Bono confronts Obama, America on Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-19-2009, 09:28 PM   #151
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by davedge02 View Post
What do you mean by real sovereignty? They were offered 95% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip.
With full control over borders, air space and sea access?

With continued West Bank checkpoints and segregated roadways?
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 09:29 PM   #152
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 22
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
There are actually Arab states today that still do not recognize Israels right to exist. The UN plan did not force people to give up their homes or their land. It divided the territory up based on the private ownership that existed at the time. The refugee problem was created by the war that the Arabs decided to launch against Israel in 1948. Again, this happened because of total Arab opposition to formation of state called Israel.
The refugess crisis, as most unbiased students of history will agree, was caused by the Arab's attack on Israel, a war that the Arabs started and lost. Not to be crass, but usually when you start a war and lose the war, you don't get a seat at the bargaining table to air your grievances although Israel has tried numerous times to make concessions only to be told by the Arabs that there will be no peace, no negotiation and no Israel.
__________________

__________________
davedge02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 09:38 PM   #153
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 22
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
With full control over borders, air space and sea access?

With continued West Bank checkpoints and segregated roadways?
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, Israel offered complete sovereignty including air space, borders and sea access although Israel requested permission to use Palestinian air space for military training.

Why wouldn't Arafat at least offer a counterproposal if he was genuinely in favor of peace? Probably because he had nothing else to ask for since he was offered virtually everything he could have possibly requested.
__________________
davedge02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 09:40 PM   #154
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
No other country in the world has a defined 'right to exist', they are socio-economic and political constructs, held together by a shared need/community and defended by force of arms. Half the countries in the world were shoved together by a retreating British Empire, just so as not to leave a vacuum. I've always got to laugh at a nuclear armed country with the worlds 5th largest standing army, bleating on about "it's right to exist", there is no god given right to exists, countries exist simply because they do. But this sort of whining is what tends to happen with politics and religion meet.
Nice opinion, but until the Arab states and Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist, there is not going to be a Palestinian state. Egypt and Jordan by the way disagree with you and have officially recognized Israel's right to exist.

Just to let you know, Israel does not have 5th largest standing army in the world. They come in at #29. Two of their neighbors(Egypt and Syria) rank well ahead of them in that area.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 09:42 PM   #155
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
You missed the part where the Israelis, massacred and bombed their way into the land, and that a UN (struck senseless with guilt due to the Holocaust) gave 33% of the population 60% of the land.
The UN partitioned the area based on the private ownership of the land in 1947. No one under the UN plan had to leave their home or move.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 09:43 PM   #156
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:27 AM
What about the settlements in the West Bank?

Frankly, I don't buy into speculation that the PA was offered "everything he could have possibly requested".
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:29 PM   #157
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 22
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
What about the settlements in the West Bank?

Frankly, I don't buy into speculation that the PA was offered "everything he could have possibly requested".

Why is it so hard to believe that Arafat was corrupt and untrustworthy? Did you happen to notice that the hundreds of millions of dollars of UN aid that was earmarked for the Palestinian people somehow ended up in his private bank accounts? The man had 300 million dollars of stolen money while his people languished in poverty.
__________________
davedge02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:32 PM   #158
Blue Crack Supplier
 
No spoken words's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Where do YOU live?
Posts: 43,241
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by davedge02 View Post
Why is it so hard to believe that Arafat was corrupt and untrustworthy? Did you happen to notice that the hundreds of millions of dollars of UN aid that was earmarked for the Palestinian people somehow ended up in his private bank accounts? The man had 300 million dollars of stolen money while his people languished in poverty.
Because when you're determined to be right about something, you act like your points are indisputable facts and you close your eyes and ears to all counter-arguments.....and you concede nothing.
__________________
No spoken words is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:35 PM   #159
War Child
 
cseggleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tn
Posts: 614
Local Time: 11:27 AM
i really want bono to stop showing up at inagurations, oprah, guest columns, etc. if he is sick of being bono then just stop and be paul hewson lead singer of u2. i would rather u2 be over commercialized due to their music not their lead singer showing up all over the place. i used to get so excited to see u2 show up at events because it was such a rare event or at least it seemed that way. i cringed when they sang at the concert yesterday for obama and i wanted to puke when he took part in the oprah event today. i do not want to see oprah singing along to bono. i know that sounds like a snob but it is just too much. i used to feel like it was cool to be a part of this band but now i just don't know. i do know that i have a choice to follow them or not. so i guess i will see if the year of u2 is all it is cracked up to be
__________________
cseggleton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:41 PM   #160
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:27 PM
With all due recognition of the fact that it's not the only point being debated here, I just wanted to observe that it seems like debates which tend towards the route of jockeying to establish What Really Happened In Palestine In the 1940s (and the several decades preceding it) never make much headway, and almost inevitably devolve into circular "But the murderous Arabs did A, B and C!"..."Oh yeah? Well the murderous Jews did X, Y and Z!" narrative exchanges, in both cases tending towards extreme, essentializing generalizations that it's hard not to hear as broadly intended to pre-empt any legitimacy to whichever group's claims. Yes, violent factions on both sides frequently attacked each other (and civilians) as well as the British in the course of their campaigns for sovereignty, and yes, there were influential extremists on the Zionist side whose aspirations were to all of mandate Palestine, period. It is likewise true that the Arab League categorically opposed the existence of any Jewish state in mandate Palestine, not just the "terms" of the deal, and that they had self-interested motives beyond 'solidarity with our Palestinian brothers' in adopting that stance. The actual 1947 partition plan provided for a 56% (Jewish)-43% (Arab) division of the land, with the Arabs receiving the largest share of the arable land as well as control over all the aquifers (the Negev desert was the largest of the proposed Jewish state's three divisions). In drawing up the boundaries, the UN commission explicitly took into account the expected imminent immigration to the Jewish state of several hundred thousand Holocaust refugees--and in fact, the number of incoming refugees wound up being much higher, since roughly 800,000 Jews fled from or were driven out of their homes elsewhere in the Arab world as a result of the 1948 war, with about 600,000 of them settling in Israel.

But in the meantime some 856,000 Palestinian Arabs (UN estimate as of 1951) themselves fled from or were driven out of Israel during that war, and it quickly became apparent that Israel--then as now--had no intention of ever accepting more than small quantities of them back. This is inevitably going to be a factor in any future negotiations towards a two-state solution, since in this case (unlike in the Jews' case--meaning, in terms of Israel as a nation historically based primarily on refugees who had nowhere else to go and no 'compensation' on offer from their countries of origin), the party relinquishing some lands it controls in exchange for peace would be the exact same party simultaneously retaining other lands which, in many cases, were owned outright by the (again, refugee) ancestors of many on 'the other side' as of 1948. So, that absolutely must be substantively addressed in order for there to be any semblance of justice to the final arrangement. It can't and won't mean an unconditional right of return to Israel for all descendants of all Palestinian refugees; it may well primarily take the form simply of money from Israel, and the international community in general, to help the fledgling Palestinian state absorb refugees itself (not unlike the payments Germany once made to Israel to help with the same); but in the interests of justice, it must be substantively addressed.

Nonetheless, in terms of the boundaries of the proposed Palestinian state of the 'two-state solution', 1947 is the wrong frame of reference to cling to--the pre-1967 borders would be the framework, since the 1948 war and subsequent Israeli/Jordanian/Egyptian divvying up of the Palestinian lands effectively destroyed all chances of a return to the 1947 partition plan. Ideally, optimistically, those 1967 lines could be altered here and there in ways that would make the settlement fairer to the Palestinians, but one way or another, 1947 is no longer the reference point and I think we're not really doing this discussion much good by repeatedly throwing it back to that. What Israel is currently doing in (or should I say, "to") the occupied territories, and the dangerous divides currently afflicting the Palestinian leadership--these are the things we should really be most concerned with; these are the issues we should be demanding our own leaders focus their diplomacy, and their foreign policy, upon. Not which side boasted the highest concentration of vicious, extremist thugs circa the 1940s.



Having said that ...I do at least feel compelled to protest that this "Westerners struck senseless with guilt by the Holocaust" take on the UN partition plan is really just another one of the responsibility-evading whitewashes all the historical parties to this conflict seem wont to employ. A far more honest appraisal, ironically, would be the one routinely offered by Ahmadinejad, who correctly points out that Zionism offered the Western powers a convenient and welcome way to displace a 'Jewish problem' (i.e. refugees)--which they'd consistently shown they had no intention of addressing through their own resources--onto the Palestinians, a people who had no hand in any of it whatsoever, and very little power to resist its consequences for them. The Jews haven't forgotten what predicament Zionism developed to address, and the Arabs haven't forgotten under whose mandate this was somehow made out to be their predicament to deal 'fairly' with, but it sometimes seems as though the rest of the world has.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:44 PM   #161
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 22
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by No spoken words View Post
Because when you're determined to be right about something, you act like your points are indisputable facts and you close your eyes and ears to all counter-arguments.....and you concede nothing.
Im begging you to name 1 instance in which I have not been truthful or provided a factual inaccuracy. I agree that I am determined to be right about something-that peace and a 2 state settlement is the only solution. Do you think Hamas is a peace maker? Do you think Arafat honestly tried for peace? Even the Arabs know he was just a lying terrorist thug. Instead of using UN and American money to help the Palestinians, he used it to fill his bank accounts and to finance terrorism. Why are you unable to admit that Arafat and Hamas, the 2 prime Palestinian powers since Israel was born, have been corrupt terrorists who are not at all acting in the best interests of the Palestinian people? These are indisputable facts. Arafat has never missed an opportunity to reject peace and Hamas' own charter calls for the murdering of innocent Jews. Where am I wrong? Please tell me. Do you read Hamas' charter and think "what they mean by kill the Jews is that we need to make peace with the Jews?" It is indisputable that Hamas targets innocent civilians. How can anyone sympathize with them?
__________________
davedge02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:52 PM   #162
Blue Crack Supplier
 
No spoken words's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Where do YOU live?
Posts: 43,241
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by davedge02 View Post
Im begging you to name 1 instance in which I have not been truthful or provided a factual inaccuracy. I agree that I am determined to be right about something-that peace and a 2 state settlement is the only solution. Do you think Hamas is a peace maker? Do you think Arafat honestly tried for peace? Even the Arabs know he was just a lying terrorist thug. Instead of using UN and American money to help the Palestinians, he used it to fill his bank accounts and to finance terrorism. Why are you unable to admit that Arafat and Hamas, the 2 prime Palestinian powers since Israel was born, have been corrupt terrorists who are not at all acting in the best interests of the Palestinian people? These are indisputable facts. Arafat has never missed an opportunity to reject peace and Hamas' own charter calls for the murdering of innocent Jews. Where am I wrong? Please tell me. Do you read Hamas' charter and think "what they mean by kill the Jews is that we need to make peace with the Jews?" It is indisputable that Hamas targets innocent civilians. How can anyone sympathize with them?
I'm siding with you here and was referring to AliEnvy.
__________________
No spoken words is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 11:12 PM   #163
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 22
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
With all due recognition of the fact that it's not the only point being debated here, I just wanted to observe that it seems like debates which tend towards the route of jockeying to establish What Really Happened In Palestine In the 1940s (and the several decades preceding it) never make much headway, and almost inevitably devolve into circular "But the murderous Arabs did A, B and C!"..."Oh yeah? Well the murderous Jews did X, Y and Z!" narrative exchanges, in both cases tending towards extreme, essentializing generalizations that it's hard not to hear as broadly intended to pre-empt any legitimacy to whichever group's claims. Yes, violent factions on both sides frequently attacked each other (and civilians) as well as the British in the course of their campaigns for sovereignty, and yes, there were influential extremists on the Zionist side whose aspirations were to all of mandate Palestine, period. It is likewise true that the Arab League categorically opposed the existence of any Jewish state in mandate Palestine, not just the "terms" of the deal, and that they had self-interested motives beyond 'solidarity with our Palestinian brothers' in adopting that stance. The actual 1947 partition plan provided for a 56% (Jewish)-43% (Arab) division of the land, with the Arabs receiving the largest share of the arable land as well as control over all the aquifers (the Negev desert was the largest of the proposed Jewish state's three divisions). In drawing up the boundaries, the UN commission explicitly took into account the expected imminent immigration to the Jewish state of several hundred thousand Holocaust refugees--and in fact, the number of incoming refugees wound up being much higher, since roughly 800,000 Jews fled from or were driven out of their homes elsewhere in the Arab world as a result of the 1948 war, with about 600,000 of them settling in Israel.

But in the meantime some 856,000 Palestinian Arabs (UN estimate as of 1951) themselves fled from or were driven out of Israel during that war, and it quickly became apparent that Israel--then as now--had no intention of ever accepting more than small quantities of them back. This is inevitably going to be a factor in any future negotiations towards a two-state solution, since in this case (unlike in the Jews' case--meaning, in terms of Israel as a nation historically based primarily on refugees who had nowhere else to go and no 'compensation' on offer from their countries of origin), the party relinquishing some lands it controls in exchange for peace would be the exact same party simultaneously retaining other lands which, in many cases, were owned outright by the (again, refugee) ancestors of many on 'the other side' as of 1948. So, that absolutely must be substantively addressed in order for there to be any semblance of justice to the final arrangement. It can't and won't mean an unconditional right of return to Israel for all descendants of all Palestinian refugees; it may well primarily take the form simply of money from Israel, and the international community in general, to help the fledgling Palestinian state absorb refugees itself (not unlike the payments Germany once made to Israel to help with the same); but in the interests of justice, it must be substantively addressed.

Nonetheless, in terms of the boundaries of the proposed Palestinian state of the 'two-state solution', 1947 is the wrong frame of reference to cling to--the pre-1967 borders would be the framework, since the 1948 war and subsequent Israeli/Jordanian/Egyptian divvying up of the Palestinian lands effectively destroyed all chances of a return to the 1947 partition plan. Ideally, optimistically, those 1967 lines could be altered here and there in ways that would make the settlement fairer to the Palestinians, but one way or another, 1947 is no longer the reference point and I think we're not really doing this discussion much good by repeatedly throwing it back to that. What Israel is currently doing in (or should I say, "to") the occupied territories, and the dangerous divides currently afflicting the Palestinian leadership--these are the things we should really be most concerned with; these are the issues we should be demanding our own leaders focus their diplomacy, and their foreign policy, upon. Not which side boasted the highest concentration of vicious, extremist thugs circa the 1940s.



Having said that ...I do at least feel compelled to protest that this "Westerners struck senseless with guilt by the Holocaust" take on the UN partition plan is really just another one of the responsibility-evading whitewashes all the historical parties to this conflict seem wont to employ. A far more honest appraisal, ironically, would be the one routinely offered by Ahmadinejad, who correctly points out that Zionism offered the Western powers a convenient and welcome way to displace a 'Jewish problem' (i.e. refugees)--which they'd consistently shown they had no intention of addressing through their own resources--onto the Palestinians, a people who had no hand in any of it whatsoever, and very little power to resist its consequences for them. The Jews haven't forgotten what predicament Zionism developed to address, and the Arabs haven't forgotten under whose mandate this was somehow made out to be their predicament to deal 'fairly' with, but it sometimes seems as though the rest of the world has.

I like most of what you said except for claiming that Palestinians had "no hand whatsoever in the Holocaust." In 1940, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, The Palestinian leader, became a close ally of Hitler and organized young Palestinians into "Nazi scouts." Like Hitler, the Mufti wanted to exterminate all Jews from the face of the Earth. Why do I believe this? Because he said it himself that he wanted "to eradicate every last Jew" and "Slaughter Jews wherever you find them." Keep in mind that this was before there even was an Israel. It is a fact that the Mufti had plans to build a concentration camp in Nablus, modeled after Auschwitz. It is indisputable that the Palestinians were allies to the Nazis in WWII because they said it themselves. In fact, the Mufti was designated as a Nazi war criminal at Nuremberg. In Berlin, he implored on the radio to German citizens, "Kill the Jews wherever you find them." It is clear that the leader of the Palestinians during WWII was a Nazi war criminal. The Holocaust was widely supported by Arabs. Moreover, millions of Jews could have been saved from the Holocaust if more Jews had been allowed to flee to Palestine. The Jews were not allowed to enter Palestine because of the White Papers, a British decree which limited Jewish immigration in the hope that the Palestinians would stop massacring Jews. The Mufti made sure the British understood that more violence would continue if the British did not shut Jews out of Palestine.
__________________
davedge02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 11:40 PM   #164
War Child
 
ShipOfFools's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 814
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Props to Bono for actually addressing the situation. I don't care if Obama was less than thrilled, it needed to be said. The Palestinians have rights too.

Quote:
i really want bono to stop showing up at inagurations, oprah, guest columns, etc. if he is sick of being bono then just stop and be paul hewson lead singer of u2. i would rather u2 be over commercialized due to their music not their lead singer showing up all over the place. i used to get so excited to see u2 show up at events because it was such a rare event or at least it seemed that way. i cringed when they sang at the concert yesterday for obama and i wanted to puke when he took part in the oprah event today. i do not want to see oprah singing along to bono. i know that sounds like a snob but it is just too much. i used to feel like it was cool to be a part of this band but now i just don't know. i do know that i have a choice to follow them or not. so i guess i will see if the year of u2 is all it is cracked up to be
He's a musician, that's what they do.
__________________
ShipOfFools is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2009, 12:13 AM   #165
Acrobat
 
Kinsa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 414
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by davedge02 View Post
I like most of what you said except for claiming that Palestinians had "no hand whatsoever in the Holocaust." In 1940, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, The Palestinian leader, became a close ally of Hitler and organized young Palestinians into "Nazi scouts." Like Hitler, the Mufti wanted to exterminate all Jews from the face of the Earth. Why do I believe this? Because he said it himself that he wanted "to eradicate every last Jew" and "Slaughter Jews wherever you find them." Keep in mind that this was before there even was an Israel. It is a fact that the Mufti had plans to build a concentration camp in Nablus, modeled after Auschwitz. It is indisputable that the Palestinians were allies to the Nazis in WWII because they said it themselves. In fact, the Mufti was designated as a Nazi war criminal at Nuremberg. In Berlin, he implored on the radio to German citizens, "Kill the Jews wherever you find them." It is clear that the leader of the Palestinians during WWII was a Nazi war criminal. The Holocaust was widely supported by Arabs. Moreover, millions of Jews could have been saved from the Holocaust if more Jews had been allowed to flee to Palestine. The Jews were not allowed to enter Palestine because of the White Papers, a British decree which limited Jewish immigration in the hope that the Palestinians would stop massacring Jews. The Mufti made sure the British understood that more violence would continue if the British did not shut Jews out of Palestine.
OK, I swore I was done with this thread, because literally, God himself could come down and tell you there is another side to this history, and obviously you wouldn't believe it. That's cool, its just too bad that some people who are less informed on this forum may actually take your biased opinion as fact. I honestly hope anyone interested in the region will do their own research, and not rely on posts (including mine).

But now you have seriously gone too far - it is clear you are anti-Arab, thus, you are an anti-Semite (because yes, Arabs are Semites too - betcha never been labeled an anti-Semite before, huh? how does it feel?? Ridiculous, huh, simply because someone doesn't agree with you to call them an anti-Semite). Just trying to make a point there. Don't throw around ridiculous labels where they don't belong.

Seriously, though, blaming the Palestinians for the Holocaust? Dude, get a grip. England made the immigration policies for Palestine during WW2, not the Arabs. England could have done whatever they wanted, and could have protected the Jewish immigrants. Why don't you have such hatred for the British (or maybe you do, who knows?) If I follow your logic correctly, then the good ol USA is likewise responsible for the Holocaust - or aren't you aware that the US refused Jewish immigrants too? How about all the other countries in WW2 that aligned with the Nazis and thus had a hand in the holocaust? Why did just the Palestinians have to pay for the crimes of many many nations?

Oh, and to whomever posted who can blame Israel for keeping control of lands captured in war (specifically Gaza and the West Bank) - umm, its in clear violation of international law.

Interesting website for those who are interested in reading further -

JfJfP Fact Sheets

Anyways, I did want to thank Yolland for such a well thought out post. Perhaps the issues Yolland suggested be discussed would provide a more thoughtful discussion.
__________________

__________________
Kinsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com