AliEnvy
Refugee
With full control over borders, air space and sea access?
With continued West Bank checkpoints and segregated roadways?
Bono confronts Obama, America on Israeli-Palestinian conflict
- Thread starter Celebration
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
With full control over borders, air space and sea access?
With continued West Bank checkpoints and segregated roadways?
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.
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.
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.
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.
AliEnvy
Refugee
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".
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.
No spoken words
Blue Crack Supplier
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.
cseggleton
War Child
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
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
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.
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.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?
No spoken words
Blue Crack Supplier
I'm siding with you here and was referring to AliEnvy.
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 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.
ShipOfFools
War Child
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. 
He's a musician, that's what they do.
He's a musician, that's what they do.
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.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Thanks Kinsa. I've really enjoyed your posts in here as well, hope you'll both stick around FYM. We do already have at least some discussion of the more contemporary issues going on in the 'Israel attacks Gaza' thread, which I chose not to merge this one into (partly because of all the Bono-focused posts, and partly because it was careening around in time so much once it did lurch into the broader Israeli/Palestinian issues). Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes, I just didn't want to turn the Gaza thread into a referendum on 1948 ... 2009 is painful enough as it is.
I've really enjoyed your posts in here as well, hope you'll both stick around FYM. We do already have at least some discussion of the more contemporary issues going on in the 'Israel attacks Gaza' thread, which I chose not to merge this one into (partly because of all the Bono-focused posts, and partly because it was careening around in time so much once it did lurch into the broader Israeli/Palestinian issues). Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes, I just didn't want to turn the Gaza thread into a referendum on 1948 ... 2009 is painful enough as it is.Yeah, I know about Grand Mufti al-Husseini, but I'd take issue with making him out to be some all-purpose mouthpiece for Arab/Palestinian resistance to Zionism, on the grounds of what I said in my above post about the dangers of essentializing generalizations. Why was there a Nazi ideology for him to hang his hat on to begin with, you know? And is it really that surprising that a militant Arab nationalist, who was already on the run from the British for leading violent resistance to both their policies concerning Zionism and their continued mandate over his people's lands more generally, would happily fall in with a sworn enemy of Britain who as a bonus hated Jews just as much as he did, albeit with a different historical inflection? As with many members of Hamas, yes, it's true that al-Husseini himself really did buy into notions of Jews as a cosmological, existential Evil Incarnate above and beyond the more rational bases for his grievances with Zionism, but in neither case should we get into projecting this type of (probably) terminal extremism onto everyone who's politically affiliated with them. Because given the circumstances, their reasons for deep-seated embitteredness are far more understandable than, oh, say, Hitler's.
The fact that Arafat offered no concrete counterproposals at Camp David 2000 has made it famously difficult, and therefore highly contentious, to determine what exactly the sticking points from his end were. It might have been the land offer ("OK, 100% of Gaza, great, but why only 91% of the West Bank?"); it might have been the staggered settlement evacuation proposal ("Why not an immediate withdrawal?"); it might have been the proposal of shared 'custodianship' of the Temple Mount area ("Why not full Palestinian sovereignty over 100% of East Jerusalem?"); it might have been the refugee issue ("Why not an unconditional right of return?"); it might have been the demand that the Palestinian state be demilitarized ("Why not the same right any other state has to self-defense capacities?"); it might have been all the above; or more cynically, he might have been approaching the negotiations in bad faith to begin with. Whatever the case, he never really spelled it out, and as a result historians and pundits are still debating what happened.
Last edited:
You accuse me of being anti-Arab and being one sided but you cannot dispute anything I said. Please tell me what I have said that is not a fact. Do you deny that the Palestinians allied themselves with the Nazis and massacred Jews? These are facts-not one sided opinions. Of course I am aware that the US did not allow the Jews to escape to America and of course the US deserves some blame for this. But the US obviously did not ally itself with Hitler nor did they practice an official policy of murdering innocent Jews. Do you dispute that the Grand Mufti wanted to "eradicate every last Jew" even though the words came straight from his mouth? Do you not believe that Arabs threatened more violence if the British did not restrict Jewish immigration or prevent Arabs from selling land to the Jews? These are facts. I am not blaming the Palestinians alone for the Holocaust but surely they were coconspirators. You say that Palestinians were forced to pay for the crimes of other nations. If the Palestinians had not invaded Israel in 1948 with the intent to exterminate them, there wouldnt be a refugee problem. The Palestinians are paying because of their invasion. They could not allow a Jewish state to exist in the middle east even though the land that became Israel was already predominantly Jewish. The Jews agreed to live next to a Palestinian state. Why couldn't the Palestinians agree to live next to Jews?
By the way, although I wish Israel would dismantle the settlements in the West Bank, it is not against international law as you claim. Under UN resolution 242, which you are undoubtably referencing, Israel must withdraw when ""(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries" is enacted. Hamas has not recognized Israel's right to exist and they continue to terrorize civilians-not exactly "living in peace within secure and recognized boundaries." Israel does not have to withdraw until it has neighbors who will recognize its right to exist and stop the terror. Egypt made peace with Israel and Israel pulled out of the Sinai. Jordan made peace with Israel and no longer claims any Israeli land. When a progressive Palestinian leadership is ready to make peace, there won't be any more settlements. Please tell me if I have said anything that is factually incorrect or is not clear.
Obviously I am pro-Israel. But I am also pro-Palestinian. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. You won't find Jews screaming that they want to exterminate Arabs and wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth. I believe Palestinian leadership is mostly at fault for the situation and I have stated facts to support this view. I have had Arab friends my whole life and my mother's career was to bring Jews and Arabs together on college campuses to support unity and peace. As a child, I often had Arabs sleeping in my house and we treated each other as family. When I travel to Israel, I often stay with Palestinian friends in Haifa and in Nazareth. You'd be surprised how many Palestinians agree that they have had corrupt leaders who do not operate in the best interests of the Palestinian people and who have not given peace an honest chance. Unfortunately, this side of the story is rarely told in the media. I pray that soon the Palestinians will have new leadership that reflects its people's hope for peace. I pray that instead of spending their money on bombs and rockets, they will use it on infrastructure, education, healthcare and legitimate services for the Palestinian people.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Yolland, you are truly amazing.
Words fail me.
Words fail me.
Please explain to me why I am crazy for not believing that the Palestinians had "nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust" considering that their leader was convicted of being a Nazi war criminal. What am I missing? Did he not lobby to prevent Jews from leaving Germany, thus sending them to their deaths?
According to testimony by Nazi war criminals, the Mufti's influence was critical to the German decision to annihilate the Jews of Europe. At the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Dieter Wisliceny testified:
"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz."
"Nothing to do with the Holocaust?" History and facts do not support this claim.
According to testimony by Nazi war criminals, the Mufti's influence was critical to the German decision to annihilate the Jews of Europe. At the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Dieter Wisliceny testified:
"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz."
"Nothing to do with the Holocaust?" History and facts do not support this claim.
popshopper
Acrobat
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 459
Including reservists they are 5th. Generally I would discount reservists from a total in a count of a standing army, but the nature of reservists in Israel is completely different, they have all actively served due to the conscription.
Point of fact no other nation on earth has a right to exist or asks for one. No one else bitches about it. The whole idea is centered around a religious ideal of the promised land. What Egypt and Jordan do is of no concern to anyone but themselves. You don't hear the Croatians or Serbians wittering on about their respective countries right to exist do you? Countries either exist or don't, but generally they aren't a focal point for a religion. The whole idea is ridiculous.
AliEnvy
Refugee
I'm not suggesting he wasn't corrupt and untrustworthy.
I'm trying to suggest we get past blanket smearing and look at the current and real issues of Palestinian self-determination that have a snowball's chance in hell of leading to peace.
That's not the case. Most released soldiers won't do reservoir service even if they are technically listed in the reservoir force.
Some do, mainly the ones who were in combat units, but in the IDF fighters are less than third of it in a given moment.
A stor
Refugee
I applaud Bono for what he said. And I noticed he recieved many cheers from the audience, the American people. Regardless, of the bad "Bush government foreign policies" which have held our country hostage, for the past eight years. We the people, want nothing more than to see peace in the Middle East. We do care about the death of innocents and want both nations to coexist with each other.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
What book or article did you find that quote in, and which specific Nuremberg trial document does that book or article source the quote to? I can't find that quote in the transcripts of the Eichmann trial, which is what it sounds like it'd be from; this is what Wisliceny's statement on al-Husseini, as read at Eichmann's trial, had to say:
...which is quite different from what the quote you cited suggests.
At any rate, my point had to do with not *generalizing* from the example of al-Husseini (who, ironically, was appointed Mufti by the British, not the Palestinians) to "the Palestinians" in general. Al-Husseini fled Palestine in 1937 and never returned, anyhow, even if he continued to exert significant influence from afar. Now it is certainly true that, while living in Germany during the '40s, he more than once used his influence as a Nazi associate to foil plans in various Axis satellites for allowing some of Jews to flee to Palestine, despite knowing full well what their fate would be otherwise; and as I acknowledged in my previous post, there can be no doubt that he was profoundly, ideologically anti-Semitic. He helped to recruit Bosnian Muslims to Nazism, as well (not that that many of them proved to be interested). But I fail to see how this translates into some broader accountability for the Holocaust on the part of Palestinians who forcibly resisted Zionism; their resentments overwhelmingly sprang from Zionism's unmistakable implications for their own aspirations to statehood. Whereas that was not an issue for, e.g., the 32 Western and Latin American nation-states who attended the 1938 Évian Conference but without exception failed to commit to taking in any Jews trying to flee the Nazis (as Australia's Évian delegate put it, broadly summing up the general sentiment, "As we have no racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one").
Hmmm, no, the idea isn't religious in origin, nor is it unique to Israel; it actually has a long pedigree in international legal theory, though it was referenced far more often in the 19th century (most notably by Bonfils and Lorimer) than since. It's been invoked in International Court of Justice decisions (not with reference to Israel) as well. And in fact, there are or have been several other nation-states to whom the concept is or was sometimes applied, most notably Turkey, Macedonia and Lithuania. Still, it's true that international law proper ascribes no defined 'right to exist' to any state, for obvious reasons: if you have universal recognition as a sovereign nation-state, as *almost* all UN member states do, then by definition you already possess this 'right to exist'; it's inherent in that recognition. Of course, the religious variety of Zionist might speak of Israel's 'right to exist' in terms of religious doctrine--'God promised this land to us through Abraham...,' etc.--but from the UN's (and the secular Zionist's) perspective, that's as unnecessary as it is noncredible, since the UN General Assembly's ratification of the 1947 partition plan itself entails UN recognition of Israel's 'right to exist.'
Regardless, in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict specifically, this phrase has always effectively functioned as a synonym for diplomatic recognition, particularly once the Arab League's 1967 Khartoum Resolution ("No recognition of Israel, No peace with Israel, No negotiations with Israel") explicitly tied that recognition to the intent of peaceful relations. Arafat's public break with that doctrine in 1988--ironically, in the context of officially declaring a Palestinian state which the majority of other states still don't recognize, since it claims no territorial sovereignty--reinforced this understood linkage: "we mean...the right of all parties concerned in the Middle East conflict to exist in peace and security...including the state of Palestine and Israel and other neighbors." In all likelihood, any eventual final agreement on a two-state solution would speak not in terms of anyone's "right to exist," but rather would follow the formula employed in Israel's treaties with Jordan and Egypt: "recognize and will respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence...recognize and will respect each other's right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries...will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and will settle all disputes between them by peaceful means."
Last edited:
Nope, including reservists, Israel are 17th as of January 2007. Israel is not the only country to have conscription and have reserves completely filled with members who had served on active duty. If you include Reservists, here are the top 20 standing military forces in the world as of January 2007:
Totals include both Active Duty and Reserves.
1. Russia 21,027,000
2. North Korea 5,806,000
3. Vietnam 5,455,000
4. South Korea 5,187,000
5. China 3,055,000
6. United States 2,479,000
7. India 2,471,000
8. Taiwan 1,947,000
9. Brazil 1,628,000
10. Ukraine 1,188,000
11. Egypt 948,000
12. Pakistan 921,000
13. Iran 895,000
14. Turkey 894,000
15. Indonesia 702,000
16. Syria 662,000
17. Israel 576,000
18. Thailand 507,000
19. Spain 466,000
20. Greece 436,000
But, even if you were going to make the absurd comparison of counting every last member of the Israeli reserves while not counting a single reservist in any other country in the world, Israel would come in at #8, not #5.
Top 10 ACTIVE military forces in the world, EXCEPT ISRAEL with its reserves added in to compare to the other totals:
1. China 2,255,000
2. United States 1,506,000
3. India 1,316,000
4. North Korea 1,106,000
5. Russia 1,027,000
6. South Korea 687,000
7. Pakistan 619,000
* Israel 576,000 (includes both active and reserve forces)
8. Iran 545,000
9. Turkey 515,000
10. Egypt 469,000
In addition, one also has to consider that Israel faces multiple potential enemies in its own backyard and is geographically in a vulnerable position. Even if you make the absurd comparison of counting all the Israeli reservist, but none of the reservist in the countries in close proximity to Israel, you still have to combine Arab country force totals and then compare it to Israel to get a realistic look at what Israel has to potentially deal with.
No other state on Earth has had their territory physically attacked and invaded as often as Israel has in the past 60 years. No other state in the world has so many countries that officially refuse to recognize its right to exist as Israel does.(except maybe Kosovo)
No, its centered around the United Nations recognition and approval of its existence.
When what Egypt and Jordan do impact others, it becomes much more of a concern to others than to simply themselves.
How many countries don't recognize Croatia's or Serbia's right to exist? How many of Croatia's and Serbia's neighbors do not recognize their right to exist? How many countries have invaded Croatia and Serbia attempting to remove them from the map since their modern formation?
Do you believe that Kosovo exist as an independent country? Do you see why they would like to have the recognition of the United Nations as well as many individual countries that currently don't recognize its right to exist?
Ok. I agree with this. I want Israel to leave the territories, but do you think they should do so without any promise on behalf of the Palestinians to halt terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians? The peace process should be modeled after the success of the deal with Egypt in which Egypt promised to recognize Israel and end the war and in return they got the Sinai.
Yolland-- The quote from Dieter Wisliceny's testimony regarding Husseini can be found in the book "The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis" by David Dalin on pg 136. To be clear, I am not blaming the Palestinians for the Holocaust. What I am saying is that to conclude that they "had nothing to do whatsoever with it" as Ahmenidejad has stated is simply not true considering the Mufti's actions and the Palestinians' alliance with the Nazis.
Last edited:
AliEnvy
Refugee
I agree that the terrorist attacks have to stop in order to get to constructive negotiations. Ending violence and recognizing Israel are definitely pre-requisites to any agreement that might lead to lasting peace.
A critical distinction with the Egypt deal is that they didn't rely on Israel for the basic necessities of life.
To do its part in ending the violence, Israel will have to fully and consistently fulfill its legal obligations to Palestinians in this regard.
ybab gnuthca
Acrobat
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2008
- Messages
- 440
What would you guys think, if Bono had said this instead "A Palestinian dream (LONG POLITICAL PAUSE)...and also...an Israeli dream!!!"
Se7en
Rock n' Roll Doggie
what if bono said, "...................(long, titillating pause)................a WET dream!!!!"
what then, guys?
what then, guys?
