a terrorist leadership that sends rockets, militants, and suicide bombers into Israel.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:26:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 23:21:27 GMT
Skybar, why do you have stuff I never said in a quote box?
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 14, 2014 23:26:37 GMT
Ha! I was wondering that too. I quoted you, skybar quoted me quoting you... now it's a mess.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jul 14, 2014 23:33:35 GMT
Skybar, why do you have stuff I never said in a quote box? because I deleted the wrong original poster? I used the'quote' feature, so your name was in there somewhere... did you quote someone?
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jul 14, 2014 23:35:47 GMT
Ha! I was wondering that too. I quoted you, skybar quoted me quoting you... now it's a mess. well for pete's sake!!! if it was you Katy, I'll go in and remove 'Ilove...' and put your name in. nothing fancy 'cause I have no idea what ^$^&&* goes with another ^$^&&* .
it's all foreign to me...
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jul 14, 2014 23:51:07 GMT
Ha! I was wondering that too. I quoted you, skybar quoted me quoting you... now it's a mess.
ha! I figured it out. on the BBCode side, you aren't 'katycupcake'! not knowing WHO was the name it showed, I deleted it! So confusing...
I went back to one of your posts, clicked the quote to 'see' WHO you were on the BBCode side. you are the one I deleted....
so, I deleted ilovecookies and pasted 'you' back in.
check it out... all better?
I doubt i'll EVER remember what all I did to fix it...
|
|