Ever get the feeling it's like describing a Rembrandt to a blind person so they can try and paint it?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The Palestinian resistance to the illegal occupation - which you so consistently choose to ignore - has nothing to do with radical islam. And even if it did, it would still be irrelevant with regards to the legitimacy of their struggle.
By the way, nice way of ignoring/avoiding everything I posted above.
If Israel wanted peace it could begin abiding by international law and withdraw to the 1967 borders. So why does it continue building illegal settlements?
Despite the amount of concessions Israel was prepared to make, Arafat walked out on peace. Right then and there. Peace was attainable, but it was rejected by Arafat.
1967
Pre-1967 borders had Egypt controlling Gaza and Jordan controlling West Bank Area. War broke out. If Israel was defeated, there would be no Israel at all right now. Israel came out victorious, and seized control of gaza/west bank areas. Now, 2008, Israel is responsible for returning the lands they won, after almost being annihilated by the other countries...
Why wasn't there peace pre-1967 when the 'pre-1967' borders existed? Would those borders suffice now, but they wouldn't then?
I mean, if you willingly go to war with another nation, and lose land during the process, you have to face the consequences.
Unfortunately, things aren't that simple. And I do see Israel moving back to the pre-1967 borders at some point in time. Its a real shame that, that is the only way there could be a chance for peace...Israel has to lose land they won after being attacked by 4 different countries. ***Its a shame not because Israel has to lose land, but because they have to be the ones to concede something they rightfully won.
I do see what you guys are saying, Israel is the only one in a position to concede anything at all for peace (like they may do with Golan/syria).
They have done this before (giving back Sinai to Egypt in 1979 i believe)
So If Israel does in the future go back to the '67 borders, will that be the end of the conflict? Will there be peace in the region. Maybe, maybe not. Will these land concessions lead to a severely weakened security position for Israel's defense? Maybe, maybe not.
Will Hamas be satisfied with pre-1967 borders, when they call for the destruction of Israel?
Of course, once an independent Palestinian state is created, what will happen from there? How will the country develop itself? Who will help them? Who will invest? Will there be open trade/borders with Israel. I hope one day we reach that point.
Maybe Israel should concede because they are in a position to do so...I'm just frustrated by the way Israel is routinely blamed and vilified for everything that has gone wrong.
Pre-1967 borders had Egypt controlling Gaza and Jordan controlling West Bank Area. War broke out. If Israel was defeated, there would be no Israel at all right now.
You fail to mention something. War didn't just "break out". Israel started the war.
Israel came out victorious, and seized control of gaza/west bank areas. Now, 2008, Israel is responsible for returning the lands they won, after almost being annihilated by the other countries...
under the geneva convention, which they signed, they aren't allowed to keep that land after the war.
Why wasn't there peace pre-1967 when the 'pre-1967' borders existed? Would those borders suffice now, but they wouldn't then?
There was no peace because Israel did not want peace.
I mean, if you willingly go to war with another nation, and lose land during the process, you have to face the consequences.
Egypt and Syria were forced to defend themselves. They have to deal with consequences for that?
Unfortunately, things aren't that simple. And I do see Israel moving back to the pre-1967 borders at some point in time. Its a real shame that, that is the only way there could be a chance for peace...Israel has to lose land they won after being attacked by 4 different countries. ***Its a shame not because Israel has to lose land, but because they have to be the ones to concede something they rightfully won.
That is not a shame. They did not rightfully win it, they stole it illegally, by killing people who live there, by planting illegal settlements in that land, and destroying people's homes.
So If Israel does in the future go back to the '67 borders, will that be the end of the conflict? Will there be peace in the region.
of course not. that is not everything that has to happen for peace. that is, however, 1 step that will lead to peace, and a BIG step at that. Once Israel goes back to the 67 borders, they can call a ceasefire with Hamas and begin having serious talks with them.
Will Hamas be satisfied with pre-1967 borders, when they call for the destruction of Israel?
Time and time again several people on this board have said that Hamas said they'd be willing to talk to Israel once they went back to the 67 borders.
You fail to mention something. War didn't just "break out". Israel started the war.
under the geneva convention, which they signed, they aren't allowed to keep that land after the war.
There was no peace because Israel did not want peace.
Egypt and Syria were forced to defend themselves. They have to deal with consequences for that?
That is not a shame. They did not rightfully win it, they stole it illegally, by killing people who live there, by planting illegal settlements in that land, and destroying people's homes.
of course not. that is not everything that has to happen for peace. that is, however, 1 step that will lead to peace, and a BIG step at that. Once Israel goes back to the 67 borders, they can call a ceasefire with Hamas and begin having serious talks with them.
Time and time again several people on this board have said that Hamas said they'd be willing to talk to Israel once they went back to the 67 borders.
Please read this article, especially about the lead-up to the war.
Yes, Israel launched a preemptive air strike, decimating Egypt's air force. Egypt was clearly organizing an attack on Israel with Syria and Jordon. And vocally expressed the destruction of Israel. Wait a second, there was calls for the destruction of Israel pre-1967 war? It can't just be about the lands Israel acquired...
Your comment about Egypt and Syria forced to defend themselves, as if they weren't planning on war, is so ridiculous its actually kinda funny.
Just because Israel was so astoundingly victorious, it doesn't mean Egypt/Syria/Jordan weren't planning on going to war, and destroying Israel. They just happened to lose.
They stole it Illegally?
They were at war with Egypt/Syria/Jordan and they won, and conquered Gaza/West Bank/E.Jerusalem and Golan in the process. First of all, there was no Palestine, these lands were taken from the above countries. Secondly, those countries shouldn't have planned to jointly attack and destroy Israel if they weren't prepared to lose the war and those lands.
I'm just wondering if you cared to read this thread at all. This entire point was already discussed several times. go back a few pages and do some reading.
Despite the amount of concessions Israel was prepared to make, Arafat walked out on peace. Right then and there. Peace was attainable, but it was rejected by Arafat.
This is a lie. Arafat didn't walk out on the talks. And why don't you explain what exactly was being offered to the Palestinians? You talk about him walking out on peace, and rejecting peace. This is just pure nonsense.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020416.htm
'Look, is there a possible political settlement today? Has there been one for the last 25 years? Is it supported by the entire world, including the majority of the American people? The answer to that question is yes. There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states, the PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada…
ES: Didn't Barak put that on the table?
Chomsky: No, he did not.
ES: He did not?
Chomsky: What was also supported by the majority of the American people, has just been reiterated by Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has unilaterally blocked it for 25 years. What Barak put on the table, the population doesn't know this, because people like the Western media in Canada in the United States don't tell them. Like, you can check and see how often, you for example, and others, have reported what I just said. Don't bother checking. The answer is zero.
The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn't check the Canadian media, in the United States you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.
So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.
This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.
ES: All right, but let me just say, Arafat didn't even bother putting a counter-proposal on the table.
Chomsky: Oh, that's not true.
ES: They negotiated that afterwards.
Chomsky: That's not true.
ES: I guess my question is, if they don't continue to negotiate -
Chomsky: They did. That's false.
ES: That's false?
Chomsky: Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That's a media fabrication . . .
ES: That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal . . .
Chomsky: Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States.
ES: If you don't talk -
Chomsky: Yeah, they did talk. They talked. They proposed that.
ES: Once they walked out of Camp David,
Chomsky: They didn't walk out of Camp David . . .
ES: Both camps . . .
Chomsky: No, no, both sides walked out of Camp David.
ES: All right, once Camp David disbands, the radicals take over the process, my question is, how do . . .
Chomsky: No, no, the radicals didn't take over the process.
ES: You don't think that the Sharon, the right-wing Israeli . . .
Chomsky: No, Barak stayed in power for months. Barak cancelled it. That's how it ended.'
Yes, Israel launched a preemptive air strike, decimating Egypt's air force. Egypt was clearly organizing an attack on Israel with Syria and Jordon. And vocally expressed the destruction of Israel. Wait a second, there was calls for the destruction of Israel pre-1967 war? It can't just be about the lands Israel acquired...
Your comment about Egypt and Syria forced to defend themselves, as if they weren't planning on war, is so ridiculous its actually kinda funny.
Just because Israel was so astoundingly victorious, it doesn't mean Egypt/Syria/Jordan weren't planning on going to war, and destroying Israel. They just happened to lose.
They stole it Illegally?
They were at war with Egypt/Syria/Jordan and they won, and conquered Gaza/West Bank/E.Jerusalem and Golan in the process. First of all, there was no Palestine, these lands were taken from the above countries. Secondly, those countries shouldn't have planned to jointly attack and destroy Israel if they weren't prepared to lose the war and those lands.
Israel has long claimed that it launched the Six-Day War in 1967 to defend itself. Below are some statements made by Israeli leaders as well as some report excerpts that prove otherwise.
Israel’s former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was “no threat of destruction” but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could “exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.” Menahem Begin, the first Likud Prime Minister of Israel, also said: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde on 28 February 1968.
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997.
What happened after the Six-Day War? "In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces." Lockman and Beinin: "Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation."
"Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat to international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.
"The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
yeah, but you always hope for that one blind girl who can sculpt Lionel Richie's head.
Yeah and that girl has no arms...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Israel isn't ethnically cleaning anyone, there is no genocide, there is no massmurder.
You obviously know more about this subject then than Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian and a senior lecturer at Haifa University, and author of 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'.
From a readers review... 'David Ben Gurion, leader of the Zionist movement from the mid-1920's until the 1960's, who wrote in his diary in 1938, "I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it." This contradicts the Zionists' public claim that they were seizing a land without a people.
Pappe writes of the Israelis' March 1948 plan for evicting the Palestinians, "The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be employed to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."
Between 30 March and 15 May 1948, i.e. before any Arab government intervened, Israeli forces seized 200 villages and expelled 250,000 Palestinians. The Israeli leadership stated, "The principal objective of the operation is the destruction of Arab villages ... the eviction of the villagers." On 9 April, Israeli forces massacred 93 people, including 30 babies, at Deir Yassin. In Haifa, the Israeli commander ordered, "Kill any Arab you encounter."
On 24 May 1948, Ben Gurion wrote, "We will establish a Christian state in Lebanon, the southern border of which will be the Litani River. We will break Transjordan, bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight - we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. This will be in revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during Biblical times." These ravings of an insane warmonger hardly betrayed any genuine fear of a `second holocaust'. The Palestinians were suffering massive expulsion, not trying to destroy the Jewish community.
Pappe summarises, "When it created its nation-state, the Zionist movement did not wage a war that `tragically but inevitably' led to the expulsion of `parts of' the indigenous population, but the other way round: the main goal was the ethnic cleansing of all of Palestine, which the movement coveted for its new state. A few weeks after the ethnic cleansing operations began, the neighbouring Arab states sent a small army - small in comparison to their overall military might - to try, in vain, to prevent the ethnic cleansing. The war with the regular Arab armies did not bring the ethnic cleansing operations to a halt until their successful completion in the autumn of 1948."
Overall, the Zionist forces uprooted more than half Palestine's population, 800,000 people, destroyed 531 villages and emptied eleven urban neighbourhoods of their inhabitants. Pappe concludes that this was "a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law today as a crime against humanity."
'...America would be far better off on the other side of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It would instantly gain the warm friendship of Arab oil producers and obtain far more valuable allies in the war on terror: not only the goverments of the entire Muslim world, but a good portion of the Muslim fundamentalist movement. The war on terror, which seems so unwinnable, might well be won at nominal cost, and quickly. Perhaps, the most likely scenario would simply involve an embargo on Israel. Sponsored by the U.S in cooperation with the United Nations. There is a chance that Israel would prove intransigent; it has great military resources and could probably buy the materials it needs through sales of military technology. If this happens, Israel might have to be made the object of the kind of coalition forged against Iraq in the first Gulf war. Of course, against Israel the coalition would be far broader and stronger, including all the countries of the former Soviet Union, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and many others. And though Israel is quite strong enough to persist in it's policis without U.S support, it could not stand up to such a coalition. Israel would be forced to follow it's own best interests and make peace.
Perhaps most important, switching sides would revitalize America's foundering efforts at non-proliferation. There are two man reasons why other countries resist these efforts: fear of American attack, and the outrageous exemption of Israel from non-proliferation initiatives. It is simply absurd to suppose that any serious effort to stem the development of nuclear weapons can proceed in the absence of any attempt to disarm Israel, which is estimated to possess between 200 and 500 nuclear warheads. Having launched it's own satellites, it clearly has the capacity to hit targets anywhere in the world, and it possesses cruise missiles that have hit targets 950 miles away. Until it is forced either to disarm or to establish good relations with it's neighbours, the pace of proliferation will simply increase. On the other hand, U.S efforts to neutralize the Israeli nuclear threat would win support for non-proliferation efforts from Pakistan and Iran. In these circumstances, in a radically different political environment, the problem of North Korea would no longer seem intractable. Meanwhile, the U.S contents itself with hollow victories such as Libya's recent gesture, the nuclear disarmament of a country that never had nuclear weapons in the first place.
In short, one has only to conceive the end of the U.S-Israel alliance to be overwhelmed with the benefits of such a move - very likely, even to Israel itself. That once-beneficial alliance, a legacy of the Cold War, has turned poisonous to America's security and it's future.'
When you have Islamic terrorists hiding amongst their civilians, the Israeli soldiers have little choice. It's far different than purposely going after innocent civilians, which is what Muslim "Shahids" do. I'm amazed so many "intelligent" people on this board are so damn blind.
The Jews hang pictures of the soldiers who murder innocent Palistinians.
There are also many Jews who consider Palestinians as insignificant, lower lifeforms. God told them they (the Jews) are his chosen people and many Jews consider themselves above all other people of all the other races and religions. In fact many are quite bigoted, racist and discrimninate harsly against all non-Jews.
Hmmm.....sounds familiar. Just like.......Islamic Extemists. Or Christian Extremists.
What's the common thread, here?
God told all of these people they were the chosen ones. Either god is extremely fickle, or god has a twisted and demented sense of humor and loves to play mean jokes on human beings.
Or God doesn't exist and all this loss of life is over nothing. We all come from the same place, share the same ancestry as human beings. I find it really sad that many can never apprecaite this and we end up with this mess.
If you know anything about biblical history and religion, you'd know that "chosen people" doesn't mean 'Jews are chosen because they're better' or 'because Jews are the chosen people, they think they're better, or somehow more entitled.
Chosen People means people chosen by God to carry out his commandments, and bring good deeds/righteousness to Earth. In sense, from a biblical and historical perspective, they were given this ultimate responsibility.
I don't believe in religion or anything like that, I'm just stating the explanation.
Despite the amount of concessions Israel was prepared to make, Arafat walked out on peace. Right then and there. Peace was attainable, but it was rejected by Arafat.
Norman Finlkelstein:
"It is correct to say that if you frame everything with regards to what Israel WANTED it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was ENTITLED TO under International law then Israel made precisely and exactly ZERO concessions."
If you know anything about biblical history and religion, you'd know that "chosen people" doesn't mean 'Jews are chosen because they're better' or 'because Jews are the chosen people, they think they're better, or somehow more entitled.
Chosen People means people chosen by God to carry out his commandments, and bring good deeds/righteousness to Earth. In sense, from a biblical and historical perspective, they were given this ultimate responsibility.
I don't believe in religion or anything like that, I'm just stating the explanation.
I understand that. But that's not the point.
I've met and worked with many Jews who not only act but believe they are above all others, because they are the chosen ones. Certainly a bad translation or interpretation on their part. But nonetheless, there are many who consider themselves elite......entitled.....superior because of that.
Let's not forget, it was the Jews who wrote the Bible. So who's surprised they were "Chosen" as the "Chosen Ones":rolleyes:
I'm sure if an Irish Asian wrote the Bible, then, Irish Asians would be all full of themselves as god's "Chosen Ones":D
Of course Jews are not the only ones. There are plenty of Muslims and Christians who believe they are the chosen ones.
If you ask me, I think puppy dogs are the chosen ones. Dogs For God.
Using research and analysis gathered from respected experts in Middle East history, politics and other related fields, this Web site answers those questions; because to understand the literal and metaphorical map of the modern Middle East — the geographic positions held by the region’s armies and the negotiating positions held by its leaders — one must first understand the Six-Day War, and more importantly, its causes and consequences.
This is true not because the current strife began on June 5, 1967 with the outbreak of war — it did not — but rather for the opposite reason: Many of the attitudes and forces that led to the Six-Day War were the same as those that had fueled conflict in the region since even before Israel’s independence in 1948, and are the same as those that still stoke tensions there today.
That both the Six-Day War and the current conflict stem from the same root issues is evinced by two similar statements uttered almost 40 years apart: In 1967, an Arab participant in the war that had just ended described the fighting as “not a new war but part of the old war” from 1948 — the war against Israel's founding (Associated Press, Lighting Out of Israel, 156). Israeli leaders and pundits would later use a nearly identical description — “a continuation of the (1948) War of Independence” — to characterize the Palestinian violence and Israeli response that began in 2000, the so-called second intifada.
The major factor instigating conflict between Israel and its neighbors — whether in 1967, in 2000 or any other time — has been Arab rejection of the legitimate right of Jews to reconstitute their national home in the Middle East, and Israel’s resultant security concerns.
As far back as 1929, when Arab rioters attacked Jewish communities in Palestine and massacred their inhabitants, the civil and human rights of Jews had been under violent attack. In 1948 it became an existential issue, with six Arab armies attacking the newly independent Israel in an attempt to wipe the state off the map.
Again in 1967, in the run up to the Six-Day War, Israel’s existence seemed to hang in the balance. As the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan openly prepared for battle against Israel, and Arab leaders and the Arab "street" called for its destruction, Israel faced frightful choices. “We had already started thinking in terms of annihilation, both national and personal,” explained Lt. Yossi Peled, a Holocaust survivor who was at the time a lieutenant in the Israel army. Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, realizing the immense military challenge that would be caused by an Arab attack, told his cabinet: “God help us through if they hit us first.” Chief of Staff Yitzkhak Rabin had a nervous breakdown, which for a short time kept him from his duties.
Israel’s hospitals prepared for mass casualties, not only from the advanced conventional weapons supplied by the Soviets to Egypt and Syria and by the West to Jordan, but also from chemical weapons, which Egypt was known to have used during its war in Yemen.
The tensions continued to mount while Israel’s Prime Minister Levy Eshkol insisted, even as more and more Arab troops massed on the borders, that diplomatic attempts to resolve the crisis be exhausted before Israel would consider military action.
This was the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict before the Six-Day War, or in other words, before Israel ever occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Often, in current discussions about the Middle East, Israel’s occupation is mischaracterized as the primary, if not the sole, cause of the conflict rather than an effect of it. Many journalists, unfamiliar with the relevant facts and context, and mistakenly believing that the starting point of Mideast tensions is the "occupation," may present flawed accounts that suggest the resolution of the tension can be achieved more or less simply by ending Israel's presence in the territories. This ahistorical description is found all too often in the U.S. media, but even more pervasively in the European setting.
It is our hope that this Web site will help correct such misperceptions while shedding light on this important event in Middle East history.
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
In the weeks leading up to the Six Day War, Arab leaders repeatedly threatened Israel with annihilation. Together with Egypt's ejection of United Nations forces, the closing of the Straits of Tiran, and the massing of troops on Israel's northern and southern borders, the fiery rhetoric created a state of existential fear in Israel.
Egypt
"Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel." – President Nasser of Egypt, November 18, 1965
"Brothers, it is our duty to prepare for the final battle in Palestine." – Nasser, Palestine Day, 1967
"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight . . . The mining of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel." – President Nasser of Egypt, May 27, 1967
"We will not accept any ... coexistence with Israel. ... Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel .... The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." – Nasser, May 28, 1967
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . . to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations." – Nasser, May, 30, 1967 after signing a defense pact with Jordan's King Hussein
"We are now ready to confront Israel .... The issue now at hand is not the Gulf of Aqaba, the Straits of Tiran, or the withdrawal of UNEF, but the ... aggression which took place in Palestine ... with the collaboration of Britain and the United States." – Nasser, June 2, 1967
"Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria is in a position to cut Israel in two at Kalkilya, where Israeli territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only twelve kilometers wide ... ." – El Akhbar newspaper, Cairo, May 31, 1967
Cairo Radio Statements:
May 19, 1967: "This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land"
May 22, 1967: "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map"
May 25, 1967: "The Gulf of Aqaba, by the dictum of history and the protection of our soldiers, is Arab, Arab, Arab."
May 25, 1967: "Millions of Arabs are ... preparing to blow up all of America's interests, all of America's installations, and your entire existence, America."
May 27, 1967: "We challenge you, Eshkol, to try all your weapons. Put them to the test; they will spell Israel's death and annihilation."
May 30, 1967: "With the closing of the Gulf of Akaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of the Arab forces encompassing it from the South from the North and from the East."
May 30, 1967: "The world will know that the Arabs are girded for battle as the fateful hour approaches."
Jordan
"All of the Arab armies now surround Israel. The UAR, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, and Kuwait. ... There is no difference between one Arab people and another, no difference between one Arab army and another." – King Hussein of Jordan, after signing the pact with Egypt May 30, 1967
Iraq
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map. We shall, God willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa." – President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967
Palestinians
"D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberation." – Ahmed Shukairy, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, May 27, 1967
"This is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive." – Ahmed Shukairy, June 1, 1967
"We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them." – Ahmed Shukairy, June 1, 1967, speaking at a Friday sermon in Jerusalem
Syria
Syria's forces are "ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united.... I as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." – Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, May 20, 1967
"Our two brotherly countries have turned into one mobilized force. The withdrawal of the UN forces ... means 'make way, our forces are on their way to battle.'" – Foreign Minister Makhous on his return from Cairo
Others
"The freedom of the homeland will be completed by the destruction of the Zionist entity and the expulsion of the Americans and the British from the region." – Algerian Prime Minister Houari Boumedienne
"We want war. War is the only way to settle the problem of Israel. The Arabs are ready." – Yemeni Foreign Minister Salam
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
I've met and worked with many Jews who not only act but believe they are above all others, because they are the chosen ones. Certainly a bad translation or interpretation on their part. But nonetheless, there are many who consider themselves elite......entitled.....superior because of that.
Let's not forget, it was the Jews who wrote the Bible. So who's surprised they were "Chosen" as the "Chosen Ones":rolleyes:
I'm sure if an Irish Asian wrote the Bible, then, Irish Asians would be all full of themselves as god's "Chosen Ones":D
Of course Jews are not the only ones. There are plenty of Muslims and Christians who believe they are the chosen ones.
If you ask me, I think puppy dogs are the chosen ones. Dogs For God.
I understand what you are saying...that these Jews might be misinterpreting what it means to be the 'chosen people,' but they act like they are better than everyone none the less.
I am not disputing that those people you mentioned might be assholes, but for you to conclude that these characteristics apply to all Jews is fairly shortsighted.
Furthermore, I believe the reason certain Jews may believe they are 'better than everyone is not due to the historical concept of being 'chosen,' but likely due to some sort of current economic or social standing.
For whatever reason, Jewish incomes in the USA are higher than average. Most likely because immigrants and Jewish culture itself, places huge stress on education. Anyway, I figure wealthy people for the most part will have that 'im better than you attitude,' whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim or no religion at all.
I am not disputing that those people you mentioned might be assholes, but for you to conclude that these characteristics apply to all Jews is fairly shortsighted
Never said all Jews.
My comments were directed at and within the context of those who behave that way and those who perpetrate the attrocities and violence we were discussing.
while supposedly "murdering Palestinian children" or being "ruthless aggressors in war"
So instead of only looking at the political problems in Israel and problems with Palestine, realize just what Israel and Israelis are all about, and what they have accomplished over the past 60 years.
***Make sure you read about the medical, technological and agricultural inventions in the link I sent.
My comments were directed at and within the context of those who behave that way and those who perpetrate the attrocities and violence we were discussing.
I understand what you are saying...that these Jews might be misinterpreting what it means to be the 'chosen people,' but they act like they are better than everyone none the less.
I am not disputing that those people you mentioned might be assholes, but for you to conclude that these characteristics apply to all Jews is fairly shortsighted.
Furthermore, I believe the reason certain Jews may believe they are 'better than everyone is not due to the historical concept of being 'chosen,' but likely due to some sort of current economic or social standing.
For whatever reason, Jewish incomes in the USA are higher than average. Most likely because immigrants and Jewish culture itself, places huge stress on education. Anyway, I figure wealthy people for the most part will have that 'im better than you attitude,' whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim or no religion at all.
I'm just wondering why you have been blatantly ignoring byrnzie's posts.
while supposedly "murdering Palestinian children" or being "ruthless aggressors in war"
So instead of only looking at the political problems in Israel and problems with Palestine, realize just what Israel and Israelis are all about, and what they have accomplished over the past 60 years.
***Make sure you read about the medical, technological and agricultural inventions in the link I sent.
Again, you're under the misconception that I'm hating Jews or dislike Jews.
I don't. I don't hate anyone (well, maybe except pedophiles, child abusers, rapists and murderers).
You don't have to say those things, because I certainly know and respect that.
This is not about choosing one side (Palestine) or the other side (Israel/Jews).
This is about equal responsibility and equal accountability.
wow, evenkat. that website is obvious propaganda... the fact that you actually consider it a legitimate source is ridiculous. Just take a look and reread these quotes. They show a clear misconception of reality:
The major factor instigating conflict between Israel and its neighbors — whether in 1967, in 2000 or any other time — has been Arab rejection of the legitimate right of Jews to reconstitute their national home in the Middle East, and Israel’s resultant security concerns.
the Palestinian violence and Israeli response that began in 2000
As far back as 1929, when Arab rioters attacked Jewish communities in Palestine and massacred their inhabitants, the civil and human rights of Jews had been under violent attack. In 1948 it became an existential issue, with six Arab armies attacking the newly independent Israel in an attempt to wipe the state off the map.
Again in 1967, in the run up to the Six-Day War, Israel’s existence seemed to hang in the balance. As the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan openly prepared for battle against Israel, and Arab leaders and the Arab "street" called for its destruction, Israel faced frightful choices. “We had already started thinking in terms of annihilation, both national and personal,” explained Lt. Yossi Peled, a Holocaust survivor who was at the time a lieutenant in the Israel army. Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, realizing the immense military challenge that would be caused by an Arab attack, told his cabinet: “God help us through if they hit us first.” Chief of Staff Yitzkhak Rabin had a nervous breakdown, which for a short time kept him from his duties.
Israel’s hospitals prepared for mass casualties, not only from the advanced conventional weapons supplied by the Soviets to Egypt and Syria and by the West to Jordan, but also from chemical weapons, which Egypt was known to have used during its war in Yemen.
The tensions continued to mount while Israel’s Prime Minister Levy Eshkol insisted, even as more and more Arab troops massed on the borders, that diplomatic attempts to resolve the crisis be exhausted before Israel would consider military action.
Comments
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php
Despite the amount of concessions Israel was prepared to make, Arafat walked out on peace. Right then and there. Peace was attainable, but it was rejected by Arafat.
1967
Pre-1967 borders had Egypt controlling Gaza and Jordan controlling West Bank Area. War broke out. If Israel was defeated, there would be no Israel at all right now. Israel came out victorious, and seized control of gaza/west bank areas. Now, 2008, Israel is responsible for returning the lands they won, after almost being annihilated by the other countries...
Why wasn't there peace pre-1967 when the 'pre-1967' borders existed? Would those borders suffice now, but they wouldn't then?
I mean, if you willingly go to war with another nation, and lose land during the process, you have to face the consequences.
Unfortunately, things aren't that simple. And I do see Israel moving back to the pre-1967 borders at some point in time. Its a real shame that, that is the only way there could be a chance for peace...Israel has to lose land they won after being attacked by 4 different countries. ***Its a shame not because Israel has to lose land, but because they have to be the ones to concede something they rightfully won.
I do see what you guys are saying, Israel is the only one in a position to concede anything at all for peace (like they may do with Golan/syria).
They have done this before (giving back Sinai to Egypt in 1979 i believe)
So If Israel does in the future go back to the '67 borders, will that be the end of the conflict? Will there be peace in the region. Maybe, maybe not. Will these land concessions lead to a severely weakened security position for Israel's defense? Maybe, maybe not.
Will Hamas be satisfied with pre-1967 borders, when they call for the destruction of Israel?
Of course, once an independent Palestinian state is created, what will happen from there? How will the country develop itself? Who will help them? Who will invest? Will there be open trade/borders with Israel. I hope one day we reach that point.
Maybe Israel should concede because they are in a position to do so...I'm just frustrated by the way Israel is routinely blamed and vilified for everything that has gone wrong.
under the geneva convention, which they signed, they aren't allowed to keep that land after the war.
There was no peace because Israel did not want peace.
Egypt and Syria were forced to defend themselves. They have to deal with consequences for that?
That is not a shame. They did not rightfully win it, they stole it illegally, by killing people who live there, by planting illegal settlements in that land, and destroying people's homes.
of course not. that is not everything that has to happen for peace. that is, however, 1 step that will lead to peace, and a BIG step at that. Once Israel goes back to the 67 borders, they can call a ceasefire with Hamas and begin having serious talks with them.
Time and time again several people on this board have said that Hamas said they'd be willing to talk to Israel once they went back to the 67 borders.
Please read this article, especially about the lead-up to the war.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761570433
Yes, Israel launched a preemptive air strike, decimating Egypt's air force. Egypt was clearly organizing an attack on Israel with Syria and Jordon. And vocally expressed the destruction of Israel. Wait a second, there was calls for the destruction of Israel pre-1967 war? It can't just be about the lands Israel acquired...
Your comment about Egypt and Syria forced to defend themselves, as if they weren't planning on war, is so ridiculous its actually kinda funny.
Just because Israel was so astoundingly victorious, it doesn't mean Egypt/Syria/Jordan weren't planning on going to war, and destroying Israel. They just happened to lose.
They stole it Illegally?
They were at war with Egypt/Syria/Jordan and they won, and conquered Gaza/West Bank/E.Jerusalem and Golan in the process. First of all, there was no Palestine, these lands were taken from the above countries. Secondly, those countries shouldn't have planned to jointly attack and destroy Israel if they weren't prepared to lose the war and those lands.
Also, we gotta change the name of this thread. "What the fucking deal with Palestinians" Thats just an insulting and stupid...
This is a lie. Arafat didn't walk out on the talks. And why don't you explain what exactly was being offered to the Palestinians? You talk about him walking out on peace, and rejecting peace. This is just pure nonsense.
Take a look at this map of what was offered to Arafat and see if you can work out why it was rejected.
http://www.iris.org.il/oslo_2000.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020416.htm
'Look, is there a possible political settlement today? Has there been one for the last 25 years? Is it supported by the entire world, including the majority of the American people? The answer to that question is yes. There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states, the PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada…
ES: Didn't Barak put that on the table?
Chomsky: No, he did not.
ES: He did not?
Chomsky: What was also supported by the majority of the American people, has just been reiterated by Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has unilaterally blocked it for 25 years. What Barak put on the table, the population doesn't know this, because people like the Western media in Canada in the United States don't tell them. Like, you can check and see how often, you for example, and others, have reported what I just said. Don't bother checking. The answer is zero.
The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn't check the Canadian media, in the United States you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.
So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.
This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.
ES: All right, but let me just say, Arafat didn't even bother putting a counter-proposal on the table.
Chomsky: Oh, that's not true.
ES: They negotiated that afterwards.
Chomsky: That's not true.
ES: I guess my question is, if they don't continue to negotiate -
Chomsky: They did. That's false.
ES: That's false?
Chomsky: Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That's a media fabrication . . .
ES: That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal . . .
Chomsky: Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States.
ES: If you don't talk -
Chomsky: Yeah, they did talk. They talked. They proposed that.
ES: Once they walked out of Camp David,
Chomsky: They didn't walk out of Camp David . . .
ES: Both camps . . .
Chomsky: No, no, both sides walked out of Camp David.
ES: All right, once Camp David disbands, the radicals take over the process, my question is, how do . . .
Chomsky: No, no, the radicals didn't take over the process.
ES: You don't think that the Sharon, the right-wing Israeli . . .
Chomsky: No, Barak stayed in power for months. Barak cancelled it. That's how it ended.'
Who started the 1967 Six-Day War?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=10259
"We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him (Nasser) .” -- Former Israeli PM Menahem Begin.
Israel has long claimed that it launched the Six-Day War in 1967 to defend itself. Below are some statements made by Israeli leaders as well as some report excerpts that prove otherwise.
Israel’s former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was “no threat of destruction” but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could “exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.” Menahem Begin, the first Likud Prime Minister of Israel, also said: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde on 28 February 1968.
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997.
What happened after the Six-Day War?
"In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces." Lockman and Beinin: "Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation."
"Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat to international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.
"The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
Yeah and that girl has no arms...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You obviously know more about this subject then than Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian and a senior lecturer at Haifa University, and author of 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1851685553/ref=pe_606_9306590_pe_ar_t1
From a readers review...
'David Ben Gurion, leader of the Zionist movement from the mid-1920's until the 1960's, who wrote in his diary in 1938, "I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it." This contradicts the Zionists' public claim that they were seizing a land without a people.
Pappe writes of the Israelis' March 1948 plan for evicting the Palestinians, "The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be employed to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."
Between 30 March and 15 May 1948, i.e. before any Arab government intervened, Israeli forces seized 200 villages and expelled 250,000 Palestinians. The Israeli leadership stated, "The principal objective of the operation is the destruction of Arab villages ... the eviction of the villagers." On 9 April, Israeli forces massacred 93 people, including 30 babies, at Deir Yassin. In Haifa, the Israeli commander ordered, "Kill any Arab you encounter."
On 24 May 1948, Ben Gurion wrote, "We will establish a Christian state in Lebanon, the southern border of which will be the Litani River. We will break Transjordan, bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight - we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. This will be in revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during Biblical times." These ravings of an insane warmonger hardly betrayed any genuine fear of a `second holocaust'. The Palestinians were suffering massive expulsion, not trying to destroy the Jewish community.
Pappe summarises, "When it created its nation-state, the Zionist movement did not wage a war that `tragically but inevitably' led to the expulsion of `parts of' the indigenous population, but the other way round: the main goal was the ethnic cleansing of all of Palestine, which the movement coveted for its new state. A few weeks after the ethnic cleansing operations began, the neighbouring Arab states sent a small army - small in comparison to their overall military might - to try, in vain, to prevent the ethnic cleansing. The war with the regular Arab armies did not bring the ethnic cleansing operations to a halt until their successful completion in the autumn of 1948."
Overall, the Zionist forces uprooted more than half Palestine's population, 800,000 people, destroyed 531 villages and emptied eleven urban neighbourhoods of their inhabitants. Pappe concludes that this was "a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law today as a crime against humanity."
'...America would be far better off on the other side of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It would instantly gain the warm friendship of Arab oil producers and obtain far more valuable allies in the war on terror: not only the goverments of the entire Muslim world, but a good portion of the Muslim fundamentalist movement. The war on terror, which seems so unwinnable, might well be won at nominal cost, and quickly. Perhaps, the most likely scenario would simply involve an embargo on Israel. Sponsored by the U.S in cooperation with the United Nations. There is a chance that Israel would prove intransigent; it has great military resources and could probably buy the materials it needs through sales of military technology. If this happens, Israel might have to be made the object of the kind of coalition forged against Iraq in the first Gulf war. Of course, against Israel the coalition would be far broader and stronger, including all the countries of the former Soviet Union, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and many others. And though Israel is quite strong enough to persist in it's policis without U.S support, it could not stand up to such a coalition. Israel would be forced to follow it's own best interests and make peace.
Perhaps most important, switching sides would revitalize America's foundering efforts at non-proliferation. There are two man reasons why other countries resist these efforts: fear of American attack, and the outrageous exemption of Israel from non-proliferation initiatives. It is simply absurd to suppose that any serious effort to stem the development of nuclear weapons can proceed in the absence of any attempt to disarm Israel, which is estimated to possess between 200 and 500 nuclear warheads. Having launched it's own satellites, it clearly has the capacity to hit targets anywhere in the world, and it possesses cruise missiles that have hit targets 950 miles away. Until it is forced either to disarm or to establish good relations with it's neighbours, the pace of proliferation will simply increase. On the other hand, U.S efforts to neutralize the Israeli nuclear threat would win support for non-proliferation efforts from Pakistan and Iran. In these circumstances, in a radically different political environment, the problem of North Korea would no longer seem intractable. Meanwhile, the U.S contents itself with hollow victories such as Libya's recent gesture, the nuclear disarmament of a country that never had nuclear weapons in the first place.
In short, one has only to conceive the end of the U.S-Israel alliance to be overwhelmed with the benefits of such a move - very likely, even to Israel itself. That once-beneficial alliance, a legacy of the Cold War, has turned poisonous to America's security and it's future.'
Talking of delberately killing innocent civilians...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7414090.stm
Gazan shot dead at blockade demo
Israeli soldiers have fired at a demonstration near a Gaza border crossing, killing one man and injuring others, local medical workers say.
The demonstration, near the Karni commercial crossing into Israel, was called by Hamas in protest at the continuing blockade of the territory.
I'm amazed so many...people on this board are so damn blind.
people in general are born blind and ignorant. they only wake up if they want to.
So could Israel.
Or God doesn't exist and all this loss of life is over nothing. We all come from the same place, share the same ancestry as human beings. I find it really sad that many can never apprecaite this and we end up with this mess.
Chosen People means people chosen by God to carry out his commandments, and bring good deeds/righteousness to Earth. In sense, from a biblical and historical perspective, they were given this ultimate responsibility.
I don't believe in religion or anything like that, I'm just stating the explanation.
Norman Finlkelstein:
"It is correct to say that if you frame everything with regards to what Israel WANTED it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was ENTITLED TO under International law then Israel made precisely and exactly ZERO concessions."
Big difference.
You may want to check this out. He says it like it is, which may bother you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbDMam_jGVk
I understand that. But that's not the point.
I've met and worked with many Jews who not only act but believe they are above all others, because they are the chosen ones. Certainly a bad translation or interpretation on their part. But nonetheless, there are many who consider themselves elite......entitled.....superior because of that.
Let's not forget, it was the Jews who wrote the Bible. So who's surprised they were "Chosen" as the "Chosen Ones":rolleyes:
I'm sure if an Irish Asian wrote the Bible, then, Irish Asians would be all full of themselves as god's "Chosen Ones":D
Of course Jews are not the only ones. There are plenty of Muslims and Christians who believe they are the chosen ones.
If you ask me, I think puppy dogs are the chosen ones. Dogs For God.
Using research and analysis gathered from respected experts in Middle East history, politics and other related fields, this Web site answers those questions; because to understand the literal and metaphorical map of the modern Middle East — the geographic positions held by the region’s armies and the negotiating positions held by its leaders — one must first understand the Six-Day War, and more importantly, its causes and consequences.
This is true not because the current strife began on June 5, 1967 with the outbreak of war — it did not — but rather for the opposite reason: Many of the attitudes and forces that led to the Six-Day War were the same as those that had fueled conflict in the region since even before Israel’s independence in 1948, and are the same as those that still stoke tensions there today.
That both the Six-Day War and the current conflict stem from the same root issues is evinced by two similar statements uttered almost 40 years apart: In 1967, an Arab participant in the war that had just ended described the fighting as “not a new war but part of the old war” from 1948 — the war against Israel's founding (Associated Press, Lighting Out of Israel, 156). Israeli leaders and pundits would later use a nearly identical description — “a continuation of the (1948) War of Independence” — to characterize the Palestinian violence and Israeli response that began in 2000, the so-called second intifada.
The major factor instigating conflict between Israel and its neighbors — whether in 1967, in 2000 or any other time — has been Arab rejection of the legitimate right of Jews to reconstitute their national home in the Middle East, and Israel’s resultant security concerns.
As far back as 1929, when Arab rioters attacked Jewish communities in Palestine and massacred their inhabitants, the civil and human rights of Jews had been under violent attack. In 1948 it became an existential issue, with six Arab armies attacking the newly independent Israel in an attempt to wipe the state off the map.
Again in 1967, in the run up to the Six-Day War, Israel’s existence seemed to hang in the balance. As the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan openly prepared for battle against Israel, and Arab leaders and the Arab "street" called for its destruction, Israel faced frightful choices. “We had already started thinking in terms of annihilation, both national and personal,” explained Lt. Yossi Peled, a Holocaust survivor who was at the time a lieutenant in the Israel army. Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, realizing the immense military challenge that would be caused by an Arab attack, told his cabinet: “God help us through if they hit us first.” Chief of Staff Yitzkhak Rabin had a nervous breakdown, which for a short time kept him from his duties.
Israel’s hospitals prepared for mass casualties, not only from the advanced conventional weapons supplied by the Soviets to Egypt and Syria and by the West to Jordan, but also from chemical weapons, which Egypt was known to have used during its war in Yemen.
The tensions continued to mount while Israel’s Prime Minister Levy Eshkol insisted, even as more and more Arab troops massed on the borders, that diplomatic attempts to resolve the crisis be exhausted before Israel would consider military action.
This was the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict before the Six-Day War, or in other words, before Israel ever occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Often, in current discussions about the Middle East, Israel’s occupation is mischaracterized as the primary, if not the sole, cause of the conflict rather than an effect of it. Many journalists, unfamiliar with the relevant facts and context, and mistakenly believing that the starting point of Mideast tensions is the "occupation," may present flawed accounts that suggest the resolution of the tension can be achieved more or less simply by ending Israel's presence in the territories. This ahistorical description is found all too often in the U.S. media, but even more pervasively in the European setting.
It is our hope that this Web site will help correct such misperceptions while shedding light on this important event in Middle East history.
In the weeks leading up to the Six Day War, Arab leaders repeatedly threatened Israel with annihilation. Together with Egypt's ejection of United Nations forces, the closing of the Straits of Tiran, and the massing of troops on Israel's northern and southern borders, the fiery rhetoric created a state of existential fear in Israel.
Egypt
"Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel." – President Nasser of Egypt, November 18, 1965
"Brothers, it is our duty to prepare for the final battle in Palestine." – Nasser, Palestine Day, 1967
"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight . . . The mining of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel." – President Nasser of Egypt, May 27, 1967
"We will not accept any ... coexistence with Israel. ... Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel .... The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." – Nasser, May 28, 1967
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . . to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations." – Nasser, May, 30, 1967 after signing a defense pact with Jordan's King Hussein
"We are now ready to confront Israel .... The issue now at hand is not the Gulf of Aqaba, the Straits of Tiran, or the withdrawal of UNEF, but the ... aggression which took place in Palestine ... with the collaboration of Britain and the United States." – Nasser, June 2, 1967
"Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria is in a position to cut Israel in two at Kalkilya, where Israeli territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only twelve kilometers wide ... ." – El Akhbar newspaper, Cairo, May 31, 1967
Cairo Radio Statements:
May 19, 1967: "This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land"
May 22, 1967: "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map"
May 25, 1967: "The Gulf of Aqaba, by the dictum of history and the protection of our soldiers, is Arab, Arab, Arab."
May 25, 1967: "Millions of Arabs are ... preparing to blow up all of America's interests, all of America's installations, and your entire existence, America."
May 27, 1967: "We challenge you, Eshkol, to try all your weapons. Put them to the test; they will spell Israel's death and annihilation."
May 30, 1967: "With the closing of the Gulf of Akaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of the Arab forces encompassing it from the South from the North and from the East."
May 30, 1967: "The world will know that the Arabs are girded for battle as the fateful hour approaches."
Jordan
"All of the Arab armies now surround Israel. The UAR, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, and Kuwait. ... There is no difference between one Arab people and another, no difference between one Arab army and another." – King Hussein of Jordan, after signing the pact with Egypt May 30, 1967
Iraq
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map. We shall, God willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa." – President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967
Palestinians
"D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberation." – Ahmed Shukairy, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, May 27, 1967
"This is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive." – Ahmed Shukairy, June 1, 1967
"We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them." – Ahmed Shukairy, June 1, 1967, speaking at a Friday sermon in Jerusalem
Syria
Syria's forces are "ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united.... I as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." – Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, May 20, 1967
"Our two brotherly countries have turned into one mobilized force. The withdrawal of the UN forces ... means 'make way, our forces are on their way to battle.'" – Foreign Minister Makhous on his return from Cairo
Others
"The freedom of the homeland will be completed by the destruction of the Zionist entity and the expulsion of the Americans and the British from the region." – Algerian Prime Minister Houari Boumedienne
"We want war. War is the only way to settle the problem of Israel. The Arabs are ready." – Yemeni Foreign Minister Salam
I understand what you are saying...that these Jews might be misinterpreting what it means to be the 'chosen people,' but they act like they are better than everyone none the less.
I am not disputing that those people you mentioned might be assholes, but for you to conclude that these characteristics apply to all Jews is fairly shortsighted.
Furthermore, I believe the reason certain Jews may believe they are 'better than everyone is not due to the historical concept of being 'chosen,' but likely due to some sort of current economic or social standing.
For whatever reason, Jewish incomes in the USA are higher than average. Most likely because immigrants and Jewish culture itself, places huge stress on education. Anyway, I figure wealthy people for the most part will have that 'im better than you attitude,' whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim or no religion at all.
Never said all Jews.
My comments were directed at and within the context of those who behave that way and those who perpetrate the attrocities and violence we were discussing.
while supposedly "murdering Palestinian children" or being "ruthless aggressors in war"
So instead of only looking at the political problems in Israel and problems with Palestine, realize just what Israel and Israelis are all about, and what they have accomplished over the past 60 years.
***Make sure you read about the medical, technological and agricultural inventions in the link I sent.
Fair enough.
Again, you're under the misconception that I'm hating Jews or dislike Jews.
I don't. I don't hate anyone (well, maybe except pedophiles, child abusers, rapists and murderers).
You don't have to say those things, because I certainly know and respect that.
This is not about choosing one side (Palestine) or the other side (Israel/Jews).
This is about equal responsibility and equal accountability.
I never said you hated anyone. My point is to:
- Highlight Israel's accomplishments (they deserve recognition)
- Show that the country's focus is on progress, innovation, democracy and education.
While oppressing Palestinians through acts of violent aggression, expansion and continuing to snub their noses at International Law and Human Rights?
That's neither progress or democracy.