Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
US Aid: The Lifeblood of Occupation
...
US Aid: The Lifeblood of Occupation
By Matt Bowles
Israel has maintained an illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories) for 35 years, entrenching an apartheid regime that looks remarkably like the former South African regime
Palestinians into small, noncontiguous bantustans, imposing closures and curfews to control where they go and when, while maintaining control over the natural resources, exploiting Palestinian labor, and prohibiting indigenous economic development.
The Israeli military (IDF) --the third or forth most powerful army in the world-- routinely uses tanks, Apache helicopter gunships, and F-16 fighter jets (all subsidized by the U.S.) against a population that has no military and none of the protective institutions of a modern state.
All of this, Israel tells its citizens and the international community, is for "Israeli security." The reality, not surprisingly, is that these policies have resulted in a drastic increase in attacks on Israel. These attacks are then used as a pretext for further Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas and more violations of Palestinian human rights
which makes Israeli civilians more secure; all of which further entrenches Israelÿs colonial apartheid regime. Most Americans do not realize the extent to which this is all funded by U.S. aid, nor do they understand the specific
economic relationship the U.S. has with Israel and how that differs from other countries.
The aid pipeline
There are at least three ways in which aid to Israel is different from that of any other country. First, since 1982, U.S. aid to Israel has been transferred in one lump sum at the beginning of each fiscal year, which immediately begins to collect interest in U.S. banks. Aid that goes to other countries is disbursed throughout the year in quarterly installments.
Second, Israel is not required to account for specific purchases. Most countries receive aid for very specific purposes and must account for how it is spent. Israel is allowed to place US aid into its general fund, effectively eliminating any distinctions between types of aid. Therefore,
U.S. tax-payers are helping to fund an illegal occupation, the expansion of colonial-settlement projects, and gross human rights violations against the Palestinian civilian population.
A third difference is the sheer amount of aid the U.S. gives to Israel, unparalleled in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Israel usually receives roughly one third of the entire foreign aid budget, despite the fact that Israel comprises less than .001 of the worldÿs population and already has
one of the world's higher per capita incomes. In other words, Israel, a country of approximately 6 million people, is currently receiving more U.S. aid than all of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined when you take out Egypt and Colombia.
This year, the U.S. Congress approved $2.76 billion in its annual aid package for Israel. The total amount of direct U.S. aid to Israel has been constant, at around $3 billion (usually 60% military and 40% economic) per year for the last quarter century. A new plan was recently implemented to phase out all economic aid and provide corresponding increases in military aid by 2008. This year Israel is receiving $2.04 billion in military aid and $720 million in economic aid there is only military aid.
In addition to nearly $3 billion in direct aid, Israel usually gets another $3 billion or so in indirect aid: military support from the defense budget, forgiven loans, and special grants. While some of the indirect aid is difficult to measure precisely, it is safe to say that Israelÿs total aid
(direct and indirect) amounts to at least five billion dollars annually.
On top of all of this aid, a team from Israelÿs finance ministry is slated to meet with U.S. government officials this month about an additional $800 million aid package which the Clinton administration promised Israel (and the Bush administration later froze) as compensation for the costs of its withdrawal from Lebanon. The U.S. also managed to find another $28 million in the 2001 Pentagon budget to give Israel to purchase "counter terrorism equipment."
According to the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), from 1949-2001 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $94,966,300,000. The direct and indirect aid from this year should put the total U.S. aid to Israel since 1949 at over one hundred billion dollars. What is not widely known, however, is that most of this aid violates American laws. The Arms Export Control Act stipulates that US-supplied weapons be used only for "legitimate self-defense."
Moreover, the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act prohibits military assistance to any country "which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." The Proxmire amendment bans military assistance to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities, which Israel refuses to do. To understand why the U.S. spends this much money funding the brutal repression of a colonized people, it is necessary to examine the benefits for weapons manufacturers and, particularly, the role that Israel plays in the expansion and maintenance of U.S. imperialism.
A very special relationship
In the fall of 1993, when many were supporting what they hoped would become a viable peace process, 78 senators wrote to former President Bill Clinton insisting that aid to Israel remain at current levels. Their reasons were the "massive procurement of sophisticated arms by Arab states." Yet the letter neglected to mention that 80% percent of those arms to Arab countries came from the U.S. itself.
Stephen Zunes has argued that the Aerospace Industry Association (AIA), which promotes these massive arms shipments, is even more influential in determining U.S. policy towards Israel than the notorious AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) lobby. AIA has given two times more money to campaigns than all of the pro-Israel groups combined. Zunes asserts that the general thrust of U.S. policy would be pretty much the same even if AIPAC
didn't exist: "We didn't need a pro-Indonesia lobby to support Indonesia in its savage repression of East Timor all these years."
The "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel must be understood within the overall American imperialist project and the quest for global hegemony, beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s. For example, 99% of all U.S. aid to Israel came after 1967, despite the fact that Israel was relatively more vulnerable in earlier years (from 1948-1967). Not coincidentally, it was in 1967 that Israel won the Six Day War against several Arab countries, establishing itself as a regional superpower. Also, in the late 1960s and particularly in the early 1970s (this was around the time of the Nixon Doctrine), the U.S. was looking to establish "spheres of influence"-regional superpowers in each significant area of the world to
help the U.S. police them.
The primary U.S. interest in the Middle East is, and has always been, to maintain control of the oil in the region, primarily because this is the source of energy that supplies the industrial economies of Europe and Japan. The U.S. goal has been to insure that there is no indigenous threat to their domination of these energy resources. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. made the strategic decision to ally itself with Israel and Iran, which were referred to as "our two eyes in the middle east" and the "guardians of the gulf." It was at this point that aid increased drastically, from $24 million in 1967 (before the war), to $634 million in 1971, to a staggering $2.6 billion in 1974, where it has remained relatively consistent ever since.
Israel was to be a military stronghold, a client state, and a proxy army, protecting U.S. interests in the Middle East and throughout the world. Subsidized by the CIA, Israel served U.S. interests well beyond the immediate region, setting up dependable client regimes (usually military-based
dictatorships) to control local societies. Noam Chomsky has documented this extensively: Israel was the main force that established the Mobutu dictatorship in Zaire, for example. They also supported Idi Amin in Uganda, early on, as well as Haile Selasse in Ethopia, and Emperor Bokassa in the Central African Republic.
Israel became especially useful when the U.S. came under popular human rights pressure in the 1970s to stop supporting death squads and dictatorships in Latin America. The U.S. began to use Israel as a surrogate to continue its support. Chomsky documents how Israel established close relations with the neo-Nazi and military regimes of Argentina and Chile. Israel also supported genocidal attacks on the indigenous population of Guatemala, and sent arms
to El Salvador and Honduras to support the contras. This was all a secondary role, however.
The primary role for Israel was to be the Sparta of the Middle East. During the Cold War, the U.S. especially needed Israel as a proxy army because direct intervention in the region was too dangerous, as the Soviets were allied with neighboring states. Over the last thirty years, the U.S. has pursued a two-track approach to dominating the region and its resources: It has turned Israel into a military outpost (now probably the most militarized society in the world) that is economically dependent on the U.S. while propping up corrupt Arab dictatorships such as those in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. These regimes are afraid of their own people and, thus, are very insecure. Therefore, they are inclined to collaborate with the U.S. at any cost.
Prospects for activism
Since the end of the Cold War, the nuclear threat associated with direct intervention in the Middle East has disappeared and the U.S. has started a gradual and direct militarization of the region. This began with the Gulf War—putting U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia (the primary source of oil), among other places—and has continued through the current ‘war on terrorism.’
Although U.S. aid has not decreased yet, there have been other observable shifts. The first obvious one is the mainstream media reporting on the conflict. Although there is still, of course, an anti-Palestinian bias, the coverage has shifted significantly in comparison to ten years ago. This has been noticeable in both journalistic accounts of Israeli human rights abuses and the publication of pro-Palestinian op-eds in major papers such as the Washington Post and the Boston Globe.
There are also some stirrings in the U.S. Congress. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) requested that President Bush investigate whether Israel's use of American F-16s is violating the Arms Export Control Act. Further, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) recently complained about giving aid without conditions: "There are no strings on the money. There is no requirement that the bloodshed abate before the funding is released." Other elected representatives are slowly starting to open up to the issue as well, but there is a long way to go on Capital Hill.
The most important development, however, has been the rising tide of concern and activism around the Palestinian issue in the US left. The desperate plight of the Palestinians is gaining increasing prominence in the movement against Bush's "war on terrorism," and it is gradually entering into the movement against corporate globalization.
For years the Palestinian cause was marginalized by the left in America. Since this intifada broke out 17 months ago, that began to shift significantly and has moved even further since September 11. With the new "anti-war" movement, there has come a deeper understanding of U.S. policy in the Middle East and how the question of Palestine fits into progressive organizing.
In Durban, South Africa last September, at the UN Global Conference Against Racism, one of the most pressing issues on the global agenda was the Palestinian struggle against Israelÿs racist policies. 30,000 people from South Africa and around the world demonstrated against Zionism, branding it as a form of apartheid no different than the system that blacks suffered through in South Africa. Shortly after, the U.S. and Israel stormed out of the conference.
In Europe and America, a range of organizations have risen in opposition to Israeli apartheid and in support of Palestinian human rights and self-determination. Just over the last year or two, organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine, based at the University of California at
Berkeley, have begun organizing a divestment campaign, modeled after the campaign that helped bring down South African apartheid. SUSTAIN (Stop U.S. Tax-funded Aid to Israel Now!) chapters in a number of cities have focused their efforts on stopping U.S. aid to Israel, which is the lifeblood of Israeli occupation and continued abuses of Palestinian rights.
Many Jewish organizations have emerged as well, such as Not in My Name, which counters the popular media assertion that all Jewish people blindly support the policies of the state of Israel. Jews Against the Occupation is another organization, which has taken a stand not only against the occupation, but also in support of the right of Palestinian refugees to return. These movements, and particularly their newfound connection with the larger anti-war, anti-imperialist, and anti-corporate globalization movements, are where the possibilities lie to advance the Palestinian struggle.
The hope for Palestine is in the internationalization of the struggle. The building of a massive, international movement against Israeli apartheid seems to be the most effective and promising form of resistance at this time. The demands must be that Israel comply with international law and implement the relevant UN resolutions. Specifically, it must recognize that all Palestinian refugees have the right to return, immediately end the occupation, and give all citizens of Israel equal treatment under the law.
We must demand that all U.S. aid to Israel be stopped until Israel complies with these demands. Only when the Palestinians are afforded their rights under international law, and are respected as human beings, can a genuine process of conflict resolution and healing begin. For all the hype over peace camps and dialogue initiatives, until the structural inequalities are dealt with, there will be no justice for Palestinians and, thus, no peace for Israel.
Matt Bowles is a member of SUSTAIN - Stop US Tax Funded Aid to Israel Now.
The above article was originally published in the March/April issue of Left Turn magazine.
By Matt Bowles
Israel has maintained an illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories) for 35 years, entrenching an apartheid regime that looks remarkably like the former South African regime
Palestinians into small, noncontiguous bantustans, imposing closures and curfews to control where they go and when, while maintaining control over the natural resources, exploiting Palestinian labor, and prohibiting indigenous economic development.
The Israeli military (IDF) --the third or forth most powerful army in the world-- routinely uses tanks, Apache helicopter gunships, and F-16 fighter jets (all subsidized by the U.S.) against a population that has no military and none of the protective institutions of a modern state.
All of this, Israel tells its citizens and the international community, is for "Israeli security." The reality, not surprisingly, is that these policies have resulted in a drastic increase in attacks on Israel. These attacks are then used as a pretext for further Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas and more violations of Palestinian human rights
which makes Israeli civilians more secure; all of which further entrenches Israelÿs colonial apartheid regime. Most Americans do not realize the extent to which this is all funded by U.S. aid, nor do they understand the specific
economic relationship the U.S. has with Israel and how that differs from other countries.
The aid pipeline
There are at least three ways in which aid to Israel is different from that of any other country. First, since 1982, U.S. aid to Israel has been transferred in one lump sum at the beginning of each fiscal year, which immediately begins to collect interest in U.S. banks. Aid that goes to other countries is disbursed throughout the year in quarterly installments.
Second, Israel is not required to account for specific purchases. Most countries receive aid for very specific purposes and must account for how it is spent. Israel is allowed to place US aid into its general fund, effectively eliminating any distinctions between types of aid. Therefore,
U.S. tax-payers are helping to fund an illegal occupation, the expansion of colonial-settlement projects, and gross human rights violations against the Palestinian civilian population.
A third difference is the sheer amount of aid the U.S. gives to Israel, unparalleled in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Israel usually receives roughly one third of the entire foreign aid budget, despite the fact that Israel comprises less than .001 of the worldÿs population and already has
one of the world's higher per capita incomes. In other words, Israel, a country of approximately 6 million people, is currently receiving more U.S. aid than all of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined when you take out Egypt and Colombia.
This year, the U.S. Congress approved $2.76 billion in its annual aid package for Israel. The total amount of direct U.S. aid to Israel has been constant, at around $3 billion (usually 60% military and 40% economic) per year for the last quarter century. A new plan was recently implemented to phase out all economic aid and provide corresponding increases in military aid by 2008. This year Israel is receiving $2.04 billion in military aid and $720 million in economic aid there is only military aid.
In addition to nearly $3 billion in direct aid, Israel usually gets another $3 billion or so in indirect aid: military support from the defense budget, forgiven loans, and special grants. While some of the indirect aid is difficult to measure precisely, it is safe to say that Israelÿs total aid
(direct and indirect) amounts to at least five billion dollars annually.
On top of all of this aid, a team from Israelÿs finance ministry is slated to meet with U.S. government officials this month about an additional $800 million aid package which the Clinton administration promised Israel (and the Bush administration later froze) as compensation for the costs of its withdrawal from Lebanon. The U.S. also managed to find another $28 million in the 2001 Pentagon budget to give Israel to purchase "counter terrorism equipment."
According to the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), from 1949-2001 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $94,966,300,000. The direct and indirect aid from this year should put the total U.S. aid to Israel since 1949 at over one hundred billion dollars. What is not widely known, however, is that most of this aid violates American laws. The Arms Export Control Act stipulates that US-supplied weapons be used only for "legitimate self-defense."
Moreover, the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act prohibits military assistance to any country "which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." The Proxmire amendment bans military assistance to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities, which Israel refuses to do. To understand why the U.S. spends this much money funding the brutal repression of a colonized people, it is necessary to examine the benefits for weapons manufacturers and, particularly, the role that Israel plays in the expansion and maintenance of U.S. imperialism.
A very special relationship
In the fall of 1993, when many were supporting what they hoped would become a viable peace process, 78 senators wrote to former President Bill Clinton insisting that aid to Israel remain at current levels. Their reasons were the "massive procurement of sophisticated arms by Arab states." Yet the letter neglected to mention that 80% percent of those arms to Arab countries came from the U.S. itself.
Stephen Zunes has argued that the Aerospace Industry Association (AIA), which promotes these massive arms shipments, is even more influential in determining U.S. policy towards Israel than the notorious AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) lobby. AIA has given two times more money to campaigns than all of the pro-Israel groups combined. Zunes asserts that the general thrust of U.S. policy would be pretty much the same even if AIPAC
didn't exist: "We didn't need a pro-Indonesia lobby to support Indonesia in its savage repression of East Timor all these years."
The "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel must be understood within the overall American imperialist project and the quest for global hegemony, beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s. For example, 99% of all U.S. aid to Israel came after 1967, despite the fact that Israel was relatively more vulnerable in earlier years (from 1948-1967). Not coincidentally, it was in 1967 that Israel won the Six Day War against several Arab countries, establishing itself as a regional superpower. Also, in the late 1960s and particularly in the early 1970s (this was around the time of the Nixon Doctrine), the U.S. was looking to establish "spheres of influence"-regional superpowers in each significant area of the world to
help the U.S. police them.
The primary U.S. interest in the Middle East is, and has always been, to maintain control of the oil in the region, primarily because this is the source of energy that supplies the industrial economies of Europe and Japan. The U.S. goal has been to insure that there is no indigenous threat to their domination of these energy resources. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. made the strategic decision to ally itself with Israel and Iran, which were referred to as "our two eyes in the middle east" and the "guardians of the gulf." It was at this point that aid increased drastically, from $24 million in 1967 (before the war), to $634 million in 1971, to a staggering $2.6 billion in 1974, where it has remained relatively consistent ever since.
Israel was to be a military stronghold, a client state, and a proxy army, protecting U.S. interests in the Middle East and throughout the world. Subsidized by the CIA, Israel served U.S. interests well beyond the immediate region, setting up dependable client regimes (usually military-based
dictatorships) to control local societies. Noam Chomsky has documented this extensively: Israel was the main force that established the Mobutu dictatorship in Zaire, for example. They also supported Idi Amin in Uganda, early on, as well as Haile Selasse in Ethopia, and Emperor Bokassa in the Central African Republic.
Israel became especially useful when the U.S. came under popular human rights pressure in the 1970s to stop supporting death squads and dictatorships in Latin America. The U.S. began to use Israel as a surrogate to continue its support. Chomsky documents how Israel established close relations with the neo-Nazi and military regimes of Argentina and Chile. Israel also supported genocidal attacks on the indigenous population of Guatemala, and sent arms
to El Salvador and Honduras to support the contras. This was all a secondary role, however.
The primary role for Israel was to be the Sparta of the Middle East. During the Cold War, the U.S. especially needed Israel as a proxy army because direct intervention in the region was too dangerous, as the Soviets were allied with neighboring states. Over the last thirty years, the U.S. has pursued a two-track approach to dominating the region and its resources: It has turned Israel into a military outpost (now probably the most militarized society in the world) that is economically dependent on the U.S. while propping up corrupt Arab dictatorships such as those in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. These regimes are afraid of their own people and, thus, are very insecure. Therefore, they are inclined to collaborate with the U.S. at any cost.
Prospects for activism
Since the end of the Cold War, the nuclear threat associated with direct intervention in the Middle East has disappeared and the U.S. has started a gradual and direct militarization of the region. This began with the Gulf War—putting U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia (the primary source of oil), among other places—and has continued through the current ‘war on terrorism.’
Although U.S. aid has not decreased yet, there have been other observable shifts. The first obvious one is the mainstream media reporting on the conflict. Although there is still, of course, an anti-Palestinian bias, the coverage has shifted significantly in comparison to ten years ago. This has been noticeable in both journalistic accounts of Israeli human rights abuses and the publication of pro-Palestinian op-eds in major papers such as the Washington Post and the Boston Globe.
There are also some stirrings in the U.S. Congress. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) requested that President Bush investigate whether Israel's use of American F-16s is violating the Arms Export Control Act. Further, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) recently complained about giving aid without conditions: "There are no strings on the money. There is no requirement that the bloodshed abate before the funding is released." Other elected representatives are slowly starting to open up to the issue as well, but there is a long way to go on Capital Hill.
The most important development, however, has been the rising tide of concern and activism around the Palestinian issue in the US left. The desperate plight of the Palestinians is gaining increasing prominence in the movement against Bush's "war on terrorism," and it is gradually entering into the movement against corporate globalization.
For years the Palestinian cause was marginalized by the left in America. Since this intifada broke out 17 months ago, that began to shift significantly and has moved even further since September 11. With the new "anti-war" movement, there has come a deeper understanding of U.S. policy in the Middle East and how the question of Palestine fits into progressive organizing.
In Durban, South Africa last September, at the UN Global Conference Against Racism, one of the most pressing issues on the global agenda was the Palestinian struggle against Israelÿs racist policies. 30,000 people from South Africa and around the world demonstrated against Zionism, branding it as a form of apartheid no different than the system that blacks suffered through in South Africa. Shortly after, the U.S. and Israel stormed out of the conference.
In Europe and America, a range of organizations have risen in opposition to Israeli apartheid and in support of Palestinian human rights and self-determination. Just over the last year or two, organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine, based at the University of California at
Berkeley, have begun organizing a divestment campaign, modeled after the campaign that helped bring down South African apartheid. SUSTAIN (Stop U.S. Tax-funded Aid to Israel Now!) chapters in a number of cities have focused their efforts on stopping U.S. aid to Israel, which is the lifeblood of Israeli occupation and continued abuses of Palestinian rights.
Many Jewish organizations have emerged as well, such as Not in My Name, which counters the popular media assertion that all Jewish people blindly support the policies of the state of Israel. Jews Against the Occupation is another organization, which has taken a stand not only against the occupation, but also in support of the right of Palestinian refugees to return. These movements, and particularly their newfound connection with the larger anti-war, anti-imperialist, and anti-corporate globalization movements, are where the possibilities lie to advance the Palestinian struggle.
The hope for Palestine is in the internationalization of the struggle. The building of a massive, international movement against Israeli apartheid seems to be the most effective and promising form of resistance at this time. The demands must be that Israel comply with international law and implement the relevant UN resolutions. Specifically, it must recognize that all Palestinian refugees have the right to return, immediately end the occupation, and give all citizens of Israel equal treatment under the law.
We must demand that all U.S. aid to Israel be stopped until Israel complies with these demands. Only when the Palestinians are afforded their rights under international law, and are respected as human beings, can a genuine process of conflict resolution and healing begin. For all the hype over peace camps and dialogue initiatives, until the structural inequalities are dealt with, there will be no justice for Palestinians and, thus, no peace for Israel.
Matt Bowles is a member of SUSTAIN - Stop US Tax Funded Aid to Israel Now.
The above article was originally published in the March/April issue of Left Turn magazine.
For more information:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/usaidtoisrael000...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Matt Bowles is a member of SUSTAIN (Stop US Tax Funded Aid to Israel Now) which is located at this site:
http://www.sustaincampaign.org/
http://www.sustaincampaign.org/
US aid to Israel violates several US laws.
The Arms Export Control Act stipulates that US-supplied weapons be used only for "legitimate self-defense."
the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act prohibits military assistance to any country "which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."
The Proxmire amendment bans military assistance to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities, which Israel refuses to do.
The Arms Export Control Act stipulates that US-supplied weapons be used only for "legitimate self-defense."
the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act prohibits military assistance to any country "which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."
The Proxmire amendment bans military assistance to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities, which Israel refuses to do.
The building of a massive, international movement against Israeli apartheid seems to be the most effective and promising form of resistance at this time. The demands must be that Israel comply with international law and implement the relevant UN resolutions. Specifically, it must recognize that all Palestinian refugees have the right to return, immediately end the occupation, and give all citizens of Israel equal treatment under the law.
We must demand that all U.S. aid to Israel be stopped until Israel complies with these demands. Only when the Palestinians are afforded their rights under international law, and are respected as human beings, can a genuine process of conflict resolution and healing begin. For all the hype over peace camps and dialogue initiatives, until the structural inequalities are dealt with, there will be no justice for Palestinians and, thus, no peace for Israel.
We must demand that all U.S. aid to Israel be stopped until Israel complies with these demands. Only when the Palestinians are afforded their rights under international law, and are respected as human beings, can a genuine process of conflict resolution and healing begin. For all the hype over peace camps and dialogue initiatives, until the structural inequalities are dealt with, there will be no justice for Palestinians and, thus, no peace for Israel.
The only democracy in the Middle East, But the last I heard they do not even have a constitution and do not give equal rights to all their people.
Why does the U.S. Support such a Nation?
To have Peace in that area we need a Palestinian State With Reasonable Borders NOW..
For Possible Solution:
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1618616.php
Why does the U.S. Support such a Nation?
To have Peace in that area we need a Palestinian State With Reasonable Borders NOW..
For Possible Solution:
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1618616.php
Angel, MANY parliamentary democracies do not have a constitution in the sense of a defined written document such as the US has. Great Britain, for example. That does not make such countries "undemocratic". You should note that a constitution such as we have does TWO things -- it limits government when that gets out of hand but it ALSO limits "the people" serving as a check against the will of the majority .
As for changing/reducing US support for Israel, the place to look is within internal US politics. Precisely which of your other interests would you be willing to sacrifice in the political hurly burly required to make the US pro Palestinain or at least neutral? In other words, do you care enough about THIS issue to make it the one which will define your political choices? If not, you are in a poor bargaining position.
As for changing/reducing US support for Israel, the place to look is within internal US politics. Precisely which of your other interests would you be willing to sacrifice in the political hurly burly required to make the US pro Palestinain or at least neutral? In other words, do you care enough about THIS issue to make it the one which will define your political choices? If not, you are in a poor bargaining position.
> Israel has maintained an illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories) for 35 years
Israel's administration of the territories is legal (authorized by UNSCR 242).
Under the definitions established in Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, this does not constitute an "occupation".
These are not "Palestinian territories" but "disputed territories", a Palestinian Arab state NEVER having existed there. Indeed, there were Jews living in these territories for thousands of years prior to their ethnic cleansing by invading Arab armies in 1948.
Angel> The only democracy in the Middle East, But the last I heard they do not even have a constitution and do not give equal rights to all their people.
A democracy does not require a constitution. Israel has a system of "Basic Laws" which serve the same function.
Whereas a vast majority of Palestinian Arabs, even in these turbulent times, give high ratings to Israeli democracy and human rights, we find that on this propaganda site Arabs and their apologists try to undermine this basic fact.
See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/07/1624443.php
Israel's administration of the territories is legal (authorized by UNSCR 242).
Under the definitions established in Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, this does not constitute an "occupation".
These are not "Palestinian territories" but "disputed territories", a Palestinian Arab state NEVER having existed there. Indeed, there were Jews living in these territories for thousands of years prior to their ethnic cleansing by invading Arab armies in 1948.
Angel> The only democracy in the Middle East, But the last I heard they do not even have a constitution and do not give equal rights to all their people.
A democracy does not require a constitution. Israel has a system of "Basic Laws" which serve the same function.
Whereas a vast majority of Palestinian Arabs, even in these turbulent times, give high ratings to Israeli democracy and human rights, we find that on this propaganda site Arabs and their apologists try to undermine this basic fact.
See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/07/1624443.php
I hear and read this propaganda constantly... but I'd really like to know.
Exactly what makes Israel a 'democracy'?
Exactly what makes Israel a 'democracy'?
because they voted for sharon.
The 'ability' to vote doesn't define a real democracy!
In Iraq the citizens 'elected' Saddam Hussein.
In The U.S. the citizens didn't 'elect' George W. Bush - and he still became pResident.
No the question was: What MAKES Israel a democracy?
In Iraq the citizens 'elected' Saddam Hussein.
In The U.S. the citizens didn't 'elect' George W. Bush - and he still became pResident.
No the question was: What MAKES Israel a democracy?
In Germany Hitler was voted by the Citizens.
After he got elected, he changed the rules and made a dictatorship, where there was no longer a four year limit for the president before he was to be reselcted.
Coincidentally, Bush and the administration have contemplated on the airwaves installing the same dictatorship.
Folks, this is the last election you will be made to believe you influenced its outcome.
After he got elected, he changed the rules and made a dictatorship, where there was no longer a four year limit for the president before he was to be reselcted.
Coincidentally, Bush and the administration have contemplated on the airwaves installing the same dictatorship.
Folks, this is the last election you will be made to believe you influenced its outcome.
What is interesting here is that it was recently reported that: Proceeds from U.S. Aid were also being forwarded through the Jewish Agency to the settlements (illegal under international law), while it is known that many of the more radical zionist groups to include Kahane Chai (designated in the U.S. as a terrorist organization) are known to be based in the settlements... I wonder...
Do you guys think that so much of your banter hides the lack of substance?
Can't you even attempt to refute what I said?
1. Israel's administration of the territories is legal (authorized by UNSCR 242).
2. Under the definitions established in Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, this does not constitute an "occupation".
3. These are not "Palestinian territories" but "disputed territories", a Palestinian Arab state NEVER having existed there. Indeed, there were Jews living in these territories for thousands of years prior to their ethnic cleansing by invading Arab armies in 1948.
4. A democracy does not require a constitution. Israel has a system of "Basic Laws" which serve the same function.
> In Germany Hitler was voted by the Citizens.
Not exactly. Hitler was not voted to the top office. He was given an opportunity to form a government after the candidate who won gave him the election. (It's more complicated but not relevant here.)
> Exactly what makes Israel a 'democracy'?
5. The same things that make any country a democracy, amongst them:
5a. Fair and free elections (not like in Iraq, where one had to vote for the ONE candidate on the ballot).
5b. Multiple political parties (Israel even has a Communist party).
5c. An independent judiciary
5d. Freedom of the press
6. Whereas a vast majority of Palestinian Arabs, even in these turbulent times, give high ratings to Israeli democracy and human rights, we find that on this propaganda site Arabs and their apologists try to undermine this basic fact.
See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/07/1624443.php
Can't you even attempt to refute what I said?
1. Israel's administration of the territories is legal (authorized by UNSCR 242).
2. Under the definitions established in Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, this does not constitute an "occupation".
3. These are not "Palestinian territories" but "disputed territories", a Palestinian Arab state NEVER having existed there. Indeed, there were Jews living in these territories for thousands of years prior to their ethnic cleansing by invading Arab armies in 1948.
4. A democracy does not require a constitution. Israel has a system of "Basic Laws" which serve the same function.
> In Germany Hitler was voted by the Citizens.
Not exactly. Hitler was not voted to the top office. He was given an opportunity to form a government after the candidate who won gave him the election. (It's more complicated but not relevant here.)
> Exactly what makes Israel a 'democracy'?
5. The same things that make any country a democracy, amongst them:
5a. Fair and free elections (not like in Iraq, where one had to vote for the ONE candidate on the ballot).
5b. Multiple political parties (Israel even has a Communist party).
5c. An independent judiciary
5d. Freedom of the press
6. Whereas a vast majority of Palestinian Arabs, even in these turbulent times, give high ratings to Israeli democracy and human rights, we find that on this propaganda site Arabs and their apologists try to undermine this basic fact.
See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/07/1624443.php
>1. Israel's administration of the territories is legal (authorized by UNSCR 242).
2. Under the definitions established in Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, this does not constitute an "occupation".<
... you're great at flinging official sounding rhetoric, but i'm more interested in what it means.
has whatever israel is doing in whatever you want to call that land been a success for israel? has it increased the security of the israeli people? has it made the palestininans go away and become even more non-existent? should israel keep on doing "it" KL, as the status qou that exists right this second is working so great for israel, and for the non-existent palestine?
WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ARGUING FOR KL.
more of the same? more dead israeli's killed by non-existant palestinians? more non-existent palestinians killed by israeli's?
WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ARGUING FOR KL.
for israel's right to exist? how does a palestinian state deny this?
for israel's right to exist in security? how does a palestinian state prevent this?
WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ARGUING FOR KL.
where am i coming from?
a dead israeli is just as tragic as a dead palestinian. a dead palestinian is just as tragic as a dead israeli. why? BECAUSE NEITHER THE PALESTINIANS NOR THE ISRAELI'S HAVE A JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR IT.
it's a worthless, useless, dishonorable conflict that should have stopped a long, long, long time ago, and the fact that it keeps continuing for equally worthless reasons is a tragedy in itself.
2. Under the definitions established in Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, this does not constitute an "occupation".<
... you're great at flinging official sounding rhetoric, but i'm more interested in what it means.
has whatever israel is doing in whatever you want to call that land been a success for israel? has it increased the security of the israeli people? has it made the palestininans go away and become even more non-existent? should israel keep on doing "it" KL, as the status qou that exists right this second is working so great for israel, and for the non-existent palestine?
WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ARGUING FOR KL.
more of the same? more dead israeli's killed by non-existant palestinians? more non-existent palestinians killed by israeli's?
WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ARGUING FOR KL.
for israel's right to exist? how does a palestinian state deny this?
for israel's right to exist in security? how does a palestinian state prevent this?
WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ARGUING FOR KL.
where am i coming from?
a dead israeli is just as tragic as a dead palestinian. a dead palestinian is just as tragic as a dead israeli. why? BECAUSE NEITHER THE PALESTINIANS NOR THE ISRAELI'S HAVE A JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR IT.
it's a worthless, useless, dishonorable conflict that should have stopped a long, long, long time ago, and the fact that it keeps continuing for equally worthless reasons is a tragedy in itself.
> a success for israel?
If we define "success" as "peace" (a goal that many of the "anti-Zionists" oppose because they want to see Israel destroyed), then it must be noted that there was no peace even prior to the Israeli administration of the territories.
Ask the opposite question:
Has 66 years of Arab rejectionism been a success?
> it's a worthless, useless, dishonorable conflict that should have stopped a long, long, long time ago
I'd take you one step further. It's a conflict that could have been avoided in 1937 or 1947. But it takes all sides to make peace and only one side to make war. The Arabs chose to make war and some still haven't stopped.
Never mind the historic breakthroughts (Egypt bucking the Arab League to make peace with a ready, willing, able, and waiting Israel). What has propelled the latest cease-fire round?
It was Arafat's military defeat in Israel's counter-offensive of the spring of 2002, that generated internal pressure for reform of the PA. A year-long effort enabled Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to become Prime Minister and establish a cease-fire which will lead to the resumption of peace talks.
Had Arafat implemented the Oct. 2000 Sharm Agreement, this cease-fire could have been achieved 2.5 years ago.
What a waste of time and lives.
If we define "success" as "peace" (a goal that many of the "anti-Zionists" oppose because they want to see Israel destroyed), then it must be noted that there was no peace even prior to the Israeli administration of the territories.
Ask the opposite question:
Has 66 years of Arab rejectionism been a success?
> it's a worthless, useless, dishonorable conflict that should have stopped a long, long, long time ago
I'd take you one step further. It's a conflict that could have been avoided in 1937 or 1947. But it takes all sides to make peace and only one side to make war. The Arabs chose to make war and some still haven't stopped.
Never mind the historic breakthroughts (Egypt bucking the Arab League to make peace with a ready, willing, able, and waiting Israel). What has propelled the latest cease-fire round?
It was Arafat's military defeat in Israel's counter-offensive of the spring of 2002, that generated internal pressure for reform of the PA. A year-long effort enabled Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to become Prime Minister and establish a cease-fire which will lead to the resumption of peace talks.
Had Arafat implemented the Oct. 2000 Sharm Agreement, this cease-fire could have been achieved 2.5 years ago.
What a waste of time and lives.
The Palestinians deserve a home.
The Jews deserve a home.
The Jews have a home on 80% percent of what used to be the home of Palestinians.
The jews should withdraw from the remaining twenty percent while granting the refugees their aspirations of a nation state.
The Palestinians aspiration to live safe from the constant turmoil of Jewish oppressors is as valid as any national aspiration that ever will be or ever was!
The Jews deserve a home.
The Jews have a home on 80% percent of what used to be the home of Palestinians.
The jews should withdraw from the remaining twenty percent while granting the refugees their aspirations of a nation state.
The Palestinians aspiration to live safe from the constant turmoil of Jewish oppressors is as valid as any national aspiration that ever will be or ever was!
> The Palestinians deserve a home.
Why didn't Palestinian Arabs create a state in the territories between 1948-1967?
> The Jews have a home on 80% percent of what used to be the home of Palestinians.
No, the Jews have a home on 78% of WESTERN PALESTINE, which is only 20% of "historic Palestine".
In other words, there already is an Arab state in Palestine. It's known as Jordan, formerly Trans-Jordanian Palestine -- eastern Palestine, across (trans) the Jordan river.
60-90% of Jordan's population is Palestinian Arab.
So is the Prime Minister and most of the government (but not the King).
> The jews should withdraw from the remaining twenty percent while granting the refugees their aspirations of a nation state.
Israel agreed to the Clinton compromise which would have required it to withdraw from a net 97% of the territories (including the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem) and would have established an internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state.
Arafat walked out without as much as presenting a counter-offer, re-turning to a campaign of violence and terrorism.
A Palestinian Arab state could have come into being at almost any time since 1947. It didn't because that wasn't the real goal, just a pretense for destroying Israel.
Now, however, I believe that movement has gotten a life of its own. As fewer share the goal of Israel's destruction, compromise becomes possible.
Let's hope that Abu Mazen and Sharon can make it happen this year.
Why didn't Palestinian Arabs create a state in the territories between 1948-1967?
> The Jews have a home on 80% percent of what used to be the home of Palestinians.
No, the Jews have a home on 78% of WESTERN PALESTINE, which is only 20% of "historic Palestine".
In other words, there already is an Arab state in Palestine. It's known as Jordan, formerly Trans-Jordanian Palestine -- eastern Palestine, across (trans) the Jordan river.
60-90% of Jordan's population is Palestinian Arab.
So is the Prime Minister and most of the government (but not the King).
> The jews should withdraw from the remaining twenty percent while granting the refugees their aspirations of a nation state.
Israel agreed to the Clinton compromise which would have required it to withdraw from a net 97% of the territories (including the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem) and would have established an internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state.
Arafat walked out without as much as presenting a counter-offer, re-turning to a campaign of violence and terrorism.
A Palestinian Arab state could have come into being at almost any time since 1947. It didn't because that wasn't the real goal, just a pretense for destroying Israel.
Now, however, I believe that movement has gotten a life of its own. As fewer share the goal of Israel's destruction, compromise becomes possible.
Let's hope that Abu Mazen and Sharon can make it happen this year.
KL are you retarded of what?. What do you mean to have a state? Palestinians should live in their land, state or not.
The rest of your responce is ridicolous and nonsensical.
I think you'll be annoying if somebody decide to break in your home, isn't? Whatever this home belong to you (you own it) or rented. If rented do you think that someone has any right to dislodge you because that house do not belong to you? You pay rent and someone kick you off, how do you feel about this scenario?
The rest of your responce is ridicolous and nonsensical.
I think you'll be annoying if somebody decide to break in your home, isn't? Whatever this home belong to you (you own it) or rented. If rented do you think that someone has any right to dislodge you because that house do not belong to you? You pay rent and someone kick you off, how do you feel about this scenario?
"Palestinians should live in their land, state or not."
Remember it has been a long time since 1967 "Their land" the land most were born on IS the camps that they are in now. Another large group were born in "Egypt proper" or some other foreign country.
"I think you'll be annoying if somebody decide to break in your home, isn't? "
- If I was to attack my neighbour I would expect to find a new home in a prison. If I rented my house and I abandoned it for a few decades I would not be entirely surprised if it was rented to someone else in that period.
The government might make me move so that it can put a railway through my house and I would also understand that with reasonable compensation.
" If rented do you think that someone has any right to dislodge you because that house do not belong to you? "
- the fact that you dont already know the answer that you are going to get to this question reflects badly on your knowledge of the situation.
Remember it has been a long time since 1967 "Their land" the land most were born on IS the camps that they are in now. Another large group were born in "Egypt proper" or some other foreign country.
"I think you'll be annoying if somebody decide to break in your home, isn't? "
- If I was to attack my neighbour I would expect to find a new home in a prison. If I rented my house and I abandoned it for a few decades I would not be entirely surprised if it was rented to someone else in that period.
The government might make me move so that it can put a railway through my house and I would also understand that with reasonable compensation.
" If rented do you think that someone has any right to dislodge you because that house do not belong to you? "
- the fact that you dont already know the answer that you are going to get to this question reflects badly on your knowledge of the situation.
> their land
What is the source of this entitlement?
1. Arabs who today are known as "Palestinian Arabs" (which excludes the Bedouin and Druze amongst as well as non-Arabs such as Armenians and Samaritans) arrived in the region between about 1600 and 1948.
2. When and how did it (all) become "their land"?
3. Jews have lived on this land, continuously, for 3300+ years.
4. When and how did it stop being the Jewish homeland?
Learn more about this here:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1623475.php
What is the source of this entitlement?
1. Arabs who today are known as "Palestinian Arabs" (which excludes the Bedouin and Druze amongst as well as non-Arabs such as Armenians and Samaritans) arrived in the region between about 1600 and 1948.
2. When and how did it (all) become "their land"?
3. Jews have lived on this land, continuously, for 3300+ years.
4. When and how did it stop being the Jewish homeland?
Learn more about this here:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1623475.php
"Jews have lived on this land, continuously, for 3300+ years. " so did Christians.
Move over, make room for us Christians to come to the land of the ancestors.
We blong here, as much as the Jews do.
say Bye Bye IMpostors.
Move over, make room for us Christians to come to the land of the ancestors.
We blong here, as much as the Jews do.
say Bye Bye IMpostors.
i gave you an open stage to write about what you are arguing for, where you are coming from, what your position is, and you did not do it. that's disappointing.
>But it takes all sides to make peace and only one side to make war.<
yes KL, it does. i know what the palestinians have to do. but are you prepared, as someone speaking for israel, to give? what is your difficult job? what are the difficult decisions you will have to make as someone who supports israel? what is israel prepared to give in order to get?
what is your position. WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING FOR KL.
>But it takes all sides to make peace and only one side to make war.<
yes KL, it does. i know what the palestinians have to do. but are you prepared, as someone speaking for israel, to give? what is your difficult job? what are the difficult decisions you will have to make as someone who supports israel? what is israel prepared to give in order to get?
what is your position. WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING FOR KL.
You didn't repond to my question:
Has 66 years of Arab rejectionism been a success?
Let me rephrase my answer for you:
I define "success" as "peace" (a goal that many of the "anti-Zionists" oppose because they want to see Israel destroyed; see the PLO and Hamas Covenants).
I also noted that there was no peace even prior to the Israeli administration of the territories.
Israel's problem is that it can't force its enemies to make peace with it. But it is and has always been willing to negotiate a peace agreement.
At Camp David/Taba, Israel was willing to withdraw from a net 97% of the territories, including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem, and for an internationally recognized indepedently sovereign Palestinian Arab state to be created. All but a few blocks of "settlements" would have been dismantled to accomplish this. There would be the so-called "right of return" to the nascent state and a $30 Billion fund to compensate and resettle "refugees".
I supported this compromise, Arafat rejected it without a counter offer and re-turned to violence.
I still support such a formula. So does Sharon and Abbas. So today there is hope.
Has 66 years of Arab rejectionism been a success?
Let me rephrase my answer for you:
I define "success" as "peace" (a goal that many of the "anti-Zionists" oppose because they want to see Israel destroyed; see the PLO and Hamas Covenants).
I also noted that there was no peace even prior to the Israeli administration of the territories.
Israel's problem is that it can't force its enemies to make peace with it. But it is and has always been willing to negotiate a peace agreement.
At Camp David/Taba, Israel was willing to withdraw from a net 97% of the territories, including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem, and for an internationally recognized indepedently sovereign Palestinian Arab state to be created. All but a few blocks of "settlements" would have been dismantled to accomplish this. There would be the so-called "right of return" to the nascent state and a $30 Billion fund to compensate and resettle "refugees".
I supported this compromise, Arafat rejected it without a counter offer and re-turned to violence.
I still support such a formula. So does Sharon and Abbas. So today there is hope.
i was hoping for more, that's all.
i asked you if whatever israel has been doing in whatever you want to call that land has been a success.
you did not answer. you simply asked another question.
and my answer to your evasively timed question is obvious: NO.
and to answer my own question about israel: NO.
what does this mean KL?
it means that both sides in this useless conflict are losing. it means both sides have not found success in their tactics. it means israel has failed and so have "the arabs". it means that peace is the only option.
and i agree with you on that. and i hope for the sake of those involved in this conflict, they are strong enough and wise enough to make the difficult decisions this may require. now's the time for REAL leaders.
i asked you if whatever israel has been doing in whatever you want to call that land has been a success.
you did not answer. you simply asked another question.
and my answer to your evasively timed question is obvious: NO.
and to answer my own question about israel: NO.
what does this mean KL?
it means that both sides in this useless conflict are losing. it means both sides have not found success in their tactics. it means israel has failed and so have "the arabs". it means that peace is the only option.
and i agree with you on that. and i hope for the sake of those involved in this conflict, they are strong enough and wise enough to make the difficult decisions this may require. now's the time for REAL leaders.
> it means that both sides in this useless conflict are losing. it means both sides have not found success in their tactics. it means israel has failed and so have "the arabs". it means that peace is the only option.
The question is what are the goals of each side.
The Israeli goal has been peaceful coexistence.
The Arab goal has been the elimination of Israel.
(See the PLO Covenant, for one example.)
Israel cannot make peace with someone bent on destroying it at any and all cost.
As I said:
Israel's problem is that it can't force its enemies to make peace with it. But it is and has always been willing to negotiate a peace agreement.
But it takes all sides to make peace and only one side to make war.
For the sake of peace:
1. Israel is willing to compromise on a net 97% of the disputed territories
2. See an internationally recognized and independently sovereign Palestinian Arab state established
What compromise are the Arabs willing to make?
The question is what are the goals of each side.
The Israeli goal has been peaceful coexistence.
The Arab goal has been the elimination of Israel.
(See the PLO Covenant, for one example.)
Israel cannot make peace with someone bent on destroying it at any and all cost.
As I said:
Israel's problem is that it can't force its enemies to make peace with it. But it is and has always been willing to negotiate a peace agreement.
But it takes all sides to make peace and only one side to make war.
For the sake of peace:
1. Israel is willing to compromise on a net 97% of the disputed territories
2. See an internationally recognized and independently sovereign Palestinian Arab state established
What compromise are the Arabs willing to make?
i don't know exactly what compromises "the arabs" are going to have to make. i am not connected to "the arab" conscious. perhaps declaring israel's right to exist in peace? that would certainly help. but i think this is possible, as i do not believe the terrorists of hamas or hezbolah represent the entirity of "all" arab conscious.
more specifically, as this directly involves the palestinians more than the vague "arabs", i think the question of jerusalem is going to be very difficult.
more specifically, as this directly involves the palestinians more than the vague "arabs", i think the question of jerusalem is going to be very difficult.
> i don't know exactly what compromises "the arabs" are going to have to make. i am not connected to "the arab" conscious.
Yet you are connected to the Israeli conscience or otherwise know what concessions Israel must make?
But this isn't a question of conscience. My comments above are based on negotiations that took place as part of the peace process. It's been 10 years since Oslo and the only Arab concession you can name is "declaring israel's right to exist in peace?"
What is your solution?
Yet you are connected to the Israeli conscience or otherwise know what concessions Israel must make?
But this isn't a question of conscience. My comments above are based on negotiations that took place as part of the peace process. It's been 10 years since Oslo and the only Arab concession you can name is "declaring israel's right to exist in peace?"
What is your solution?
... to come up with a detailed, comprehensive peace plan for your persusal. i am not in a position to do so.
i am not arguing against peace, because that is what i want. and i am not arguing against what you have proposed, so chill out.
all was interested in was an israeli position, at least according to you, not an entire peace plan. you seemed to know a lot about the israeli position, so i figured i could ask you some detailed questions, out of curiosity, frankly, and for the sake of argument. but perhaps you don't know much about the "israeli position", and my assumption is wrong, and i apologize.
i can tell you this. it will require BOTH sides to look in the mirror. and it will take painful, difficult decisions and concessions by both palestine and israel.
neither side seems to have the strength to do this yet. blood has been poisoned by hate, each side has become what it hates in the other, and leaders on both sides are weak and selfish men. and a particularly unhelpful, even delusional, mindset is the one that blames and dismisses one side, while trumpeting the purity and noble intentions of the other. both sides have the same blood on their hands and the same hate in their hearts. maybe recognizing this would be a start.
i am not arguing against peace, because that is what i want. and i am not arguing against what you have proposed, so chill out.
all was interested in was an israeli position, at least according to you, not an entire peace plan. you seemed to know a lot about the israeli position, so i figured i could ask you some detailed questions, out of curiosity, frankly, and for the sake of argument. but perhaps you don't know much about the "israeli position", and my assumption is wrong, and i apologize.
i can tell you this. it will require BOTH sides to look in the mirror. and it will take painful, difficult decisions and concessions by both palestine and israel.
neither side seems to have the strength to do this yet. blood has been poisoned by hate, each side has become what it hates in the other, and leaders on both sides are weak and selfish men. and a particularly unhelpful, even delusional, mindset is the one that blames and dismisses one side, while trumpeting the purity and noble intentions of the other. both sides have the same blood on their hands and the same hate in their hearts. maybe recognizing this would be a start.
The best way to establish trust is for the palistinians to take one of the israeli offers for peace and to stop the terrorism. they canleave some points unegotiated if they have to but make the agreement and provide the peace as best they can.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$180.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network