What Am I Missing? - Israel and Hamas (Palestinians)

[Mick-Boy]

Jeeze you guys don't really pick a topic and stick with it do you.

At the risk of bringing this thread back on track let me see if I can address some of the relevant points. I don't have a real deep understanding of the issues but I worked out of the US Consulate in Jerusalem for about two years (07-09) so I like to think I grasped a little.

Roberth - You asked what you were missing on the Israel/Palestine issue. My short answer would be historical knowledge. I don't mean that to be offensive so I apologize if that's how it comes off. Most Americans have a very poor understanding of how the middle east became what it is today. (Hint - blame the British and French)

I don't want to get down the historical road too far but I'll hit some of the high points so we're all on the same page.

The idea of a Jewish State wasn't officially presented by anyone who governed the area until the British Foreign Secretary wrote the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Two years after the British officially supported an independent Arab state in the region (That support helped to spur the Arab Revolt portrayed in Lawrence of Arabia). The British policy going into WW2 was outlined in the MacDonald White Paper which called for self rule in the region based on population percentages (at the time Jews comprised about 30% of the population of Palestine).

After the War in 48 Israel ended up with 50% more territory than was agreed upon in UN resolution 181. As a result of the war there were some 600,000 Palestinian refugees. Israel says all these people left on their own. However there is documentation from the Jewish Agency to support the claim that it was policy to expel Arabs from their land post-war. Like most highly emotional issues I'd look for the truth somewhere in the middle. I won't go into the treatment these people received (and continue to receive) from their Arab "brothers" in the surrounding Countries. The Palestinians were/are nothing but political leverage to them.

The end state is a subjected people, looked down on by their "allies" and having no real political recourse.

I asked earlier whether you are supporting the US or Israel. The reason I asked is because the US policy is to support the establishment of an independent Palestinian State. We work toward that end. We train, equip and arm the Palestinian National Security Forces. We pour money into the Palestinian infrastructure. We host and mediate talks between the two parties with that as the goal.

Think Israel is a solid ally? Look up the USS Liberty. Think only Palestinians murder civilians? Look up Baruch Goldstein.

Nothing is as black and white as we would like it.

[roberth]

Jeeze you guys don't really pick a topic and stick with it do you.

Guilty as charged.

At the risk of bringing this thread back on track let me see if I can address some of the relevant points. I don't have a real deep understanding of the issues but I worked out of the US Consulate in Jerusalem for about two years (07-09) so I like to think I grasped a little.

Roberth - You asked what you were missing on the Israel/Palestine issue. My short answer would be historical knowledge. I don't mean that to be offensive so I apologize if that's how it comes off. Most Americans have a very poor understanding of how the middle east became what it is today. (Hint - blame the British and French)

I don't want to get down the historical road too far but I'll hit some of the high points so we're all on the same page.

The idea of a Jewish State wasn't officially presented by anyone who governed the area until the British Foreign Secretary wrote the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Two years after the British officially supported an independent Arab state in the region (That support helped to spur the Arab Revolt portrayed in Lawrence of Arabia). The British policy going into WW2 was outlined in the MacDonald White Paper which called for self rule in the region based on population percentages (at the time Jews comprised about 30% of the population of Palestine).

After the War in 48 Israel ended up with 50% more territory than was agreed upon in UN resolution 181. As a result of the war there were some 600,000 Palestinian refugees. Israel says all these people left on their own. However there is documentation from the Jewish Agency to support the claim that it was policy to expel Arabs from their land post-war. Like most highly emotional issues I'd look for the truth somewhere in the middle. I won't go into the treatment these people received (and continue to receive) from their Arab "brothers" in the surrounding Countries. The Palestinians were/are nothing but political leverage to them.

The end state is a subjected people, looked down on by their "allies" and having no real political recourse.

I don't know all the history, I do know the British had a hand in the formation of a Jewish state.

I asked earlier whether you are supporting the US or Israel. The reason I asked is because the US policy is to support the establishment of an independent Palestinian State. We work toward that end. We train, equip and arm the Palestinian National Security Forces. We pour money into the Palestinian infrastructure. We host and mediate talks between the two parties with that as the goal.

The United States needs to pick a side, warts and all, and support that side exclusively. I'd prefer that choice be Israel for a number of reasons, mostly that little freedom thing.

Think Israel is a solid ally? Look up the USS Liberty. Think only Palestinians murder civilians? Look up Baruch Goldstein..

I'm looking this up now. Thanks. I know a little about the Liberty already.

Nothing is as black and white as we would like it.

I think the contrasts are more distinct than some would have us believe.

[Ronin13]

Thank you. If the word terrorist had been invented, you bet your ass the British would have called the founding fathers terrorists.

History is written by the victors. That's another statement some people might have issue with.



So murder is bad, but killing is good?

To the guy you're killing, you're murdering him. Saying his perspective isn't valid sounds kind of evil and selfish. As if you're the only person in the universe.

Because they believe it makes it right to them. Thus, perspective.

And yes, anything can be justified. Usually the justification comes from 1) the winner, or 2) the one who's the most convincing.

I had to skip a lot because this just got to me... Killing someone in war or conflict or even self-defense (which really sums up war because you kill them before they kill you) is just because both parties know what they're getting into. Murder is taking someone's life who poses no threat to your existence and is not justified, regardless of your point of view.

Perspective and winning is all bunk. The perspective of the world is that killing innocents to gain ground on a political means is wrong. That's what terrorists do, the very definition includes to "incite terror." What the founding fathers of America were doing could never, and will never be classified as terrorist- they never killed innocent civilians to gain some psychological advantage over their enemies. They were fighting an illegal occupation of land that they wanted for their own. Britain wouldn't have that, so they were labeled "traitors." Jesus, if you people owned a damn dictionary you'd know the difference between "traitors to the crown" and "terrorists." It is bold faced ignorance to use that "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." That's flat out, inexcusable stupidity- and no Deus, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm accusing you of spewing stupidity out of your suck hole. A freedom fighter is someone against dictatorship or tyranny, a terrorist is someone who uses acts of violence to incite and inspire terror to achieve a political goal. You can't dispute this, this is not only the definition I learned in my Counter-Terrorism training, it's also what the UN and various other organizations have agreed is a good description of a very troubling word in our common use today. To say that AQ, Hamas, PLO, and other "enemies of various states" are not terrorists when they clearly kill innocent civilians on scales that far exceed accidental or "collateral damage" by the US military, you basically should just check yourself into a home for the mentally challenged because you have a sick twisted view on the world. No person has the right to kill an innocent person for no justified reason- that is murder. No matter what perspective you have, unless you truly are one of these depraved individuals who actually think you're in the right (and you probably cried when OBL was killed- read: NOT MURDERED but justifiably killed), a terrorist is not a good thing to be, regardless of the cause behind it, and I'm pretty sure there is a special spot in whatever punishing afterlife (Hell?) just for terrorists.

Now, got that off my chest, Israel is right, the violent aspect to the Palestinian movement is wrong- sure it's black and white, but really in the big picture here that's really all the matters, the gray area is just background noise.

[Mick-Boy]

The United States needs to pick a side, warts and all, and support that side exclusively. I'd prefer that choice be Israel for a number of reasons, mostly that little freedom thing.

Freedom for who?

Pick a side based on whose interests? If we're talking about ours (and ours are the ones I care about) then the US has well over a quarter of a million of it's citizens deployed to countries in the muslim world. A significant percentage or our oil comes from arab countries. What does Israel bring to the table for us?

Again though, things just aren't as simple as "pick a side and support it exclusively". The United States has vested national interest in promoting peace in the middle east. The only real way that's going to happen is a two state solution. So pick a side just isn't going to cut it.

[roberth]

I just read about Baruch Goldstein and his massacre and his actions aren't something I can advocate.

The argument for moral equivalency between what Baruch did and what the Palestinians have done is lost in the overwhelming number of bad acts by the Palestinians. Baruch's action is negated by the Sbarro restaurant bombing by if you want to do comparisons.

Another list of released Palestinians for Shalit swap.

Among the Palestinian prisoners to be released are many who have been convicted for plotting suicide bombings inside restaurants and buses as well as shooting attacks that killed many Israelis.


One prominent name is Ahlam Tamimi, who worked as a reporter with a local television station before joining Hamas, the Palestinian faction which rules the Gaza Strip.
She received 16 life sentences for helping choose places for suicide attacks and was accused of taking bombers to some of the locations, including a Jerusalem pizzeria in 2001, where 15 people were killed.


Also to be released is Mohammed al-Sharatha, a leader of the Hamas special elite fighting unit "101" which kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in 1989. The two were killed. Al-Sharatha was arrested in 1989 and sentenced to three life terms and a separate 30-year-term.


Nasser Iteima, who was behind the bombing of a Netanya hotel in 2002 that killed 30 people and wounded 140, will be released.


As will be Walid Anjes, who was jailed for orchestrating a bombing at the Moment cafe in Jerusalem that killed 11 people and maimed dozens that same year.

[Mick-Boy]

Mick-Boy

Would like to hear your explanation of what went down on the USS Liberty. Did a paper on this years ago...never got a real answer. Mistaken attack? Making a point with us? Most of the government crap is still classified- won't ever find out what really happened.

One event doesn't mean Israel isn't an ally. How many times has America dropped the ball on her allies? Start counting. Diplomacy and profit from conflict go hand in hand. If our betters can make a buck selling a bullet, they will do it.

It was the largest single loss to the US intelligence community in history. Based on the interviews conducted with the survivors I don't believe that it was an accident. I don't know why exactly Israel would choose to attack a US flagged ship. I do believe that it was politically expedient for both the US and Israel to chose to ignore the whole thing.

Israel looks out for Israel. There's no reason the US shouldn't be doing the same. Basing our foreign policy on what benefits another nation is foolish in the extreme.

[roberth]

Freedom for who?.

LOL, you think Arab countries provide the same freedoms as Israel. Now who needs to do some research.

Pick a side based on whose interests? If we're talking about ours (and ours are the ones I care about) then the US has well over a quarter of a million of it's citizens deployed to countries in the muslim world. A significant percentage or our oil comes from arab countries. What does Israel bring to the table for us?

Again though, things just aren't as simple as "pick a side and support it exclusively". The United States has vested national interest in promoting peace in the middle east. The only real way that's going to happen is a two state solution. So pick a side just isn't going to cut it.

We aren't talking about the other Arab countries, we're talking about the Palestinians.

Exports from Israel to U.S. With a population of 7.1 million, Israel exported US$20.8 billion worth of merchandise to the United States in 2007, an 8.6% increase from 2006 and up by 63% in 4 years. The following product categories represent about 77% of Israeli exports to America.

1. Gem diamonds … US$9.5 billion – up 10.5% from 2006 (45.6% of Israel-to-U.S. exports)
2. Dental, medical and pharmaceutical preparations … $2.7 billion – up 3.5% (12.9%)
3. Telecommunications equipment … $746.8 million – up 17.6% (3.6%)
4. Complete civilian aircraft … $685.9 million – up 41.6% (3.3%)
5. Other hospital, medical and scientific equipment … $655 million – up 12.6% (3.1%)
6. Electric apparatus and parts … $385.6 billion – up 11.3% (1.9%)
7. Civilian aircraft engines … $370.5 million – up 52.6% (1.8%)
8. Measuring, testing and control instruments … $337.1 million – down 9.8% (1.6%)
9. Other military equipment … $271.3 million – up 223.2% (1.3%)
10. Computer accessories, peripherals and parts … $254.6 billion – up 36.5% (1.2%).

http://daniel-workman.suite101.com/top-israeli-imports-exports-a59994

Palestinian Exporting to the United States

Palestinian exports are low compared to imports; however, the numbers have been increasing gradually in the recent years. According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) total exports from Palestine in the year 1996 reached $339.5 million and the number has increased gradually to reach $513 million in the year 2007, with the exception of the year 2000, where exports reached $400.8 million. The products recording the most exporting rates include; non-metallic mineral manufactures, furniture, footwear, iron and steel, medicinal and pharmaceutical products, and cork and wood products (excluding furniture) with combined exports that reach $242 million in the year 2007 (47% of total exports in that year).
Exporting to the United States is very low compared to exporting to other countries in the world, as total exports to the United States throughout the years 1996-2007 reached the total of $14.5 million (less than 1% of total exports in those years) according to PCBS, showing gradual increase in recent years. The year 2005 has seen the highest export numbers to the United States with $4.2 million of exported products.

http://www.pal-am.com/etemplate.php?id=201

[Mick-Boy]

The argument for moral equivalency between what Baruch did and what the Palestinians have done is lost in the overwhelming number of bad acts by the Palestinians. Baruch's action is negated by the Sbarro restaurant bombing by if you want to do comparisons.

Dude, I'm not talking about moral equivalency here. We're not weighing act against act. We can play that game all day long but I promise it won't go anywhere. We can each google atrocities+Israeli/Palestinian and start posting things. Bottom line is that neither side is blameless in this. Israel was founded by organizations designated as terrorists.

Whole sale support of Israel at the expense of our own national interests doesn't make sense.

[Mick-Boy]

LOL, you think Arab countries provide the same freedoms as Israel. Now who needs to do some research.

Do you think Arabs in Israel enjoy what you or I would call freedom?

[roberth]

Dude, I'm not talking about moral equivalency here. We're not weighing act against act. We can play that game all day long but I promise it won't go anywhere. We can each google atrocities+Israeli/Palestinian and start posting things.

We're going to disagree on whether or not you're playing moral equivalency games.

My point is that whole sale support of Israel at the expense of our own national interests doesn't make sense.

I would agree with that, except when it comes to the Palestinians.