Tzipi Livni said:
coaster132000
Posted on 01/24/2011 by Juan
The Qatar satellite channel Aljazeera has gotten hold of some 1600
documents from the Palestine Authority regarding negotiations with
Israel, which cast the Israelis, the Americans and the Fatah faction
of Palestinians in the worst possible light. The leaked documents were
shared exclusively with The Guardian newspaper.
The documents could well destroy the Palestine Liberation
Organization, a coalition of parties that includes Fatah, which is led
by Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Among the politicians
who comes off the worst in these documents is Saeb Erekat. The
Palestinian Authority is revealed as feeble as a kitten. Like a a
spurned suitor, Erekat kept offering the Israelis more and more, and
they kept rejecting his overtures.
The documents have frank admissions. Tzipi Livni said:
“Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be
impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day
after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that is impossible,
we already have the land and we cannot create the state”. She conceded
that it had been “the policy of the government for a really long
time”.
Although she said that in 2007 the Olmert government was not following
this policy, she admitted some parties were. And, of course, in
February 2009, parties came to power that would not so much as give
Palestinians a glass of water.
Saeb Erekat,an old-time Fatah operative, is in trouble because he is
revealed to have offered the Israelis much of East Jerusalem. He is
also said to have been convinced by the Israelis that the future
Palestinian state would not have an army, air force or navy (i.e. it
would lack sovereignty over its own territory and would only be an
ersatz state). Even then, the Israelis kept demanding more and more.
Erekat’s enemies, the Hamas movement based mainly in Gaza, are using
the revelations to paint him as a traitor to the Palestinian and
indeed the Muslim cause. I saw him on Aljazeera, where he was very
defensive. London-based journalist Abdel Bari Atwan let him have it
with both barrels.
Erekat and other Fatah leaders are accusing Aljazeera of forging the
documents and of attempting to scuttle the Palestine Authorities’ plan
to go to the United Nations to get an international resolution against
ever-expanding Israeli colonies.
But even PA loyalists like attorney Diana Buttu have called for
Erekat’s resignation in the wake of the revelations.
The Fatah-dominated Palestine Authority has long been regarded as
corrupt and authoritarian by many Palestinians, not to mention wusses
when it came to dealing with Israel. These documents demonstrate that
its leaders were willing to give away just about anything to have a
state they could preside over, even something that was only a state in
name.
I’m not sure that Fatah can survive being discredited to this extent.
Nor, likely, can the American farce of a ‘peace process’ or a ‘two-
state solution.’ (The state Erekat was trying to get would have no
sovereignty, as he admitted, which means it would not be a state and
the entire end goal is a chimera).
As for the Americans, Condi Rice is said to have told the Palestinians
(with regard to their mass expulsion in 1948 and their loss of
statehood) that lots of peoples have had bad things happen to them.
But ‘lots of peoples’ don’t have nearly 5 million stateless people
currently. Stateless people have no real rights. They are not
citizens. The Nazis prepared for their move against the Jews by first
stripping them of German citizenship. That gave denaturalizing people
a bad name. There are only a few million stateless people in the world
now, and the biggest group of them is the Palestinians. (No, illegal
aliens and frustrated sub-nationalists are not like the stateless. The
illegals have a state, to which they are sometimes deported. The sub-
nationalists may not like the citizenship they hold, but they do have
passports, property rights that a judge will back up, etc. The
Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon, plus about
130,000 in Jordan, have bupkus).
NEMO
another insane, twisted, dwarf of a smelly arse muzzie/wog troll & he
really smells
bad---------------
dsharavi
> The Qatar satellite channel Aljazeera has gotten hold of some 1600
> documents from the Palestine Authority regarding negotiations with
> Israel, which cast the Israelis, the Americans and the Fatah faction
> of Palestinians in the worst possible light.
Does the sun set in the west?
>The leaked documents were
> shared exclusively with The Guardian newspaper.
And nobody else, of course, on or off this planet caught the alleged
'leak' from the ..... Qatar satellite???? Qatar and Eutelsat have
pushed forward the operational date of their satellite from 2013?
> The documents could well destroy the Palestine Liberation
> Organization, a coalition of parties that includes Fatah, which is led
> by Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Among the politicians
> who comes off the worst in these documents is Saeb Erekat.
rotflmao
coaster132000
> On Jan 25, 7:17 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The Qatar satellite channel Aljazeera has gotten hold of some 1600
> > documents from the Palestine Authority regarding negotiations with
> > Israel, which cast the Israelis, the Americans and the Fatah faction
> > of Palestinians in the worst possible light.
>
> Does the sun set in the west?
None of the parties has denied the authenticity of the documents and
the PA has specifically affirmed it.
> >The leaked documents were
> > shared exclusively with The Guardian newspaper.
>
> And nobody else, of course, on or off this planet caught the alleged
> 'leak' from the ..... Qatar satellite????
Would you regret it If you proved to be correct on that?
Qatar and Eutelsat have
> pushed forward the operational date of their satellite from 2013?
Is this simple declarative sentence really meant to be a question? And
what does an operational date for a satelite have to do with the
Palestine papers?
>
> > The documents could well destroy the Palestine Liberation
> > Organization, a coalition of parties that includes Fatah, which is led
> > by Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Among the politicians
> > who comes off the worst in these documents is Saeb Erekat.
>
> rotflmao
I agree with you here. Saeb Erekat doesn't seem to come off poorly at
all. Don't you just love his blunt talk with Senator Mitchell?
NEMO
to the desert!
last_per...@yahoo.com
> ..................carpet bomb the muzzie/wog bastards & chase them out
> to the desert!
I hear gasoline is good for head lice, WEENO.
hille...@yahoo.com
> None of the parties has denied the authenticity of the documents and
Most "parties" have enough sense to make a good effort to keep
their promises of secrecy.
> the PA has specifically affirmed it.
So the party that leaked the documents also affirmed them.
Can there be a connection between those two actions?
coaster132000
Frustrated, Hillel? All we can do is sit by and watch/read.
What do you think of the events in Egypt? Do you foresee an impact on
Israel's foreign policy?
coaster132000
By the way, here's what Livni said. You must have missed it:
The documents have frank admissions. Tzipi Livni said:
“Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be
impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day
after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that is
impossible,
we already have the land and we cannot create the state”. She
conceded
that it had been “the policy of the government for a really long
time”.
Livni has been a senior government official and is the leader of
Israel's major opposition party. Accordingly we can trust what she
said here, no?
hille...@yahoo.com
> > Can there be a connection between those two actions?
On Jan 28, 2:23 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Frustrated, Hillel? All we can do is sit by and watch/read.
Peace had a chance about 20 years ago, Arafat blew it,
and now everybody had to deal with the simple fact of
"no peace any time soon".
> What do you think of the events in Egypt?
If Mubarak will show any weakness then Obama will
sell him faster than Carter sold the Shah of Iran.
Mubarak understands that pretty well.
> Do you foresee an impact on Israel's foreign policy?
After the revolution Egypt will be as anti-Israeli as
Iran and some more. The only question is how much
support Obama will give to a war against Israel.
hille...@yahoo.com
> By the way, here's what Livni said. You must have missed it:
Livni did not say much about the leaks.
With her background, she understands secrecy very well.
All she said is that she had passed the new government
*all* the materials with no exceptions or reservations.
She had plenty of harsh criticism of Netanyahu for not
continuing her negotiations, but that's about it.
> The documents have frank admissions. Tzipi Livni said:
> “Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be
> impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day
> after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that is
> impossible,
> we already have the land and we cannot create the state”.
You *assume* that Livni said that and you don't have a
heavily edited version.
> Livni has been a senior government official and is the leader of
> Israel's major opposition party. Accordingly we can trust what she
> said here, no?
No.
Livni is a skilled and tough negotiator.
Even if she thinks the above, she will no be so quick
to say things which undermine her position.
coaster132000
> > > So the party that leaked the documents also affirmed them.
> > > Can there be a connection between those two actions?
>
> On Jan 28, 2:23 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Frustrated, Hillel? All we can do is sit by and watch/read.
>
> Peace had a chance about 20 years ago, Arafat blew it,
> and now everybody had to deal with the simple fact of
> "no peace any time soon".
Amazing. You blame a man long dead for Israel's refusal to work
seriously on pace now. How do you avoid that being seen as an
admission that Israel hasn't been serious since it began the
settlement program in 1967? Her actions speak louder than your
hasbara.
>
> > What do you think of the events in Egypt?
>
> If Mubarak will show any weakness then Obama will
> sell him faster than Carter sold the Shah of Iran.
> Mubarak understands that pretty well.
Good. Start applying that rule to Israel because things are changing
for you too.
> > Do you foresee an impact on Israel's foreign policy?
>
> After the revolution Egypt will be as anti-Israeli as
> Iran and some more.
Not if it emerges as a democracy. The Egyptian people have lots of
problems which have higher priority than first-off picking a self-
defeating fight with Israel. Can you see El Baradai attacking Israel.
You live in a dream world.
The only question is how much
> support Obama will give to a war against Israel.
Sounds like you ought to settle with the Palestinians. Think of it
another way: the American response will be governed by how badly the
American interest requires changes in regime and policy in Israel. You
will have the keys to your future in your own pocket. You need to
remember that we are a global power with global responsibilities and
she has become an intergalactic pain in the ass.
coaster132000
> On Jan 28, 2:29 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > By the way, here's what Livni said. You must have missed it:
>
> Livni did not say much about the leaks.
> With her background, she understands secrecy very well.
> All she said is that she had passed the new government
> *all* the materials with no exceptions or reservations.
> She had plenty of harsh criticism of Netanyahu for not
> continuing her negotiations, but that's about it.
>
> > The documents have frank admissions. Tzipi Livni said:
> > “Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be
> > impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day
> > after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that is
> > impossible,
> > we already have the land and we cannot create the state”.
>
> You *assume* that Livni said that and you don't have a
> heavily edited version.
That has to be the presumption, the rebuttable presumption. It stands
until it's rebutted. Livni would have a stake in rebutting it if it
were false. Otherwise she adopts it. She has not rebutted it to my
knowledge. Can you help us with more information?
> > Livni has been a senior government official and is the leader of
> > Israel's major opposition party. Accordingly we can trust what she
> > said here, no?
>
> No.
> Livni is a skilled and tough negotiator.
> Even if she thinks the above, she will no be so quick
> to say things which undermine her position.
But apparently she has said them in confidence and her position has
been the two state solution, thank God. Her statement by no means
undermines that. Quite the opposite! She supports it by telling the
truth about what Israel's de facto policy has been, one of consistent
aggression. You shouldn't tell us that Israelis would be offended by
the truth, the truth which they all know anyway. That's something you
should definitely be silent about.
You're not in a good mood, Hillel. As you're an intransigent Zionist
expansionist, that's a good sign. It suggests that you fear that
compromise and a settlement will be brought closer by events in Egypt,
more specifically by the advent of Egyptian democracy.
Remember, YOU should be greeting the democratization of Egypt with
joy! What's good for Iraq and Afghanistan under neoconservative
doctrine is good for Egypt too!
dsharavi
>
> > On Jan 25, 7:17 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Qatar satellite channel Aljazeera has gotten hold of some 1600
> > > documents from the Palestine Authority regarding negotiations with
> > > Israel, which cast the Israelis, the Americans and the Fatah faction
> > > of Palestinians in the worst possible light.
>
> > Does the sun set in the west?
>
> None of the parties has denied the authenticity of the documents and
> the PA has specifically affirmed it.
>
> > >The leaked documents were
> > > shared exclusively with The Guardian newspaper.
>
> > And nobody else, of course, on or off this planet caught the alleged
> > 'leak' from the ..... Qatar satellite????
>
> Would you regret it If you proved to be correct on that?
>
> Qatar and Eutelsat have
>
> > pushed forward the operational date of their satellite from 2013?
>
> Is this simple declarative sentence really meant to be a question?
Does the pope wear a yarmulke?
Deborah
dsharavi
> On Jan 28, 4:53 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > So the party that leaked the documents also affirmed them.
> > > > Can there be a connection between those two actions?
>
> > On Jan 28, 2:23 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Frustrated, Hillel? All we can do is sit by and watch/read.
>
> > Peace had a chance about 20 years ago, Arafat blew it,
> > and now everybody had to deal with the simple fact of
> > "no peace any time soon".
>
> Amazing. You blame a man long dead for Israel's refusal to work
> seriously on pace now.
Since when has six years is "long dead"?
Deborah
hille...@yahoo.com
> > Peace had a chance about 20 years ago, Arafat blew it,
> > and now everybody had to deal with the simple fact of
> > "no peace any time soon".
> Amazing. You blame a man long dead for Israel's refusal to work
Some day you will learn that if one stupid man drops a coin
into a deep well, 100 smart people will not get it out.
What the Israelis really want is "end of conflict". They don't really
care where the border will be *IF* there will be peace and security
on the Israeli side of it.
The Peres-Rabin idea was to have a peaceful period for 10 years
and then they would be able to convince the Israeli public to give
plenty for "end of conflict". Arafat's role in that was to prevent
terror. Arafat decided, IMO wrongly, that he would be able to
get more by letting Hamas to kill Israelis. So the Israeli concept
now is that an agreement with "moderate" Arabs will result in
those very Arabs letting the "extreme" kill Israelis. That the only
really peaceful border of Israeli is with Syria because Syria is
afraid of the Israeli army.
In this situation there is no way to get Israeli public support for
letting the Arabs have the ability to target with short range
rockets the Israeli population centers. Livni thinks that
she can get back to the Oslo way. She is wrong.
> seriously on pace now. How do you avoid that being seen as an
> admission that Israel hasn't been serious since it began the
> settlement program in 1967?
Eshkol made an offer immediately after the war of total
withdrawal for total peace. It was rejected. The response
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit
The 1967 Arab League summit was held on August 29 in Khartoum as the
fourth Arab League Summit. The summit came in the aftermath of the
Arab defeat to Israel in the Six-Day War and is famous for its
Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel,
no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. The summit also
resolved that the "oil-rich Arab states" give financial aid to the
states who lost the war and to "help them rebuild their military
forces." The final communique of the meeting "underscored the
Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to
destroy the State of Israel." The outcome of this summit influenced
Israeli foreign policy for decades.
########################################
The Israeli assumption was "no peace any time soon".
The settlements came because of that.
> Her actions speak louder than your hasbara.
Had the 1967 Arab League summit actually happened,
or is it just a trick of hasbara?
What do you think?
> > If Mubarak will show any weakness then Obama will
> > sell him faster than Carter sold the Shah of Iran.
> > Mubarak understands that pretty well.
> Good. Start applying that rule to Israel because things are changing
> for you too.
France sold Israel in 1967, two days *before* the 6-Days-War.
France had plenty of excuses for that. General de Gaulle had a great
explanation - "le peuple juif, sûr de lui meme et dominateur"
("the Jewish people, self-confident and domineering").
Israel managed to find another superpower, France did not find another
client state. The best it could do is sell Iraq $120,000,000,000 worth
of weapons, on credit. To be paid when Saddam will rise from the dead.
IMO Israel will be better off with Russian support, like in 1948. But
the
right way to get there is like with France in 1967 - let Obama cut the
relationship first.
> > After the revolution Egypt will be as anti-Israeli as
> > Iran and some more.
> Not if it emerges as a democracy.
Wanna bet?
> The Egyptian people have lots of
> problems which have higher priority than first-off picking a self-
> defeating fight with Israel.
The same was true in 1948, 1956 and 1967.
Actually, in the beginning of 1948 the Jewish Shai
estimated that Egypt will not invade. The rational
was simple - Israel would be a high risk, low gain place.
High risk because the Jews showed some ability to
fight, low gain because it was a small territory with
little natural resources. Ben-Gurion ignored that.
The king of Egypt ignored that too and in 1952 he
paid for his 1948 stupidity. The next "king" of Egypt
will be as stupid.
> Can you see El Baradai attacking Israel.
> You live in a dream world.
Can you see El Baradai as the ruler of Egypt?!
You live in a dream world.
> > The only question is how much
> > support Obama will give to a war against Israel.
> Sounds like you ought to settle with the Palestinians.
The Palestinians are just a proxy.
The agreements should be with those who support them.
> Think of it
> another way: the American response will be governed by how badly the
> American interest requires changes in regime and policy in Israel.
We saw that in 1948 with the US arms embargo on Israel.
In 10 years the US/UK lost Egypt, lost British control of the
Arab Legion. Lost Syria. Lost Iraq. And still you learned nothing.
The Israeli summary to the Baghdad Pact is pretty simple:
"בגדד בגדה, עירק ערקה"
(Baghdad betrayed, Iraq deserted.)
*We* learn.
> You
> will have the keys to your future in your own pocket. You need to
> remember that we are a global power with global responsibilities and
> she has become an intergalactic pain in the ass.
France had that attitude with dreams about being a superpower.
I am sure that Obama would love to follow France, I am just not
sure that Obama will be the president in 2013.
hille...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 28, 5:03 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > You *assume* that Livni said that and you don't have a
> > heavily edited version.
> That has to be the presumption, the rebuttable presumption.
> It stands until it's rebutted.
I assume that you are a child molester and it will
stand until it's rebutted.
See, two can play your game.
> Livni would have a stake in rebutting it if it
> were false. Otherwise she adopts it. She has not rebutted it to my
> knowledge. Can you help us with more information?
Some day, when you will learn to play poker, you
will learn what to do with a good hand. You give
people the impression that you have a weak hand
and you bluff, and let them bet, a lot, based of that.
Livni is in no hurry to show her cards.
And I don't blame her for that.
> > No.
> > Livni is a skilled and tough negotiator.
> > Even if she thinks the above, she will no be so quick
> > to say things which undermine her position.
> But apparently she has said them in confidence
Do you really assume that somebody who had worked
for the Mossad trusts Arabs to keep secrets?!
Even *you* can't be that stupid.
> You're not in a good mood, Hillel.
True.
I am afraid of another war with Egypt.
> Remember, YOU should be greeting the democratization of Egypt with
> joy! What's good for Iraq and Afghanistan under neoconservative
> doctrine is good for Egypt too!
Israelis experts had been very worried about "democracy for Iraq".
The danger they saw was, in the "best case", a country with
modern US-built army, a day drive from Israel. Binyamin Ben-
Eliezer, the Israeli defense minister in 2001 understood Iraq
*MUCH* better than any "expert" in Washington.
coaster132000
> On Jan 30, 2:47 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 5:03 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > You *assume* that Livni said that and you don't have a
> > > heavily edited version.
> > That has to be the presumption, the rebuttable presumption.
> > It stands until it's rebutted.
>
> I assume that you are a child molester and it will
> stand until it's rebutted.
> See, two can play your game.
The Palestine Papers appear to be copies of actual government
documents. Their authenticity has been admitted by the Palestinian
Authority. As such they have some credibility. How much is up to the
reader, but if you're in the business of undermining that credibility
you have no choice but somehow to rebut their authenticity or
accuracy. Your problem is that you attempt to do it with racist smears
about Arabs being dishonest. They carry no weight among civilized
people.
> > Livni would have a stake in rebutting it if it
> > were false. Otherwise she adopts it. She has not rebutted it to my
> > knowledge. Can you help us with more information?
>
> Some day, when you will learn to play poker, you
> will learn what to do with a good hand. You give
> people the impression that you have a weak hand
> and you bluff, and let them bet, a lot, based of that.
What's weak-handed about Livni's statement? It has the great strength
of being true. As Israeli hasbara goes that's what's unusual about it.
How's she going to move forward with her agenda, the Prime
Ministership and the two state solution, if she can't tell the truth
about what's been going on? That's what's going to make her candidacy
magnetic. I'm hoping this is just the beginning. She could have the
opportunity to be be the greatest PM in Israeli history just by
leveling with the Israeli people in a systematic effort to change
course.
> Livni is in no hurry to show her cards.
> And I don't blame her for that.
But she has already begun to do that. Only the truth about actual
options will set the Israeli people free. You're far too cynical and
appreciative of political scams.
> > > No.
> > > Livni is a skilled and tough negotiator.
> > > Even if she thinks the above, she will no be so quick
> > > to say things which undermine her position.
> > But apparently she has said them in confidence.
> Do you really assume that somebody who had worked
> for the Mossad trusts Arabs to keep secrets?!
> Even *you* can't be that stupid.
Palestinian Arabs and Israelis are cousins. Governments keep secrets
when it's in their country's interests to do so. Israel's bad faith in
the negotiations is on display in those papers. Can you really expect
the Palestinians to keep *that* a secret? If so, it's profoundly naive
on your part. It was done to pressure Israel and the US.
> > You're not in a good mood, Hillel.
>
> True.
> I am afraid of another war with Egypt.
Why should they attack Israel? Their army wouldn't get fifty miles
beyond the canal.
> > Remember, YOU should be greeting the democratization of Egypt with
> > joy! What's good for Iraq and Afghanistan under neoconservative
> > doctrine is good for Egypt too!
>
> Israelis experts had been very worried about "democracy for Iraq".
How strange. One would have thought that Israel's experts on Iraq
would have been consulted by Prime Minister Sharon before he decided
to support that very democratization effort by sending Doug Feith all
that stovepiped fake "intelligence"---and by whipping the Lobby up
into a frenzy for war.
> The danger they saw was, in the "best case", a country with
> modern US-built army, a day drive from Israel. Binyamin Ben-
> Eliezer, the Israeli defense minister in 2001 understood Iraq
> *MUCH* better than any "expert" in Washington.
In the first place you Zionists CHOSE the Middle East for your utopian
experiment. You assumed the long term risks of pissing-off the locals
by overrunning part of their region and periodically shooting-up much
of the rest. If there is any fault for the insecurity you feel, it's
your own. You obviously underestimated the resilience and staying
power of your target community. If you're going to succeed you're
going to have get over this attitude that you can attain comprehensive
security *militarily*, especially in that neighborhood. No country is
comprehensively secure. You don't need it either. Take your own one
day drive scenario. It would have been nearly impossible for Iraqi
armored columns to reach Israel. It's desert. There is no cover, no
place to hide and no defense against one of the world's most potent
air forces, one which has had a lot of experience with air-ground
assault ever since the sixties. This renders the real danger of your
scenario de minimus. It would even render such an attack to your
advantage regarding the balance of military power. And guess what, the
US stepped in to do it for you. Wasn't that lovely? What shmucks, eh?
And so now, instead of Iraq you're wringing your hands about Egypt.
Yet the same reality is found there in Sinai.
As to experts, we have the world's finest university system by far and
the most comprehensive and well funded intelligence community. The
government has access to the appropriate scholars even if they're not
"in Washington". But can you imagine "W" displaying the requisite
curiosity? Or Cheney and Rumsfeld for that matter? They wanted to
attack Iraq before 9/11 for other reasons. They were happy to fill
senior government positions with neoconservative Zionists who saw our
belligerence as good for Israel.
You remember the yellow cake scam. That was Israeli. There were other
wmd deceits designed to facilitate lying us into Iraq. And the Lobby
was in full cry. Had you forgotten that American Jewish
neoconservatives IN GOVERNMENT were tied closely to the Likud? Having
the US pulverize Iraq in the name of democracy was right up Sharon's
alley, except that I doubt he ever gave a damn about the democracy
part.
coaster132000
> If Mubarak will show any weakness then Obama will
> sell him faster than Carter sold the Shah of Iran.
> Mubarak understands that pretty well.
Why don't you enter the lists against continuance of the "special"
American relationship with Israel. You hate the inhibitions you see us
as imposing. And I hate the corruption of American politics by the
Lobby. We'd be on parallel tracks, no?
coaster132000
> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 4:53 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Peace had a chance about 20 years ago, Arafat blew it,
> > > and now everybody had to deal with the simple fact of
> > > "no peace any time soon".
> > Amazing. You blame a man long dead for Israel's refusal to work on peace.
>
> Some day you will learn that if one stupid man drops a coin
> into a deep well, 100 smart people will not get it out.
Oh so Biblical. The problem is that it's obstructionist blather.
Israel CAN make peace. But she WANTS the West Bank very badly and we
have not yet made the disincentives to that behavior powerful enough.
The reason is the Israel Lobby and the abusive nature of its politics,
but that era is fast disappearing.
>
> What the Israelis really want is "end of conflict". They don't really
> care where the border will be *IF* there will be peace and security
> on the Israeli side of it.
That's not credible. Why? Because what they have sought since 1967 is
a Pax Israeliana imposed by force without having to give up the West
Bank. The settlement program flatly contradicts your fluff about their
not caring where the border is. The Israelis want the West Bank so
badly that they will "fight" for it to the last American. So long as
their conquest of the American Congress continues and we stand by to
defend them irrespective of their behavior they have no incentive to
adopt a civilized policy which can lead to peace. Who's paying the
price for this contumacious behavior? The American people of course.
> The Peres-Rabin idea was to have a peaceful period for 10 years
> and then they would be able to convince the Israeli public to give
> plenty for "end of conflict". Arafat's role in that was to prevent
> terror. Arafat decided, IMO wrongly, that he would be able to
> get more by letting Hamas to kill Israelis. So the Israeli concept
> now is that an agreement with "moderate" Arabs will result in
> those very Arabs letting the "extreme" kill Israelis. That the only
> really peaceful border of Israeli is with Syria because Syria is
> afraid of the Israeli army.
The Israeli concept is to impose a victor's peace, an imperial peace,
and to take most or all of the West Bank and its resources by brute
force. Why? Because they can and their ideology serves to justify it.
Why can they? Because their Lobby has conquered America's Congress and
we protect them from the consequences of their folly at our sole
expense.
> In this situation there is no way to get Israeli public support for
> letting the Arabs have the ability to target with short range
> rockets the Israeli population centers. Livni thinks that
> she can get back to the Oslo way. She is wrong.
You must live with your enemies having various "abilities". The
Israeli public will choose the best of new alternatives. The US can
not base its policies on your presumption that peace is impossible
because Arabs are insane, implacable fanatics. Even you aren't serious
about it. You are a propagandist for the Zionist Israeli right wing.
> > seriously on pace now. How do you avoid that being seen as an
> > admission that Israel hasn't been serious since it began the
> > settlement program in 1967?
>
> Eshkol made an offer immediately after the war of total
> withdrawal for total peace. It was rejected. The responsehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit
> The 1967 Arab League summit was held on August 29 in Khartoum as the
> fourth Arab League Summit. The summit came in the aftermath of the
> Arab defeat to Israel in the Six-Day War and is famous for its
> Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel,
> no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. The summit also
> resolved that the "oil-rich Arab states" give financial aid to the
> states who lost the war and to "help them rebuild their military
> forces." The final communique of the meeting "underscored the
> Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to
> destroy the State of Israel." The outcome of this summit influenced
> Israeli foreign policy for decades.
What justifies the policy of 44 years ago in 2011? After all, the
"Nos" have been withdrawn long since. They are inoperative and have
been replaced by a comprehensive Arab peace plan which makes sense
from at least the point of view of the American national interest. The
Arabs have faced reality. When will the Israelis do so? How long do
you think you can accept our patronage without respecting our
interests? Does Israel's entire imperial enterprise rest on nothing
more than being able to intimidate our Congress forever? Face it,
Hillel. Israel does not have the option to keep America in constant
conflict with the Muslim World. She demands far too much of us.
> ########################################
>
> The Israeli assumption was "no peace any time soon".
> The settlements came because of that.
The aggression was based on looking into a crystal ball rather than
"wanting" the West Bank? No one believes that. No one.
> > Her actions speak louder than your hasbara.
>
> Had the 1967 Arab League summit actually happened,
> or is it just a trick of hasbara?
> What do you think?
I'm the realist. Of course there was a 1967 Arab League Summit. The
trick of hasbara is the assertion that THEREFORE PEACE IS IMPOSSIBLE
IN 2011. You don't want peace, Hillel, until facts on the ground suit
your ambitions for a Greater Israel. When you think that's a fete
accompli you will cry out for it piteously while refusing to disgorge
the West Bank. Do you actually believe that this scam is invisible?
> > > If Mubarak will show any weakness then Obama will
> > > sell him faster than Carter sold the Shah of Iran.
> > > Mubarak understands that pretty well.
> > Good. Start applying that rule to Israel because things are changing
> > for you too.
>
> France sold Israel in 1967, two days *before* the 6-Days-War.
> France had plenty of excuses for that. General de Gaulle had a great
> explanation - "le peuple juif, sûr de lui meme et dominateur"
> ("the Jewish people, self-confident and domineering").
HW's version: "The Israeli leadership, ideological, opportunistic and
oppressive."
> Israel managed to find another superpower,
Would that it had lasted.
France did not find another
> client state.
Because it was not in her interest to buy into that.
The best it could do is sell Iraq $120,000,000,000 worth
> of weapons, on credit. To be paid when Saddam will rise from the dead.
Must Israel be always at the center of the universe? Are there not
interests in the Middle East which transcend hers?
> IMO Israel will be better off with Russian support, like in 1948.
What a spectacle you provide: Israel in a constant search for
relationships which cast her as the charitable beneficiay but conflict
with the concept of independence.
But
> the
> right way to get there is like with France in 1967 - let Obama cut the
> relationship first.
You whine. The US has no intention of cutting the relationship, only
of changing its nature.
> > > After the revolution Egypt will be as anti-Israeli as
> > > Iran and some more.
> > Not if it emerges as a democracy.
>
> Wanna bet?
Go to Professor Rudolph Rummel's website.
> > The Egyptian people have lots of
> > problems which have higher priority than first-off picking a self-
> > defeating fight with Israel.
>
> The same was true in 1948, 1956 and 1967.
> Actually, in the beginning of 1948 the Jewish Shai
> estimated that Egypt will not invade. The rational
> was simple - Israel would be a high risk, low gain place.
> High risk because the Jews showed some ability to
> fight, low gain because it was a small territory with
> little natural resources. Ben-Gurion ignored that.
> The king of Egypt ignored that too and in 1952 he
> paid for his 1948 stupidity. The next "king" of Egypt
> will be as stupid.
You are far too chauvanist and racist to judge these things on their
merits historically. In 1948 it was very unlikely that Egypt and the
other Arab countries would have invaded Palestine were it not for the
ethnic cleansing by Jews going on there. They were trying to put a
stop to that because their countries were already overflowing with
Palestinian refugees, hundreds of thousands of them even before
Israeli Independence in 1948. In 1967 the Israelis knew Egypt had no
intention to attack Israel. Their assessment matched ours. They used
a fake prediction of an attack as a justification for a war of choice.
Look at the results. The entirety of Mandate Palestine plus the Golan
fell into her hands according to her ideological goals. All that
remained was to finish the ethnic cleansing of 1948.
> > Can you see El Baradai attacking Israel.
> > You live in a dream world.
>
> Can you see El Baradai as the ruler of Egypt?!
> You live in a dream world.
He's perfect for that role. He's no young Turk, no fanatic. He's well
known and highly respected in the West. He's very accomplished with
lots of international experience. He's essentially secular. The Army
is going to be very influential in Egypt's future. It will probably
choose Mubarak's successor behind the scenes. If it chooses him it
will be a good sign that Egypt may be traveling down the institutional
path of Turkey rather than Iran. So yes, there are many excellent
reasons for the choice of El Baradai. You shouldn't be of the default
opinion that Egyptians are Arabs and therefore insane and can not
follow their own interests. Do you realize that that's your leit motif
regarding Muslims in general?
>
> > > The only question is how much
> > > support Obama will give to a war against Israel.
Why do you live in the United States given your hatred for us? Why
have you taken out dual citizenship given that contempt for us?
> > Sounds like you ought to settle with the Palestinians.
>
> The Palestinians are just a proxy.
> The agreements should be with those who support them.
They will be, of course. All the relevant powers will sign-off. Why
do you insist on presuming the worst in each and every scenerio?
Supporting a paranoid nation is very expensive. You owe it to us to
make it as inexpensive as reasonably possible.
>
> > Think of it
> > another way: the American response will be governed by how badly the
> > American interest requires changes in regime and policy in Israel.
>
> We saw that in 1948 with the US arms embargo on Israel.
That was a response to the Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestine, a
response to a great crime against humanity. Is there something about
Israel or Jews which makes you believe that they should not be
sanctioned for crimes they commit? Look at their role in the
sanctioning of Iran in the present era. Your arguments all partake of
special pleading and exceptionalism.
> In 10 years the US/UK lost Egypt, lost British control of the
> Arab Legion. Lost Syria. Lost Iraq. And still you learned nothing.
We "lost" nothing. It was an era of a conscious policy of
decolonialization. It was our policy throughout WW II and thereafter.
It was set by FDR.
> The Israeli summary to the Baghdad Pact is pretty simple:
> "בגדד בגדה, עירק ערקה"
> (Baghdad betrayed, Iraq deserted.)
> *We* learn.
You study the wrong things. You may learn, but to what end?
>
> > You
> > will have the keys to your future in your own pocket. You need to
> > remember that we are a global power with global responsibilities and
> > she has become an intergalactic pain in the ass.
>
> France had that attitude with dreams about being a superpower.
There have been no dreams in France of her becoming a super power
since 1815. She is a garden variety "great power," a term which in
itself exaggerates reality.
> I am sure that Obama would love to follow France, I am just not
> sure that Obama will be the president in 2013.
Nonsense on both counts. You dread Obama winning re-election. He will
be a lame duck, far more free to follow our own interests. Every new
settlement going up makes it worse for you. The reckoning with us will
come sooner or later. Adjusting to reality will be more and more
difficult for Israel as time goes on. By far the greater uncertainties
for her arise from her intransigence, not from a two state solution.
coaster132000
Reports: Mubarak to skip bid for re-election after hearing Obama
message
Embattled Egyptian president expected to speak after protests escalate
Below:
ElBaradei: 'Without democracy, there is no life'
Khalil Hamra / AP
CAIRO — As Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak prepared to deliver a
message to his nation after at least 1 million people rallied across
the country for him to step down, U.S. reports emerged that President
Barack Obama urged him not to seek re-election.
Al Arabiya television said late Tuesday that Mubarak would announce he
won't run in elections scheduled in September. There was no official
confirmation. Al Arabiya also said Vice President Omar Suleiman had
started meetings with representatives of parties.
Sources told NBC News that Mubarak would offer "a good solution."
The New York Times reported that former U.S. ambassador to Egypt Frank
Wisner delivered Obama's message. The Times said Wisner told Mubarak
that Obama was not sending a blunt demand to step aside now, but
offering firm counsel that he should make way for a reform process
that would culminate in free and fair elections in September for a new
Egyptian leader.
The back channel message, authorized directly by Obama, appeared to
tip the administration beyond the delicate balancing act it has
performed in the last week — resisting calls for Mubarak to step down
even as it has called for an “orderly transition” to a more
politically open Egypt, the Times said.
News of the message came as Cairo's Tahrir, or Liberation, Square was
jammed with at least a quarter-million people, ranging from lawyers
and doctors to students and jobless poor, the crowd spilling into
surrounding streets. Crowd estimates varied widely. Many defied a
government transportation shutdown to make their way from rural
provinces.
Crowds also demonstrated in Alexandria, Suez and in the Nile Delta in
the eighth and biggest day of protests against Mubarak by people fed
up with years of repression, corruption and economic hardship.
"He goes, we are not going," chanted a determined but peaceful crowd
of men, women and children as a military helicopter hovered over the
sea of people in the square, many waving Egyptian flags and banners.
They sang nationalist songs, danced, beat drums and chanted the anti-
Mubarak slogan "Leave! Leave! Leave!" Organizers said the aim was to
intensify marches to get the president out of power by Friday.
A stream of protesters arrived in Tahrir, or Liberation, Square at
checkpoints guarded by protesters and the army, which promised Monday
night that it would not fire on protesters.
Story: Jordan's king fires government, West Bank to hold local vote
Protesters, who kept vigil in the square through the night in defiance
of a curfew, vowed to continue their campaign until the 82-year-old
Mubarak quits.
The United Nations human rights chief, Navi Pillay, said Tuesday that
up to 300 people may have been killed in the unrest, with more than
3,000 injured so far.
Meanwhile, two Egyptian policemen accused of torturing to death an
anti-corruption activist who became a cause celebre escaped from a
prison in Alexandria, security and legal sources said. One of the
driving forces behind the protests was a Facebook group set up by
activists enraged at Khaled Said's death.
'New Egyptians'
Opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei said Tuesday that Mubarak must
leave the country before any dialogue can start between the opposition
and the government.
Story: U.S. scrambles to size up ElBaradei
"There can be dialogue but it has to come after the demands of the
people are met and the first of those is that President Mubarak
leaves," he told Al Arabiya television, saying the dialogue would
involve transitional power arrangements and dissolving parliament.
Speaking to NBC News' Brian Williams, ElBaradei added that the
protests had created a generation of "new Egyptians."
"They have confidence, they have hope, they have dignity," he added.
"They feel that they have been reborn from being slaves into human
beings."
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley tweeted, "As part of our
public outreach to convey support for orderly transition in #Egypt,
Ambassador [Margaret] Scobey spoke today with Mohammed #ElBaradei."
Video: ElBaradei excited for future of ‘New Egyptians’
One of the country's oldest political parties said in a statement
Tuesday that opposition groups had agreed to form "a national front,"
Al-Jazeera reported. The Wafd Party said Mubarak "has lost
legitimacy," according to the report, which added that the Muslim
Brotherhood Islamist group also said it wouldn't deal with the
embattled president.
Protesters in the streets echoed those sentiments.
"The only thing we will accept from him is that he gets on a plane and
leaves," said 45-year-old lawyer Ahmed Helmi.
It was unclear with whom Suleiman, the vice president, was
negotiating.
Khaled Bassyouny, a 30-year-old Internet entrepreneur, said it was
time to escalate the marches. "It has to burn," he said. "It has to
become ugly. We have to take it to the presidential palace."
NBC News reported that two military surplus stores in Cairo had been
looted. Mubarak's home had been barricaded with concrete blocks and
razor wire, a military official added.
Human Rights Watch said some looters were in fact undercover policemen
who supported Mubarak, looking to fuel fears of instability and thus
popular approval of autocratic rule, The Washington Post reported.
Some hospitals said they received several injured looters who were
carrying police identification cards, Peter Bouckaert, emergency
director at Human Rights Watch, told the Post.
'Murderous president'
Two stuffed dummies representing Mubarak were hung from traffic lights
at Cairo's Tahrir Square. On their chests was written: "We want to put
the murderous president on trial."
The faces of the dummies were covered with the Star of David, an
allusion to many protesters' accusation that Mubarak is a friend of
Israel, which continues to be seen by most Egyptians as their
country's archenemy more than 30 years after the two nations signed a
peace treaty.
Get updates
But Al-Jazeera's Dan Nolan said in a later post that the situation in
the square seemed largely peaceful, saying it "feels kinda like an
Egyptian version of Woodstock."
Mubarak would be the second Arab leader pushed from office by a
popular uprising in the history of the modern Middle East.
The loosely organized and disparate movement to drive him out is
fueled by deep frustration with an autocratic regime blamed for
ignoring the needs of the poor and allowing corruption and official
abuse to run rampant.
After years of tight state control, protesters emboldened by the
overthrow of Tunisia's president last month took to the streets on
Jan. 25 and mounted a relentless and once unimaginable series of
protests across this nation of 80 million people — the region's most
populous country and the center of Arabic-language film-making, music
and literature.
Soviet-era and newer U.S.-made Abrams tanks stood at the roads leading
into Tahrir Square, a plaza overlooked by the headquarters of the Arab
League, the campus of the American University in Cairo, the famed
Egyptian Museum and the Mugammma, an enormous winged building housing
dozens of departments of the country's notoriously corrupt and
inefficient bureaucracy.
More world news
Reports: Mubarak to say he won't seek re-election
Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is expected to say Tuesday he will not
seek re-election, a course President Barack Obama urged him to follow,
according to media reports.
Full story
NYT: U.S. scrambles to size up ElBaradei
Jordan's king fires government in wake of protests
Egypt debt rating downgraded by S&P
NBC's Richard Engel answers questions about Egypt
For days, army tanks and troops have surrounded the square, keeping
the protests confined but doing nothing to stop people from joining.
The guns of many of the tanks pointed out from the square.
All roads in and out of the flashpoint cities of Alexandria, Suez,
Mansoura and Fayoum were also closed, security officials said.
They said thousands of protesters gathered in Alexandria, Suez, the
southern province of Assiut, the city of Mansoura north of Cairo, and
Luxor, the southern city where some 5,000 people protested outside its
iconic Ancient Egyptian temple on the east bank of the Nile.
'The succession is already under way'
Meanwhile, foreigners continued to leave the country, though at least
4,500 were still stranded at Cairo's airport, NBC News reported. One
airport official said 18 charter flights carrying 1,500 passengers
left early Tuesday, with the U.S. organizing nine flights out.
Confirmed: Mubarak to speak tonight Full story
Government says antiquities are safe
U.S. reaches out to ElBaradei
ElBaradei: 'Mood could turn decidedly sour'
New images from Cairo
Also, the State Department announced that all non-essential embassy
personnel were leaving the country.
Saudi Arabia has evacuated 14,000 of its citizens, Antara News
reported.
Political analysts predicted it was not a matter of whether Mubarak
would step down, but when and how.
"The succession is already under way," said Steven Cook at the Council
on Foreign Relations. "The important thing now is to manage Mubarak's
exit, which must be as graceful as possible at this point. For honor's
sake, the brass won't have it any other way."
The military, which has run Egypt since it toppled the monarchy in
1952, will be the key player in deciding who replaces him and some
expect it to retain significant power while introducing enough reforms
to defuse the protests.
Video: Egypt army avoiding ‘Tiananmen’ moment (on this page)
The military pledged not to fire on protesters in a sign that army
support for Mubarak may be unraveling.
Military spokesman Ismail Etman said the military "has not and will
not use force against the public" and underlined that "the freedom of
peaceful expression is guaranteed for everyone."
He added the caveats, however, that protesters should not commit "any
act that destabilizes security of the country" or damage property.
NBC News, msnbc.com staff, Reuters and The Associated Press
contributed to this report.
hille...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 31, 6:07 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I assume that you are a child molester and it will
> > stand until it's rebutted.
> > See, two can play your game.
> The Palestine Papers appear to be copies of actual government
> documents. Their authenticity has been admitted by the Palestinian
> Authority. As such they have some credibility.
Palestinians?
Credibility?
Are you serious?
Just a simple example from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin
"On April 13, Palestinian Information Minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo,
accused Israel killing 900 Palestinians in the camp and burying
them in mass graves."
And the actual number:
"53 dead (5 civilians and 48 militants according to the IDF;
27 militants and 22 civilians according to HRW)"
And in Jenin it was an easy to disprove claim.
Israel asked for the list of the dead (name, address, etc.)
and the Palestinians could find only 53 names. Still, the
Palestinians had no problem lying *for short term gains*.
> Your problem is that you attempt to do it with racist smears
> about Arabs being dishonest.
You will *NEVER* let the facts confuse you.
> They carry no weight among civilized people.
Is the knowledge of how to count to fifty three
a part of being "civilized"?
> > Some day, when you will learn to play poker, you
> > will learn what to do with a good hand. You give
> > people the impression that you have a weak hand
> > and you bluff, and let them bet, a lot, based of that.
> What's weak-handed about Livni's statement?
You assume that Livni gave statements supporting the
Arabs' claims. What will happen if after finishing the
wonderful building somebody will put it down, just
like with the number of dead in Jenin?
Should Israel put it down now, or wait till plenty of
idiots, like you, will accept the Arabs' claim as true?
Anyway, Israelis remember not very true claims.
E.g. in 1967 the Soviet intelligence claimed that
Israel concentrated forces to attack Syria. The
claim was so convincing that after a couple of
weeks even the Soviet intelligence started
believing in it.
> How's she going to move forward with her agenda, the Prime
> Ministership and the two state solution, if she can't tell the truth
> about what's been going on?
Livni is in the opposition. She has no right to make
negotiations in the name of Israel. She plays fair and
so she will let Netanyahu handle this one. He has all
the data and he was the right to negotiate in the
name of Israel.
> > Livni is in no hurry to show her cards.
> > And I don't blame her for that.
> But she has already begun to do that.
When she was a minister.
Now she is not a minister.
End of story.
> > Do you really assume that somebody who had worked
> > for the Mossad trusts Arabs to keep secrets?!
> > Even *you* can't be that stupid.
> Palestinian Arabs and Israelis are cousins. Governments keep
> secrets when it's in their country's interests to do so.
Governments leak when it is in their interest to do so.
If to pick an American example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_inciden
Four days after Powers disappeared, NASA issued a very detailed press
release noting that an aircraft had "gone missing" north of Turkey.
The press release speculated that the pilot might have fallen
unconscious while the autopilot was still engaged, even falsely
claiming that "the pilot reported over the emergency frequency that he
was experiencing oxygen difficulties." To bolster this, a U-2 plane
was quickly painted in NASA colors and shown to the media.
> Israel's bad faith in
> the negotiations is on display in those papers.
If the Palestinian had any good faith they would by now
present a plan that does not include Arabs'
"right of return".
> > True.
> > I am afraid of another war with Egypt.
> Why should they attack Israel? Their army wouldn't get fifty miles
> beyond the canal.
With Obama's support, Egypt can.
All they have to do is getting US support for advancing anti-aircraft
missiles into Sinai. Israel will have the choice of attacking them,
and getting from Obama an arms embargo, or let them advance.
> > Israelis experts had been very worried about "democracy for Iraq".
> How strange. One would have thought that Israel's experts on Iraq
> would have been consulted by Prime Minister Sharon
Bush told Sharon what he wanted to hear, and Sharon
decided to follow Bush's wishes.
But the Israeli press was worried about two possible outcomes:
1) Missiles on Israel, like in Gulf War I.
2) That the US will support a pro-US general who will build
a great army, like Iran in the time of the Shah.
> > The danger they saw was, in the "best case", a country with
> > modern US-built army, a day drive from Israel. Binyamin Ben-
> > Eliezer, the Israeli defense minister in 2001 understood Iraq
> > *MUCH* better than any "expert" in Washington.
> In the first place you Zionists CHOSE the Middle East
> for your utopian experiment.
Let's go over this claim.
The Jews were in Iraq for about 2,500 years.
The Talmud was written in what we call Iraq.
How could they know that 1,000 years *later*
the Arabs would show up?
The Jews in Iraq had the choice of staying there,
and having a massacre whenever the Arabs
felt unhappy for whatever reason, or escape
to Israel. 99% decided to leave Iraq, leaving
their property behind. You think that they made
a bad deal. I'll believe it when I'll see Iraqi
Jews moving back.
> You assumed the long term risks of pissing-off the locals
What you call "the local", AKA Arabs, came long after those
bad minorities that irritate them so much. (Jews, Assyrians,
Kurds, Kopts, Berbers, Blacks in South Sudan, etc.)
So far the Arabs have done pretty well using brute force.
We will see how much of their Empire will survive after
the West will stop supporting them and/or the oil
will dry up.
> No country is
> comprehensively secure. You don't need it either.
We will talk about that after the Mexican gangs will
decide to shoot rockets on the US or a new Pancho
Villa will decide to raid Arizona. Then you will
discover that what you find "acceptable" for Israel is
"unacceptable" for the US.
> Take your own one
> day drive scenario. It would have been nearly impossible for Iraqi
> armored columns to reach Israel. It's desert.
Iraqi divisions fought Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973.
You may assume that a 21'th century army will never
manage to advance as fast as a 20'th century army,
but I don't have to share your assumption.
> There is no cover, no
> place to hide and no defense against one of the world's most potent
> air forces, one which has had a lot of experience with air-ground
> assault ever since the sixties.
The Israeli air-force *FAILED* in 1973.
It got half of the defense budget and had just a marginal
influence on the war. You may assume that 21'th century
missiles will never manage to do the same. I don't.
> This renders the real danger of your
> scenario de minimus. It would even render such an attack to your
> advantage regarding the balance of military power. And guess what, the
> US stepped in to do it for you. Wasn't that lovely? What shmucks, eh?
In 1969 the US made a ceasefire for Israel, including a promise that
the status-qua with respect to missiles would be kept. A couple of
hours later the Egyptians moved the missiles forward and the US
prevented Israel from attacking the missiles before they had the
time to dig them in.
> And so now, instead of Iraq you're wringing your hands about Egypt.
> Yet the same reality is found there in Sinai.
Israel *knows* how much support Obama will give it if Egypt
will move missiles forward. Obama is as anti-Israeli as Nixon.
> As to experts, we have the world's finest university system by far and
> the most comprehensive and well funded intelligence community. The
> government has access to the appropriate scholars even if they're not
> "in Washington".
So what?
Once upon a time a US diplomat argued with Ben-Eliezer about
the Palestinian anti-Israeli propaganda. Ben-Eliezer set the
radio to the Palestinian station (he had it preset) and gave the
American
a simultaneous translation. That's knowledge that the US just
does not have. McNamara had plenty of experts who understood
Vietnamese, he just did not have the ability to listen to radio Hanoi,
in Vietnamese, on his way to work. This is the thing that makes
the difference and the US just can't have.
> Having the US pulverize Iraq in the name of democracy
What democracy?
The real name is
Operation
Iraq
Liberation.
hille...@yahoo.com
> > sell him faster than Carter sold the Shah of Iran.
> > Mubarak understands that pretty well.
On Jan 31, 9:27 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why don't you enter the lists against continuance of the "special"
> American relationship with Israel. You hate the inhibitions you see us
> as imposing. And I hate the corruption of American politics by the
> Lobby. We'd be on parallel tracks, no?
1) I want the US to move first, like France in 1967.
2) Why hurry? The US is in decline, but it is still
stronger than Russia, China or India. Why not wait
and see what the next superpower would be?
drahcir
"Hellenic". In addition to everything else, apparently you're also an
ingrate.
Hellenistic - of or relating to Greek history, language, and culture
from the death of Alexander the Great to the defeat of Cleopatra and
Mark Antony by Octavian in 31 bc . During this period Greek culture
flourished, spreading through the Mediterranean and into the Near East
and Asia and centering on Alexandria in Egypt and Pergamum in Turkey.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1254295#m_en_us1254295
Hellenic - adjective
Greek. Archaeology relating to or denoting Iron Age and Classical
Greek culture (between Helladic and Hellenistic).
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1254293#m_en_us1254293
hille...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 31, 5:50 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Some day you will learn that if one stupid man drops a coin
> > into a deep well, 100 smart people will not get it out.
> Oh so Biblical.
Thanks for the compliment.
> Israel CAN make peace.
So why did Oslo fail?
Why did not Arafat stop the suicide bombers in the 1990's?
Why did refuse Arafat Barak's offer in 2000?
Why did not Arafat give a counter-offer?
Explain the past *before* you try to predict the future.
> But she WANTS the West Bank very badly
Israel pulled out of Gaza, including land that had been
bought by Jews in 1930. The result is rockets on Israel.
We learned from our mistake, you can't learn.
> > What the Israelis really want is "end of conflict". They don't really
> > care where the border will be *IF* there will be peace and security
> > on the Israeli side of it.
> That's not credible. Why? Because what they have sought since 1967 is
> a Pax Israeliana imposed by force without having to give up the West
> Bank.
And Sadat came with a credible peace offer and got 90% of the
land taken in 1967.
Deal.
> > The Peres-Rabin idea was to have a peaceful period for 10 years
> > and then they would be able to convince the Israeli public to give
> > plenty for "end of conflict". Arafat's role in that was to prevent
> > terror. Arafat decided, IMO wrongly, that he would be able to
> > get more by letting Hamas to kill Israelis. So the Israeli concept
> > now is that an agreement with "moderate" Arabs will result in
> > those very Arabs letting the "extreme" kill Israelis. That the only
> > really peaceful border of Israeli is with Syria because Syria is
> > afraid of the Israeli army.
> The Israeli concept is to impose a victor's peace, an imperial peace,
Sadat got *most* of his demands, you know.
> > In this situation there is no way to get Israeli public support for
> > letting the Arabs have the ability to target with short range
> > rockets the Israeli population centers. Livni thinks that
> > she can get back to the Oslo way. She is wrong.
> You must live with your enemies having various "abilities".
> The Israeli public will choose the best of new alternatives.
Of course.
In the 1990's the Israeli public gave Labour a chance, in the
last election it gave Labour 13 seats out of 120. We *learn*.
> The US can
> not base its policies on your presumption that peace is impossible
> because Arabs are insane, implacable fanatics.
In 1956 the US supported a fanatic Egyptian leader.
It got in return anti-Western revolutions in other countries
and Egyptian army that saved a pro-Soviet regime in Yemen.
You think that the deal was great.
So?
> > Eshkol made an offer immediately after the war of total
> > withdrawal for total peace. It was rejected. The responsehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit
> > The 1967 Arab League summit was held on August 29 in Khartoum as the
> > fourth Arab League Summit. The summit came in the aftermath of the
> > Arab defeat to Israel in the Six-Day War and is famous for its
> > Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel,
> > no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. The summit also
> > resolved that the "oil-rich Arab states" give financial aid to the
> > states who lost the war and to "help them rebuild their military
> > forces." The final communique of the meeting "underscored the
> > Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to
> > destroy the State of Israel." The outcome of this summit influenced
> > Israeli foreign policy for decades.
> What justifies the policy of 44 years ago in 2011?
"No deal" means "no deal".
Have not you learned that in law school?
>After all, the
> "Nos" have been withdrawn long since. They are inoperative and have
> been replaced by a comprehensive Arab peace plan which makes sense
The Arab "peace" plan makes sense as a new way to get the
old goal. It includes a right of return for the Arabs into Israel.
> Arabs have faced reality.
Let's talk about the Saudis' "reality" after women in
Saudi Arabia will be allowed to drive. OK?
> Does Israel's entire imperial enterprise rest on nothing
> more than being able to intimidate our Congress forever?
I translated Moshe Feiglin's article a month ago.
You did not send any response.
> Face it,
> Hillel. Israel does not have the option to keep America in constant
> conflict with the Muslim World. She demands far too much of us.
So drop the deal and go back to your 1956 ways.
It was pretty good for Israel - it forced her to develop nukes,
and you like that situation too.
> > The Israeli assumption was "no peace any time soon".
> > The settlements came because of that.
> The aggression was based on looking into a crystal ball rather than
> "wanting" the West Bank? No one believes that. No one.
Sinai was settled too, you know.
> > Had the 1967 Arab League summit actually happened,
> > or is it just a trick of hasbara?
> > What do you think?
> I'm the realist.
Thanks for laugh.
> You don't want peace, Hillel, until facts on the ground suit
> your ambitions for a Greater Israel.
What's the hurry?
The Arab world, compared to Israel, is weaker than ever
before. Why not negotiate from a stronger position?
> > France sold Israel in 1967, two days *before* the 6-Days-War.
> > France had plenty of excuses for that. General de Gaulle had a great
> > explanation - "le peuple juif, sûr de lui meme et dominateur"
> > ("the Jewish people, self-confident and domineering").
> HW's version: "The Israeli leadership, ideological, opportunistic and
> oppressive."
Obama is also ideological & opportunistic.
And you support him...
> > France did not find another client state.
> Because it was not in her interest to buy into that.
And de-Gaulle had great dreams about greatness. See
www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Superpower-Diplomacy-Alliances-and-superpower-dominance-1964-1968.html
"De Gaulle at first sought to replace superpower dominance by that of
a larger consortium of powers, including France, which together would
take the main responsibility for international security. When he did
not succeed, in March 1966 he took France out of NATO's integrated
command structure, though not out of the alliance itself, and
proceeded to develop France's own small nuclear deterrent, which he
believed sufficient to keep the Soviet Union and any other enemy at
bay. "
http://www.economist.com/node/16374536
"And the political thread remained unbroken: France’s greatness must
never be slighted. When he found himself seated in the eighth row at
John Kennedy’s funeral, he made his way forward to the front, said
“Right, we can start,” to a startled protocol official—and sat down."
> >The best it could do is sell Iraq $120,000,000,000 worth
> > of weapons, on credit. To be paid when Saddam will rise from the dead.
> Must Israel be always at the center of the universe? Are there not
> interests in the Middle East which transcend hers?
If you can't pressure Israel, what do you have to
offer the Arabs?
> > IMO Israel will be better off with Russian support, like in 1948.
> What a spectacle you provide: Israel in a constant search for
> relationships which cast her as the charitable beneficiay but conflict
> with the concept of independence.
Charity?!
For a little investment (weapons from Czechoslovakia,
paid retail prices by US dollars) Stalin got a collapse
of the British Empire in the Middle East. In addition
the Palmach veterans planned a pro-Soviet rebellion
had the USSR sent an army to the Middle East.
Now what did the USSR get for the (1960's) $20,000,000,000
it spent on Egypt? Eleven years after building the Egyptian
army to 1967, and rebuilding it for 1973, Sadat just jumped
ship and "forgot" to pay his debt to the USSR.
Unlike you, the Russian know that the deal was bad.
> > But the
> > right way to get there is like with France in 1967 - let Obama cut the
> > relationship first.
> You whine. The US has no intention of cutting the relationship,
Too bad.
> > > > After the revolution Egypt will be as anti-Israeli as
> > > > Iran and some more.
> > > Not if it emerges as a democracy.
> > Wanna bet?
> Go to Professor Rudolph Rummel's website.
Wanna bet?
I bet that even if there will be a free election in Egypt
the winner will never be in a danger of losing any election.
> > > The Egyptian people have lots of
> > > problems which have higher priority than first-off picking a self-
> > > defeating fight with Israel.
> > The same was true in 1948, 1956 and 1967.
> > Actually, in the beginning of 1948 the Jewish Shai
> > estimated that Egypt will not invade. The rational
> > was simple - Israel would be a high risk, low gain place.
> > High risk because the Jews showed some ability to
> > fight, low gain because it was a small territory with
> > little natural resources. Ben-Gurion ignored that.
> > The king of Egypt ignored that too and in 1952 he
> > paid for his 1948 stupidity. The next "king" of Egypt
> > will be as stupid.
> You are far too chauvanist and racist to judge these things on their
> merits historically. In 1948 it was very unlikely that Egypt and the
> other Arab countries would have invaded Palestine were it not for the
> ethnic cleansing by Jews going on there.
The Palestinians could sign the dotted line in November 30, 1947
and save everybody the fight. But Egypt had better ideas -
Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary, declared:
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre
which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres
and the Crusades".
You and the Arabs still whine about that lost opportunity.
>They were trying to put a
> stop to that because their countries were already overflowing with
> Palestinian refugees, hundreds of thousands of them even before
> Israeli Independence in 1948.
600,000 Arabs left Israel, 600,000 Jews left the Arab countries.
The Jewish solution was to put the Jews on ex-Arab property.
The Arabs could do the same - put the Arabs on ex-Jewish
property. They decided that living in refugee camps, on UN
welfare, was better and they got their wishes. And they
still whine...
> In 1967 the Israelis knew Egypt had no
> intention to attack Israel.
Ha?
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/crucial_quotes.htm
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand,
we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood"
- President of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, March 8th 1965
'...I gave my instructions to all UAR forces to be ready for action
against Israel the moment it might carry out any aggressive action
against any Arab country. Due to these instructions our troops are
already concentrated in Sinai on our eastern border. For the sake of
the complete security of all UN troops…I request that you issue your
orders to withdraw all troops immediately. - written request from
Nasser to Commander UNEF (Gaza), May 16th 1967
“The Israeli flag shall not go through the Gulf of Aqaba. Our
sovereignty over the entrance to the Gulf cannot be disputed” -
Egypt’s President Nasser, May 22nd 1967
[BTW have you learned about "Casus belli" in law school?]
"Taking over Sharm el Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel (and)
also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. The
battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to
destroy Israel” - Gamal Abdel Nasser speech to the General Council of
the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions May 26th 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”. - Gamel Abdel Nasser press
conference, May 28th 1967
“Now, eleven years after 1956 we are restoring things to what they
were in 1956…The issue now at hand is not the Gulf of Aqaba, the
Straits of Tiran or the withdrawal of UNEF, but the rights of the
Palestinian people.” - Nasser speech to General Assembly in Cairo:,
May 29th 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 of more declarations." -
Gamal Abdel Nasser speech, May 30th 1967
###########################################
Do you need more quotes?
> Their assessment matched ours. They used
> a fake prediction of an attack as a justification for a war of choice.
> Look at the results. The entirety of Mandate Palestine plus the Golan
> fell into her hands according to her ideological goals. All that
> remained was to finish the ethnic cleansing of 1948.
You sound as crazy as Nasser, but not as smart.
> > > Can you see El Baradai attacking Israel.
> > > You live in a dream world.
> > Can you see El Baradai as the ruler of Egypt?!
> > You live in a dream world.
> He's perfect for that role. He's no young Turk, no fanatic. He's well
> known and highly respected in the West. He's very accomplished with
> lots of international experience. He's essentially secular. The Army
> is going to be very influential in Egypt's future.
The army will want an army officer.
El Baradai may play a role like Muhammad Naguib in 1952,
but the real power will be with somebody like Nasser.
> You shouldn't be of the default
> opinion that Egyptians are Arabs and therefore insane and can not
> follow their own interests. Do you realize that that's your leit motif
> regarding Muslims in general?
Such an opinion is pretty useful if you want to
predict the future in the Middle East.
> > > > The only question is how much
> > > > support Obama will give to a war against Israel.
> Why do you live in the United States given your hatred for us?
I hate Obama.
I don't know why the American people voted for him,
but unlike you, Obama, and Carter, most Americans
can deal with facts.
> > > Sounds like you ought to settle with the Palestinians.
> > The Palestinians are just a proxy.
> > The agreements should be with those who support them.
> They will be, of course. All the relevant powers will sign-off. Why
> do you insist on presuming the worst in each and every scenerio?
Because I usually proved right.
My big mistake, where I was proved *WRONG*,
was my support in Oslo. I learned.
> Supporting a paranoid nation is very expensive.
So spend a billion dollar per week in Iraq and Afghanistan
and tell everybody what a great bargain you got.
> You owe it to us to
> make it as inexpensive as reasonably possible.
Or find another superpower.
> > We saw that in 1948 with the US arms embargo on Israel.
> That was a response to the Jewish ethnic cleansing of
> Palestine, a response to a great crime against humanity.
The League of Nation allocated land for a Jewish homeland.
The Brits gave 80% of the territory to an Arab prince that
his family had *NEVER* controlled that land. To help with
his "claim", all Jews, who lived there much longer than him,
were kicked out. And the US supported that prince because
it was against "ethnic cleansing".
Do you really believe your own bullshit?
> Is there something about
> Israel or Jews which makes you believe that they should not be
> sanctioned for crimes they commit?
I smell a "good" Christian who does not believe in God,
but likes the Holy Inquisition, raving about the Jews.
No genocide, famine, slavery, or natural disasters can
shift him from his path. The only problem is the Jews.
> > In 10 years the US/UK lost Egypt, lost British control of the
> > Arab Legion. Lost Syria. Lost Iraq. And still you learned nothing.
> We "lost" nothing. It was an era of a conscious policy of
> decolonialization. It was our policy throughout WW II and thereafter.
> It was set by FDR.
http://www.answers.com/topic/baghdad-pact
The Baghdad Pact formally came into existence in 1955; it was an
exemplary Cold War agreement reflecting the priority the Eisenhower
administration gave to containment of the Soviet Union through
collective security agreements. The member states - Turkey, Iraq,
Iran, Pakistan, and Britain - formed a bulwark of the "northern tier"
states against the Soviet Union. The pact's headquarters were in
Baghdad.
> > The Israeli summary to the Baghdad Pact is pretty simple:
> > "בגדד בגדה, עירק ערקה"
> > (Baghdad betrayed, Iraq deserted.)
> > *We* learn.
> You study the wrong things. You may learn, but to what end?
Predicting the future of course.
That's the only interesting game in town.
> > France had that attitude with dreams about being a superpower.
> There have been no dreams in France of her becoming a super power
> since 1815. She is a garden variety "great power," a term which in
> itself exaggerates reality.
So?
De Gaulle did not let reality stand in his way.
> > I am sure that Obama would love to follow France, I am just not
> > sure that Obama will be the president in 2013.
> Nonsense on both counts. You dread Obama winning re-election.
I am smart enough to dread Obama's Carter-like craziness.
You are not.
dsharavi
What was Sadat's brag about Camp David? That he got everything he
wanted, and gave up nothing--something like that.
Excellent post, BTW.
Deborah
> And de-Gaulle had great dreams about greatness. Seewww.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Superpower-Diplomacy-Alliances-a...
> Ha?http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/crucial_quotes.htm
Zev
news:cd517c14-133b-407e-8403-
c7eb44...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 11:43 am, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 5:50 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > We saw that in 1948 with the US arms embargo on Israel.
>
>> That was a response to the Jewish ethnic cleansing of
>> Palestine, a response to a great crime against humanity.
>
> The League of Nation allocated land for a Jewish homeland.
> The Brits gave 80% of the territory to an Arab prince that
> his family had *NEVER* controlled that land. To help with
> his "claim", all Jews, who lived there much longer than him,
> were kicked out. And the US supported that prince because
> it was against "ethnic cleansing".
פרטים?
>> > The Israeli summary to the Baghdad Pact is pretty simple:
>> > "בגדד בגדה, עירק ערקה"
>> > (Baghdad betrayed, Iraq deserted.)
>> > *We* learn.
>
>> You study the wrong things. You may learn, but to what end?
>
> Predicting the future of course.
> That's the only interesting game in town.
האם קראת "צופן העתיד" מאת דוד פסיג?
הוא לא נביא אבל הנתוחים שלו מאד מעניינים.
>> > France had that attitude with dreams about being a superpower.
>
>> There have been no dreams in France of her becoming a super power
>> since 1815.
You've never heard of Napoleon III?
Hunter, I know you're not much of a historian,
but so much not a historian???
hille...@yahoo.com
> <hillelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > The League of Nation allocated land for a Jewish homeland.
> > The Brits gave 80% of the territory to an Arab prince that
> > his family had *NEVER* controlled that land. To help with
> > his "claim", all Jews, who lived there much longer than him,
> > were kicked out. And the US supported that prince because
> > it was against "ethnic cleansing".
> פרטים?
It should be covered by any books on the history of Israel.
On the web you can find similar data from
several resources. E.g.
##############################################
In 1920 the world organization of nations [League of Nations]
proclaimed that Palestine was to be a homeland for the Jews. Around
the same time, Lebanon was made a place for Arab Christians, and
Syria, and Iraq were to be homelands for Arab Moslems. In 1922 England
[the occupying power in Palestine] gave all of Palestine east of the
River Jordan [77% of Palestine] to Arab Moslems, forbidding Jews to
live there.
http://www.israelmybeloved.com/channel/history_prophecy/article/62
#####################################################
Iraq was given to Faisal bin Hussein, son of the sheriff of Mecca, in
1918. To reward his younger brother Abdullah with an emirate, Britain
cut away 77 percent of its mandate over Palestine earmarked for the
Jews and gave it to Abdullah in 1922, creating the new country of
Trans-Jordan or Jordan, as it was later named.
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm
####################################################
In 1921, the Churchill White Paper split the British-ruled mandate
into the smaller British Mandate of Palestine and Transjordan. The
border between these two new territories was delineated by the Jordan
River, Dead Sea, and the valley of Arabah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Jordan
#################################################
In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the
Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be
removed from the original territory of Palestine, with Abdullah as the
emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the
condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the (future)
Palestine mandate would not apply there. Effectively, this removed
about 78% of the original territory of Palestine and left about 22%
where the application of the Balfour Declaration calling for a
"Jewish" national home could be applied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan
################################################
However, Abdullah, the son of King Husayn of the Hijaz, marched toward
Transjordan with 2,000 soldiers. He announced his intention to march
to Damascus, remove the French and reinstate the Hashemite monarchy.
Sir Alec Kirkbride, had 50 policemen. He asked for guidance from the
British High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, and Samuel eventually
replied that it was unlikely Abdullah would enter British controlled
areas. Two days later, Abdullah marched north and by March 1921, he
occupied the entire country. Abdullah made no attempt to march on
Damascus, and perhaps never intended to do so
In 1922, the British declared that the boundary of Palestine would be
limited to the area west of the river. The area east of the river,
called Transjordan (now Jordan), was made a separate British mandate
and eventually given independence (See map at right) . A part of the
Zionist movement felt betrayed at losing a large area of what they
termed "historic Palestine" to Transjordan, and split off to form the
"Revisionist" movement, headed by Benjamin Vladimir (Ze'ev)
Jabotinsky.
http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
############################################
coaster132000
> On Jan 31, 9:19 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 6:07 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I assume that you are a child molester and it will
> > > stand until it's rebutted.
> > > See, two can play your game.
> > The Palestine Papers appear to be copies of actual government
> > documents. Their authenticity has been admitted by the Palestinian
> > Authority. As such they have some credibility.
>
> Palestinians?
> Credibility?
> Are you serious?
Israeli Zionists and the Likud?
Credibility?
Are you Serious?
> Just a simple example fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin
> "On April 13, Palestinian Information Minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo,
> accused Israel killing 900 Palestinians in the camp and burying
> them in mass graves."
You are cousins. There is not a dime's worth of real difference among
you. When you attack them you attack yourself.
> And the actual number:
> "53 dead (5 civilians and 48 militants according to the IDF;
> 27 militants and 22 civilians according to HRW)"
I don't do this sort of comparative analysis. It leads nowhere as you
in the end will deny that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine has even
taken place. You see, you have no choice. If you admit it you can't
avoid discussing your justifications for it and you know I'm ready for
that. I will note, however, that it isn't Palestinian-Americans who
are corrupting our Congress and foreign policy. It's American Zionists
with huge conflicts of interest. And its Israelis who are stealing
from us via deception and espionage. And finally, I'm an American.
Zionists with foreign agendas such as yours stand in the way of
sorting out our gigantic problems. Most everything regarding Israel
must be subordinate to that.
> And in Jenin it was an easy to disprove claim.
> Israel asked for the list of the dead (name, address, etc.)
> and the Palestinians could find only 53 names. Still, the
> Palestinians had no problem lying *for short term gains*.
>
> > Your problem is that you attempt to do it with racist smears
> > about Arabs being dishonest.
>
> You will *NEVER* let the facts confuse you.
What's factual about your racism? Why do you try to drive me into a
discussion of the reputations for honesty of Jews vs. Palestinians.
What do you expect to gain from that?
> > They carry no weight among civilized people.
>
> Is the knowledge of how to count to fifty three
> a part of being "civilized"?
The subject was your racism and our need to rise above where you
stand.
> > > Some day, when you will learn to play poker, you
> > > will learn what to do with a good hand. You give
> > > people the impression that you have a weak hand
> > > and you bluff, and let them bet, a lot, based of that.
How very Zionist of you.
> > What's weak-handed about Livni's statement?
>
> You assume that Livni gave statements supporting the
> Arabs' claims.
I have evidence that she told the truth about Israeli policy in the
West Bank. Feel free to contradict it with evidence. Smears against
entire peoples are not evidence. They are racism.
What will happen if after finishing the
> wonderful building somebody will put it down, just
> like with the number of dead in Jenin?
Are we in architecture instead of racism now? Bear down, Hillel.
You're erecting wonderful buildings on someone else's land. You can do
it only because you occupy them militarily. Both the occupation and
the building are in contravention of international law. How wonder can
a building erected on stolen land be?
> Should Israel put it down now, or wait till plenty of
> idiots, like you, will accept the Arabs' claim as true?
My impression is that you are an Israeli living in California. I'm an
American descended from immigrants of the 18th Century. My overall
interest is in American politics as it relates to American foreign
policy. Your efforts here support the continued corruption of American
politics as it relates to American foreign policy. If you were
pursuing that from Tel Aviv it would be an irritant only. But here you
are AMONG US, living in our economy, doing it nevertheless on behalf
of a foreign power. Thus doth the gorge rise.
Of course I could be in error as to my impression. And, of course, you
are free to explain why you do this while enjoying our hospitality in
sunny, bankrupt California.
> Anyway, Israelis remember not very true claims.
> E.g. in 1967 the Soviet intelligence claimed that
> Israel concentrated forces to attack Syria. The
> claim was so convincing that after a couple of
> weeks even the Soviet intelligence started
> believing in it.
Anyone who would be swayed by that in this crisis would be a naive
fool.
>
> > How's she going to move forward with her agenda, the Prime
> > Ministership and the two state solution, if she can't tell the truth
> > about what's been going on?
>
> Livni is in the opposition. She has no right to make
> negotiations in the name of Israel.
The Palestine Papers go back a decade and there is no negotiation in
the statement. It's merely an obviously true statement of fact. She
can hardly be censured for telling a truth which everyone knows
anyway. What you're unhappy about is that when she says it, it's
authoritative and can't be lied about any more.
She plays fair and
> so she will let Netanyahu handle this one. He has all
> the data and he was the right to negotiate in the
> name of Israel.
Of course he does. That's an aspect of the tragedy Israel is acting
out.
> > > Livni is in no hurry to show her cards.
> > > And I don't blame her for that.
> > But she has already begun to do that.
>
> When she was a minister.
> Now she is not a minister.
> End of story.
No, not the end. Does she not wait in the wings. Has she not called
Israeli policy on negotiations a scam? No, the story is not ended. I
don't think For what it's worth I don't believe Netanyahu will be
Prime Minister long.
> > > Do you really assume that somebody who had worked
> > > for the Mossad trusts Arabs to keep secrets?!
> > > Even *you* can't be that stupid.
> > Palestinian Arabs and Israelis are cousins. Governments keep
> > secrets when it's in their country's interests to do so.
> Governments leak when it is in their interest to do so.
Yes. It's a Machiavellian world, but more so in authoritarian
societies.
> If to pick an American example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_inciden
> Four days after Powers disappeared, NASA issued a very detailed press
> release noting that an aircraft had "gone missing" north of Turkey.
> The press release speculated that the pilot might have fallen
> unconscious while the autopilot was still engaged, even falsely
> claiming that "the pilot reported over the emergency frequency that he
> was experiencing oxygen difficulties." To bolster this, a U-2 plane
> was quickly painted in NASA colors and shown to the media.
So you trundle out an American lie. How endearing of you. True, that
was not a good moment for American policy. Shall we list the bad
moments of Zionist history? Like, for example, having formed the
intent to dispossess the Palestinians of their homeland back in the
19th Century.
>
> > Israel's bad faith in
> > the negotiations is on display in those papers.
>
> If the Palestinian had any good faith they would by now
> present a plan that does not include Arabs'
> "right of return".
Ha! You don't deny it. Israel's bad faith in the negotiations is on
display in those papers.
And you, too, know that the right of return is a non-starter and will
be replaced by a right to compensation.
> > > True. I am afraid of another war with Egypt.
> > Why should they attack Israel? Their army wouldn't get fifty miles
> > beyond the canal.
>
> With Obama's support, Egypt can.
Bizarre. What help? You're getting to the point where you'll say
virtually anything about America's popular young President. When will
you accuse him of being a sex offender?
> All they have to do is getting US support for advancing anti-aircraft
> missiles into Sinai. Israel will have the choice of attacking them,
> and getting from Obama an arms embargo, or let them advance.
Worse than bizarre, paranoid. A faux paranoia equivalent to that
exhibited by Netanyahu in his use of ridiculous, non-starting
"security measures" as a tool for destroying the chances of a two
state solution. You may write your own stuff but it's scripted
nonetheless. I suspect you envy those of us who can do it without
help.
> > > Israelis experts had been very worried about "democracy for Iraq".
> > How strange. One would have thought that Israel's experts on Iraq
> > would have been consulted by Prime Minister Sharon
>
> Bush told Sharon what he wanted to hear, and Sharon
> decided to follow Bush's wishes.
Sharon got more than he thought he would. He got the further
pulverization of Iraq PLUS a promise to attack Iran "next". Such a man
our former President. We nearly burst with pride when we think of him.
> But the Israeli press was worried about two possible outcomes:
> 1) Missiles on Israel, like in Gulf War I.
> 2) That the US will support a pro-US general who will build
> a great army, like Iran in the time of the Shah.
A bizarre, paranoid failure of trust in your ally at a time when the
Administration was swarming with neoconservative Zionists in direct
contact with Sharon. This flim flam is based on an unstated and false
premise that Israel and the Lobby had no influence in Washington while
the problem was that she had far too much while having very different
interests.
I heartily recommend that you call upon Israel to abandon the United
States or at least to change the relationship fundamentally. Think of
what a relief it will be to work together in such a project. It will
be much easier than you Lilliputians being fated to continuing the
struggle of keeping Gulliver in bonds. You shouldn't be in the
business of riding tigers in any event.
>
> > > The danger they saw was, in the "best case", a country with
> > > modern US-built army, a day drive from Israel. Binyamin Ben-
> > > Eliezer, the Israeli defense minister in 2001 understood Iraq
> > > *MUCH* better than any "expert" in Washington.
> > In the first place you Zionists CHOSE the Middle East
> > for your utopian experiment.
>
> Let's go over this claim.
> The Jews were in Iraq for about 2,500 years.
The Zionists were Ashkenazi Europeans, not Iraqis.
> The Talmud was written in what we call Iraq.
> How could they know that 1,000 years *later*
> the Arabs would show up?
Keep dishing up the non-sequiturs.
> The Jews in Iraq had the choice of staying there,
> and having a massacre whenever the Arabs
> felt unhappy for whatever reason, or escape
> to Israel. 99% decided to leave Iraq, leaving
> their property behind. You think that they made
> a bad deal. I'll believe it when I'll see Iraqi
> Jews moving back.
Try 1,400 years since the Arabs arrived instead of 2,500 since a book
was written.
Try recognizing that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Jews
of the Time of Christ who have simply changed their religion and
language. That's far longer than necessary to toll even the most
romantic and ethnocentric concept of limitations.
No Europeans whatever had a claim to Palestine by virtue of their
religion at the beginning of the 20th Century. Not Zionist Jews and
not the descendants of Crusaders. That conceit was nothing but a man-
made ideology speaking and it was dead wrong for the United States to
take part in the punishing of the Palestinian people for Hitler's and
the Czar's crimes. No crime ever justifies another, especially when it
is done on some other country's behalf. Vengeance is neither yours nor
ours. It is banned in the legal systems of civilized people.
And then there is the question of what the American national interest
actually was. It certainly didn't lie in supporting European Jews in
their campaigns of ethnic cleansing of Arabs in the Middle East. We
too pissed-off the locals but we didn't even do it on our own behalf.
We did it for ideologues were were commiting crimes against humanity
and still are. How do we make amends for that other than by the
admissions implicit in changing our policy?
> > You assumed the long term risks of pissing-off the locals
> What you call "the local", AKA Arabs, came long after those
> bad minorities that irritate them so much. (Jews, Assyrians,
> Kurds, Kopts, Berbers, Blacks in South Sudan, etc.)
Let me say it again, YOU assumed the long term risks of pissing-off
the locals. Yet you want US to carry the burdens YOU assumed in that
category. You have no right whatever to call upon Americans to do
that, yet you are still trying your best even to drive us into another
war in the region, this time in Iran. And you think we should be angry
with Muslims and solicitous about you?
>
> So far the Arabs have done pretty well using brute force.
> We will see how much of their Empire will survive after
> the West will stop supporting them and/or the oil
> will dry up.
There is no Arab Empire though in microcosmic scale there is a Jewish
Empire in the Middle East. Its style is 19th Century European. A bit
passe.
You, the Israeli Zionist, dream of the West abandoning the Arab world
but continuing its lavish support of the Jewish State nontheless.
These fantastic transports are the equivalent of what went into
Zionist doctrine. They have led you to this unanticipated pass, deeper
and deeper into tragedy, but as with the founding ideologists, the
hubris drives you on. It's akin to Trollope's Melmotte, the tycoon who
appeared to build great railway in "The Way We Live Today" and who in
the end triumphed over his creditors. You'll love it.
>
> > No country is
> > comprehensively secure. You don't need it either.
>
> We will talk about that after the Mexican gangs will
> decide to shoot rockets on the US or a new Pancho
> Villa will decide to raid Arizona. Then you will
> discover that what you find "acceptable" for Israel is
> "unacceptable" for the US.
We Americans don't need or want your advice on our domestic affairs.
As you are our client state you will get ours whether you like it or
not.
> > Take your own one
> > day drive scenario. It would have been nearly impossible for Iraqi
> > armored columns to reach Israel. It's desert.
>
> Iraqi divisions fought Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973.
> You may assume that a 21'th century army will never
> manage to advance as fast as a 20'th century army,
> but I don't have to share your assumption.
What I say is that you assumed the risks of your great zio-colonial
experiment. Where do you get the idea that you can shed them off on us
and continue doing so until you have succeeded in attaining its goals,
especially as your vision of danger here is screwed up to the maximum
possible to keep us malleable.
> > There is no cover, no
> > place to hide and no defense against one of the world's most potent
> > air forces, one which has had a lot of experience with air-ground
> > assault ever since the sixties.
>
> The Israeli air-force *FAILED* in 1973.
I don't care. This is 2011.
> It got half of the defense budget and had just a marginal
> influence on the war. You may assume that 21'th century
> missiles will never manage to do the same. I don't.
You forget, you assumed the risk. We have a very helpful plan for
minimizing it and raising Israel's chances of long term survival. It's
called the Two State Solution. It involves compromise and some risk.
You don't like it because it interferes with your ideological goals
but it doesn't seem to matter to you that your goals aren't ours. Our
central goal, for example, is that you be denied the West Bank. Get
used to it because it's not going to change but the relationship is.
>
> > This renders the real danger of your
> > scenario de minimus. It would even render such an attack to your
> > advantage regarding the balance of military power. And guess what, the
> > US stepped in to do it for you. Wasn't that lovely? What shmucks, eh?
>
> In 1969 the US made a ceasefire for Israel, including a promise that
> the status-qua with respect to missiles would be kept. A couple of
> hours later the Egyptians moved the missiles forward and the US
> prevented Israel from attacking the missiles before they had the
> time to dig them in.
Go ahead, worry about that. Egypt is changing before your very eyes,
probably into a democracy, and yet you resist it. Read Rudolph Rummel.
> > And so now, instead of Iraq you're wringing your hands about Egypt.
> > Yet the same reality is found there in Sinai.
>
> Israel *knows* how much support Obama will give it if Egypt
> will move missiles forward. Obama is as anti-Israeli as Nixon.
Fool, it was Nixon who gave Israel the nuclear green light after her
problems with Kennedy. He and Golda even hammered out the neither
admit nor deny scam together during a tete a tete in the Oval Office.
And just look at your tendency to label American presidents as anti-
Israel because they object to Israeli policies. The language you use
is anti-American. Again, where do you live? Do you have a green card?
>
> > As to experts, we have the world's finest university system by far and
> > the most comprehensive and well funded intelligence community. The
> > government has access to the appropriate scholars even if they're not
> > "in Washington".
>
> So what?
You brag about your experts. I offer you Juan Cole.
> Once upon a time a US diplomat argued with Ben-Eliezer about
> the Palestinian anti-Israeli propaganda. Ben-Eliezer set the
> radio to the Palestinian station (he had it preset) and gave the
> American
> a simultaneous translation.
That's knowledge that the US just
> does not have.
Bullshit. We record every radiostation in the Middle East 24/7. That
includes yours. And we have enough loyal Hebrew translators even
though they are hard to find.
McNamara had plenty of experts who understood
> Vietnamese, he just did not have the ability to listen to radio Hanoi,
> in Vietnamese, on his way to work. This is the thing that makes
> the difference and the US just can't have.
Jesus this is tiresome. Washington will rejoice if you find another
patron state.
>
> > Having the US pulverize Iraq in the name of democracy
>
> What democracy?
The democracy promoted by the neoconservative Jews and Israelis in
State, Defense and the Whitehouse and in the Lobby during the lead-up
to war. The projects were called nation-building, the creation of
democracies. We were going protect Israel by changing the neighborhood
in which she assumed the risks inherent in her utopian project!
> The real name is
>
> Operation
> Iraq
> Liberation.
Of course. And nation-building was part of the project. Can the US
liberate and build a nation which isn't a democracy?
hille...@yahoo.com
> We Americans don't need or want your advice on our domestic affairs.
> As you are our client state you will get ours whether you like it or
> not.
That US approach is well known to Israelis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Feiglin
had an interesting response in
www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/180/314.html
My free translation, my comments in [....]
If anybody who speaks Hebrew wants to correct
my translation then please feel free to do so.
###########################################
Did you hear what Obama offers?
What?
F-35 stealth fighters!
And why do we need that?
Do you ask seriously or do you laugh?
No, no - I am dead serious. Why do we need the US planes?
Have you forgotten that Israel is under existential treat,
that our neighbors want to exterminate us?
And what is the biggest threat of them all?
The Iranian nukes of course!
And why don't we bomb the Iranian nuke programs with
the US-made planes that we have already gotten?
What do you think, that Israel can do what it wants?
There are international pressures. But we are lucky,
the US is still on our side.
And what will they do if we will bomb anyway?
They will stop selling us spare parts.
They will stop selling us spare parts for the planes that they had
sold us?!
Yes - that's what the experts explain.
We don't bomb in Iran because if we will do that -
they will not sell us spare parts to the US made planes.
So what you say is that we can't defend ourselves from the
most dangerous threat because we have US made planes.
Ha?
And you want that now, we will add more US made planes,
so we will have even less ability to deal with the most
dangerous existential threat against us.
So wait a minute, do you suggest to throw the US made
planes to the garbage?
The faster we will do that, the better.
\heading{We had won without US weapons}
There is nothing that undermine the security of Israel
more than the US weapons.
The little exercise that we just did showed that very clearly.
And with what will you fight - sticks and stones?!
Till 1967 we did not have US weapons
[Feiglin is wrong about that. In 1948 Israel took a B17 from
an American junk heap and used it for bombing missions.
In 1956 US made DC3 were used to drop paratroopers on
the Egyptian army supply routes. In 1967 Israel had used
Shermans and Pattons, bought for a price close to the
price of the metal, with some Israeli modifications. Hillel]
And in 1948, 1956 and in the miracle war which is
called "Six Days" - we got much better results than every
war after that, when we had the US weapons.
It is true that today our army is based on US weapons and
we can't get rid of that in one day; but Israel can, and does,
develop the most advanced weapon systems. Israel has already
proved that and Israel should start accelerated move to Israeli
systems, included fighter planes.
[IMO he is wrong about planes. The time of the fighter pilot
is over. Just like no GM can beat a good computer in a 5 minutes
chess, no pilot will be able to beat a computer in a 5 minutes dog
fight. Israel should skip the F-35 and build a fleet of drones. Now.
Hillel]
Why do you think that Americans refuse to let you put
Israeli systems in the F-35?
Because the Americans know that the Israeli systems are more advanced
from what the US can offer, and they want to block the local
production.
They don't want us to do exactly what we have to do. They do that
to protect their weapons' industry from competition, and also to
preserve the total dependency of us - in them.
Israel can produce the platform of the stealth fighter with
aviation industries in other countries - countries that desire
such a cooperation.
[IMO he talks about Russia, China and India. Hillel]
As and alternative Israel can produce the platform on its own,
like was done in the Lavi project. What sure is that the F-35
deal leads us in the opposite direction - more dependency on
US weapons, another block in the face of Israeli industry.
And the most important - another block for our ability to
defend the country from the most dangerous existential threats.
######################################################
And I add a question to anybody who has ever served in any army:
If you had to fight for your life, which rifle would you want:
M-16 or AK-47? (I'd go with the Kalashnikov. YMMV.)
coaster132000
> <hillelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cd517c14-133b-407e-8403-
> c7eb4491d...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I'm not an historian. I was a lawyer. But I've read history for over a
half century. How about you?
There have been only two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet
Union. It's questionable whether the S.U. should ever have held the
title. She had some globalized military power but not much else going
for her. She balanced her books only twice after the end of WW II. Her
power in the global sense wasn't especially super.
Napoleon III ruled a second-rate colonialist "great power" in the 19th
Century style. There was nothing unique about his operation.
It wasn't even possible for superpowers to arise until the 20th
Century, just as globalization as we know it today wasn't possible
until the communications and computer technology advances of the late
20th Century came about. The global reach required for each in its
time was too technology-dependent to have been possible earlier. You
can see that U.S. hegemony which arose in the post WW II era pretty
much by default involved no territorial expansion whatever, so the
first superpower was not a traditional empire. It arose because Europe
committed suicide and because though we participated in the global
conflict we never became a battlefield. We emerged stronger than ever
with our immense industrial plant intact and didn't look back--until
the time of George W. Bush who frittered it away.
You didn't reply to my most recent question, Zev. On which side of the
Green Line up there in Jerusalem to you live?
drahcir
>On Feb 1, 11:43�am, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 5:50�pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> > Some day you will learn that if one stupid man drops a coin
>> > into a deep well, 100 smart people will not get it out.
>
>> Oh so Biblical.
>
>Thanks for the compliment.
>
>> Israel CAN make peace.
>
>So why did Oslo fail?
>Why did not Arafat stop the suicide bombers in the 1990's?
>Why did refuse Arafat Barak's offer in 2000?
>Why did not Arafat give a counter-offer?
>
>Explain the past *before* you try to predict the future.
One can't explain what one is not aware of.
>> > explanation - "le peuple juif, s�r de lui meme et dominateur"
>> > "???? ????, ???? ????"
dsharavi
> On Feb 2, 2:56 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We Americans don't need or want your advice on our domestic affairs.
> > As you are our client state you will get ours whether you like it or
> > not.
>
I remember this from the previous time you posted it.
>
> And I add a question to anybody who has ever served in any army:
> If you had to fight for your life, which rifle would you want:
> M-16 or AK-47? (I'd go with the Kalashnikov. YMMV.)
I'd go with photon torpedoes.
Deborah
dsharavi
That is certain.
> I was a lawyer.
A better lawyer than historian, but not by much.
>But I've read history for over a
> half century.
Apparently it didn't sink in.
[snip obligatory Watsobabble]
Deborah
hille...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 1, 3:59 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Palestinians?
> > Credibility?
> > Are you serious?
> Israeli Zionists and the Likud?
> Credibility?
> Are you Serious?
Yes.
We keep agreements as long as the other side
keeps his side of the bargain.
> > Just a simple example fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin
> > "On April 13, Palestinian Information Minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo,
> > accused Israel killing 900 Palestinians in the camp and burying
> > them in mass graves."
> You are cousins. There is not a dime's worth of real difference among
1) We had a similar potential but the Jews made different choices.
2) Most of the Palestinians came in long after the Jews
were kicked out. E.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
"Once the revolt was crushed, Qasim and his two eldest sons were
hanged. The Egyptian army razed 16 villages before taking Nablus.
10,000 felaheen were deported to Egypt and the general population was
disarmed. Ibrahim Pasha forced the heads of the Nablus clans to leave
for nearby villages.
Turkish rule was subsequently reinstated in 1840, but many Egyptian
Muslims remained in Jerusalem.
#####################################
http://www.arab-israel-legal-issues.com./chapter4.htm
The indigenous population of the plains, such as it was, was migratory
in character. In addition to the insecurity created by marauders, the
environmental, physical economic conditions of the area were hard.
Fellahin would come, settle for a short time and move on when living
conditions became intolerable. In particular, other than in the hills,
rural settlement was threatened by Turkoman devastation. However the
Arab population increased beyond its natural birth rate due to
significant migration into Palestine from Egypt fleeing from
compulsory military service 1839 – 1849 or forced labour on the Suez
Canal construction 1858-1869.
######################################
> > And the actual number:
> > "53 dead (5 civilians and 48 militants according to the IDF;
> > 27 militants and 22 civilians according to HRW)"
> I don't do this sort of comparative analysis.
Too bad.
Either you have actual numbers, or at least something
close to them, or you have a big heap of bullshit.
> > > Your problem is that you attempt to do it with racist smears
> > > about Arabs being dishonest.
> > You will *NEVER* let the facts confuse you.
> What's factual about your racism?
In science the goal is to predict the future.
If somebody can make such predictions, using
what you call "racism", then he is a scientist.
The test is prediction of the future, not
Political Correctness.
> Why do you try to drive me into a
> discussion of the reputations for honesty of Jews vs. Palestinians.
> What do you expect to gain from that?
Because I tend to believe people who have not
lied in the past.
> > Is the knowledge of how to count to fifty three
> > a part of being "civilized"?
> The subject was your racism and our need to rise above where you
> stand.
The subject is if lying about data is "OK",
when done by Politically Correct people.
> > > > Some day, when you will learn to play poker, you
> > > > will learn what to do with a good hand. You give
> > > > people the impression that you have a weak hand
> > > > and you bluff, and let them bet, a lot, based of that.
> How very Zionist of you.
Eshkol, "Shimshon der nebechdikker", certainly managed to
beat the US and the USSR with his poker game. You
can't understand that skill.
> > You assume that Livni gave statements supporting the
> > Arabs' claims.
> I have evidence
Your "witness" will not survive ten minutes of a good
cross-examination. You have no evidence.
> >What will happen if after finishing the
> > wonderful building somebody will put it down, just
> > like with the number of dead in Jenin?
> Are we in architecture instead of racism now?
You still don't get it.
Israel suffered a short term lose with its delayed
reaction to the lies about the Jenin. The "human
rights" organizations suffer a long term lose
because they were so quick to believe an Arab
lie. A good deal, IMO.
> My overall
> interest is in American politics as it relates to American foreign
> policy.
So?
Even if you have good intentions (a big "if"), all they are
good for is as pavement on the Road to Hell.
> If you were
> pursuing that from Tel Aviv it would be an irritant only. But here you
> are AMONG US, living in our economy, doing it nevertheless on behalf
> of a foreign power. Thus doth the gorge rise.
Some day you will learn that life is not a zero-sum game.
E.g. in the recession of the early 1990's some Koreans
got tired of assholes like you and moved back the Korea.
They founded a RAM chip industry larger than the US
RAM chip industry.
Kick out the Israelis, Indians and Chinese and you will
end up with the local Californians who, mostly, because
of the Liberal and wonderful "education" system, can't
do math. The Silicon Valley will be *gone*.
> > Anyway, Israelis remember not very true claims.
> > E.g. in 1967 the Soviet intelligence claimed that
> > Israel concentrated forces to attack Syria. The
> > claim was so convincing that after a couple of
> > weeks even the Soviet intelligence started
> > believing in it.
> Anyone who would be swayed by that in
> this crisis would be a naive fool.
Nasser was swayed by the USSR intelligence
reports and moved his army into Sinai.
> She plays fair and
> > so she will let Netanyahu handle this one.
Netanyahu is the prime minister.
Livni has *no* right to stick her nose into the
negotiations with the Palestinians without his
approval. It is called "democracy".
> > When she was a minister.
> > Now she is not a minister.
> > End of story.
> No, not the end. Does she not wait in the wings.
Livni will try to convince the voters in the next
election that her plan for Israel is better. *IF*
she will get the votes then she will have a chance
to negotiate, publicly or not.
If not then not.
> I don't believe Netanyahu will be Prime Minister long.
An agreement with HHW!
> > Governments leak when it is in their interest to do so.
> Yes. It's a Machiavellian world, but more so in authoritarian
> societies.
I am not so sure.
If to take an example for US history (you are too
clueless about Israeli history), the leak of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
helped to draw the US into WWI.
> So you trundle out an American lie. How endearing of you. True, that
> was not a good moment for American policy. Shall we list the bad
> moments of Zionist history? Like, for example, having formed the
> intent to dispossess the Palestinians of their homeland back in the
> 19th Century.
Go for it.
The higher you monkey go up the tree, the more
people will see that you have a red ass.
> > If the Palestinian had any good faith they would by now
> > present a plan that does not include Arabs'
> > "right of return".
> Ha! You don't deny it. Israel's bad faith in the negotiations
> is on display in those papers.
The leaking of those papers is a display of bad faith.
> And you, too, know that the right of return is a non-starter
> and will be replaced by a right to compensation.
Two issues:
1) Should the rich 5 families that acted in words and actions
against the Jews deserve any compensation? In other
words, if you decide to go to war, and you lose,
should the winner cover your loses?
2) What about Jewish property in Arab countries, e.g.
about 20% of Baghdad? Who should pay for that?
If it will not be paid, should the Jews get it back?
> > With Obama's support, Egypt can.
> Bizarre. What help? You're getting to the point where you'll say
> virtually anything about America's popular young President.
Obama is just a black version of Carter.
Obama response to Egyptian aggression
against Israel will be like Carter's response
to the take over of the Israeli embassy in Iran.
> When will
> you accuse him of being a sex offender?
Very unlikely.
Obama has no balls.
> > All they have to do is getting US support for advancing anti-aircraft
> > missiles into Sinai. Israel will have the choice of attacking them,
> > and getting from Obama an arms embargo, or let them advance.
> Worse than bizarre, paranoid.
So in your "expert" opinion, what will Obama do if
Egypt will move missiles into Sinai? IMO
Obama will demand restraint from Israel, while
*he* will solve the crises. Just like Obama
"solves" the nukes crises with Iran.
> > Bush told Sharon what he wanted to hear, and Sharon
> > decided to follow Bush's wishes.
> Sharon got more than he thought he would. He got the further
> pulverization of Iraq
Ha?
Israeli security doctrine is based on "buffers".
Sinai a buffer, Jordan is a buffer state.
Iraq under Saddam lost most of its offensive
ability. Too many planes and tanks had been
lost in Gulf War I. It is just an extra buffer
in front of Iran.
> PLUS a promise to attack Iran "next". Such a man
> our former President. We nearly burst with pride when we think of him.
A couple more years under Obama and even
Americans will start to appreciate Bush...
> > But the Israeli press was worried about two possible outcomes:
> > 1) Missiles on Israel, like in Gulf War I.
> > 2) That the US will support a pro-US general who will build
> > a great army, like Iran in the time of the Shah.
> A bizarre, paranoid failure of trust in your ally at a time when the
> Administration was swarming with neoconservative Zionists in direct
We think long term.
We remember the time that Jordan used American
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/155_mm_Long_Tom
to shell Northern Tel-Aviv.
> I heartily recommend that you call upon Israel to abandon the United
> States or at least to change the relationship fundamentally.
Have you read the Moshe Feiglin's article that I posted?
> > Let's go over this claim.
> > The Jews were in Iraq for about 2,500 years.
> The Zionists were Ashkenazi Europeans, not Iraqis.
So the 99% of Iraqi Jews who moved to Israel
were not Zionist!
So how does your theory explain that move?
> > The Talmud was written in what we call Iraq.
> > How could they know that 1,000 years *later*
> > the Arabs would show up?
> Keep dishing up the non-sequiturs.
You wanted to talk about Jews and Iraq.
But the data causes you to lose interest.
I wonder why.
> > The Jews in Iraq had the choice of staying there,
> > and having a massacre whenever the Arabs
> > felt unhappy for whatever reason, or escape
> > to Israel. 99% decided to leave Iraq, leaving
> > their property behind. You think that they made
> > a bad deal. I'll believe it when I'll see Iraqi
> > Jews moving back.
> Try 1,400 years since the Arabs arrived instead
> of 2,500 since a book was written.
Ha?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemara
"The other version by scholars of Babylonia, primarily of the
academies of Sura, Pumbedita, and Mata Mehasia, which was published
about 500 CE. By convention, a reference to the "Gemara" or "Talmud,"
without further qualification, refers to the Babylonian version."
Try to calculate how long ago was 500 CE.
Come back when you have an answer.
Also check where were "Sura, Pumbedita,
and Mata Mehasia".
> No Europeans whatever had a claim to Palestine by virtue of their
> religion at the beginning of the 20th Century. Not Zionist Jews and
> not the descendants of Crusaders. That conceit was nothing but a man-
> made ideology speaking and it was dead wrong for the United States to
For those who know Hebrew I'd suggest to check the origin of
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%AA_%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%94
"לשנה הבאה בירושלים"
For HHW I'd suggest to learn a little bit about
Judaism and leave alone the subject till then.
> And then there is the question of what the American
> national interest actually was.
Just wait for a new dictator to rise in Egypt and
then kiss his ass like you did to Nasser in 1956.
You will learn.
> It certainly didn't lie in supporting European Jews in
> their campaigns of ethnic cleansing of Arabs in the Middle East.
The Arabs have 99% of the Middle East, and they want 100%.
Conclusion: it is all "European Jews in their campaigns of ethnic
cleansing of Arabs in the Middle East."
Do you *really* believe in your own bullshit?
> > > You assumed the long term risks of pissing-off the locals
> > What you call "the local", AKA Arabs, came long after those
> > bad minorities that irritate them so much. (Jews, Assyrians,
> > Kurds, Kopts, Berbers, Blacks in South Sudan, etc.)
> Let me say it again, YOU assumed the long term risks
> of pissing-off the locals.
It is more like the Arabs assumed the long term risks
of pissing-off the Jews because they know that the US
will save the Arab ass. You got Israel out of Sinai 3 times
(1949, 1956, 1978) and Egypt will probably assume that
a war with Israel is not that bad. In the best case they
will win, in the worst case the US will save their ass,
once again.
> And you think we should be angry
> with Muslims and solicitous about you?
If you want to smile to the Arabs and blame Israel
after the next 9/11 then feel free to do so. Just
remember that some day the Arabs will nuke you,
just for the fun of it.
> > So far the Arabs have done pretty well using brute force.
> > We will see how much of their Empire will survive after
> > the West will stop supporting them and/or the oil
> > will dry up.
> There is no Arab Empire though in microcosmic scale there is a Jewish
> Empire in the Middle East.
You don't understand Israel, so don't fake it.
> You, the Israeli Zionist, dream of the West abandoning the Arab world
> but continuing its lavish support of the Jewish State nontheless.
The big economic problem of Israel is that the Shekel is too high,
so the Bank of Israel had to buy $60,000,000,000, paying with
Shekels,
to fight that. The big economic problem of the Palestinians is that
if The
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
Near East will stop feeding them then they will starve.
So let the West leave the Middle East alone and we will
see for how long the Palestinians will continue to fight.
(BTW why does UNRWA feed Palestinians in Gaza?
They are in their own country, under Palestinian control,
and so they are not "refugees" according to the UN
own definitions.)
> > We will talk about that after the Mexican gangs will
> > decide to shoot rockets on the US or a new Pancho
> > Villa will decide to raid Arizona. Then you will
> > discover that what you find "acceptable" for Israel is
> > "unacceptable" for the US.
> We Americans don't need or want your advice on our domestic affairs.
Of course.
It is much easier to lecture about "settlers" and "International
Law" when you don't have to talk about the Adams–Onis Treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams%E2%80%93On%C3%ADs_Treaty
> As you are our client state you will get ours whether
> you like it or not.
For now.
France still feels betrayed because nobody in Jerusalem
wants to even listen to their opinions.
> > Iraqi divisions fought Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973.
> > You may assume that a 21'th century army will never
> > manage to advance as fast as a 20'th century army,
> > but I don't have to share your assumption.
> What I say is that you assumed the risks of your great zio-colonial
> experiment. Where do you get the idea that you can shed them off on us
If you don't like the deal that Israel offers then don't take it.
And don't ask us for any help when you will discover Iran
expanding into the oil rich regions and you will have no
secure based for operations closer than Diego Garcia.
Whining about a deal, and then taking it, is a bad idea.
> > The Israeli air-force *FAILED* in 1973.
> I don't care. This is 2011.
I do.
I learn from failures.
> > It got half of the defense budget and had just a marginal
> > influence on the war. You may assume that 21'th century
> > missiles will never manage to do the same. I don't.
> You forget, you assumed the risk. We have a very helpful plan for
> minimizing it and raising Israel's chances of long term survival.
I don't know if you play Walrus or The Carpenter, but we
have no desire to visit your Looking-Glass land.
> > In 1969 the US made a ceasefire for Israel, including a promise that
> > the status-qua with respect to missiles would be kept. A couple of
> > hours later the Egyptians moved the missiles forward and the US
> > prevented Israel from attacking the missiles before they had the
> > time to dig them in.
> Go ahead, worry about that. Egypt is changing before your very eyes,
> probably into a democracy,
You believe that there can be an *Arab* democracy?!
Do you see an Egyptian leader give up power just
because he lost the election?!
> and yet you resist it. Read Rudolph Rummel.
I prefer to observe facts, not theories.
The only theory that really holds in the Arab world is
from Ecclesiastes 1,9:
"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again; "
> > Israel *knows* how much support Obama will give it if Egypt
> > will move missiles forward. Obama is as anti-Israeli as Nixon.
> Fool, it was Nixon who gave Israel the nuclear green light after her
Fool, Israel had nukes in 1967. Eshkol approved the very risky
IDF plan to go to war, with no superpower support, because he
had plan B - nukes. Johnson and Nixon had the choice of
picking a fight with Israel or giving it reasons not to use nukes.
> The language you use is anti-American.
After 1973 plenty of young Israeli used anti-American
language. In 1977 we kicked out the US best friend
in Israel - Labour. In ten years we may elect Feiglin.
> > So what?
> You brag about your experts. I offer you Juan Cole.
We brag about an ability to predict the future and
get ready for it. We lost some under Labour and
Oslo, but we recover.
> > Once upon a time a US diplomat argued with Ben-Eliezer about
> > the Palestinian anti-Israeli propaganda. Ben-Eliezer set the
> > radio to the Palestinian station (he had it preset) and gave the
> > American
> > a simultaneous translation.
> >That's knowledge that the US just
> > does not have.
> Bullshit. We record every radiostation in the Middle East 24/7.
You have the raw data.
But it takes a looooooooong time for the information to pass
from the ears to the brain. A dinosaur could think faster.
> > McNamara had plenty of experts who understood
> > Vietnamese, he just did not have the ability to listen to radio Hanoi,
> > in Vietnamese, on his way to work. This is the thing that makes
> > the difference and the US just can't have.
> Jesus this is tiresome.
Well?
Why did McNamara understand only in the end of 1967 that
the Vietnam was was lost? Why could not he pass that
information to Johnson?
How do *you* explain that?
> Washington will rejoice if you find another patron state.
Truman thought so in 1948, and was happy to offer
Israel some economic help in 1949, in return for
getting out of Sinai.
> The democracy promoted by the neoconservative Jews and Israelis in
> State, Defense and the Whitehouse and in the Lobby during the lead-up
> to war. The projects were called nation-building, the creation of
> democracies. We were going protect Israel by changing the neighborhood
> in which she assumed the risks inherent in her utopian project!
Ha?
Where have you found an Israeli leader how believes in Arab democracy?
Even Rabin thought that Arafat would run his country without "בג"ץ
ובצלם"
(No Supreme Court or B'Tselem.)
> > The real name is
> > Operation
> > Iraq
> > Liberation.
> Of course. And nation-building was part of the project.
Can you read?
O
I
L
> Can the US liberate and build a nation which isn't a democracy?
Were the Banana Republics that the US "liberated and built"
democracies?
Why should an Oil Republic be different than a Banana Republic?
hille...@yahoo.com
> read history for over a half century.
How many Primary Sources, as defined in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
have you read?
Can you tell us about a couple of them?
>How about you?
I prefer to live in historical times and be a source.
I remember the air raid sirens in the weeks before
the 6-Day-War. I remember that half of my
class did not come to school in June 5, 1967.
(More and more kids came every day after that.)
But if I miss a historical time, I still try to
get close to the sources. E.g. A Palmach
member who fought in May 15, 1948 in
Malkiyah; a settler from Atarot who left
everything behind and escaped, with
rest of the village, by foot, to the Scout
Mountain; an office that used the
two 65 mm Napoleonchiks in the
battle of Be'erot Yitzhak; the little
museum in Nirim about their May 15, 1948
battle. Interesting stories, all of them.
> There have been only two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet
> Union. It's questionable whether the S.U. should ever have held the
> title. She had some globalized military power but not much else going
> for her. She balanced her books only twice after the end of WW II. Her
> power in the global sense wasn't especially super.
Your point?
> Napoleon III ruled a second-rate colonialist "great power" in the 19th
> Century style. There was nothing unique about his operation.
Napoleon III thought about himself as a great power, like Napoleon I.
He was wrong.
But the issue is France's *perception* of itself, not the reality.
> It wasn't even possible for superpowers to arise until the 20th
> Century,
Ha?
When Columbus came back from America the news did not
remain secret for long. All the European powers knew about
Spain's source of gold. But aside from Portugal that cooperated
with Spain, nobody could take Spain's gold sources. Spain
was the true superpower, with colonies around the world.
(Spain lost that position because its own mistakes.)
> so the first superpower was not a traditional empire.
Ha?
Before WWII the US controlled most of the states in America.
(Can you say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine ?)
It had colonies in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_expansion_of_the_United_States
has a longer list.
After WWII the US was like Rome after the second Punic War.
The old Empire of Germany lost its control of Europe, for a very
long time. US Army was in Berlin and Tokyo, it was an Empire
in the Roman Republic sense of the word.
> It arose because Europe committed suicide
Yup.
Most of the best brains who built the Atomic bomb
for you came from Europe. If history had not been
"bent" by Hitler madness then Germany would
have the first nukes.
> and because though we participated in the global
> conflict we never became a battlefield. We emerged stronger than ever
> with our immense industrial plant intact and didn't look back--until
> the time of George W. Bush who frittered it away.
Bush was the result of US decline, not the reason.
The reason is that in this modern world technology is the
real winner, and for great technology you need great
engineers. The US decided to give up on a good
education system, and just import talent. It is
a very dangerous decision that will cost the US dearly.
(But gave Obama plenty of support - one sixth
of the delegates who elected him as the nominee
came from the teachers' unions.)
mirjam
> I'm not an historian. I was a lawyer. But I've read history for over a
> half century. How about you?
>
> There have been only two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet
> Union. It's questionable whether the S.U. should ever have held the
initials of the other power which were not SU , but USSR ?
And by the way for a long time France Too was considered to be one of
the super powers!!!! As was UK !!!
>
> It wasn't even possible for superpowers to arise until the 20th
> Century, just as globalization as we know it today wasn't possible
> until the communications and computer technology advances of the late
> 20th Century came about.
Ahum .....the British, Spanish and the Dutch managed quite well using
sailing ships !!!
The Greek and the Romans ` just walked` all over Minor Asia, Asia and
North Africa , The Cartagens , crossed the Alps with Elepahnts ,,,
None had 20th century technologies ,,,,
mirjam
Zev
news:ce0c8f61-a75c-4b2c-a602-
b073ed...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 3:13 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <hillelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:cd517c14-133b-407e-8403-
>> c7eb4491d...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Feb 1, 11:43 am, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> There have been no dreams in France of her becoming a super power
>> >> since 1815.
>>
>> You've never heard of Napoleon III?
>> Hunter, I know you're not much of a historian,
>> but so much not a historian???
>
> I'm not an historian. I was a lawyer. But I've read history for over a
> half century. How about you?
All of us here dabble in history.
My point was that someone who was so much not a historian
that he didn't know about Napoleon III shouldn't make statements
which imply that he is *not* "so much not a historian".
BTW, I find your current interactions with Hillel awe inspiring.
He demolishes your arguments with an erudite and brusque finesse
which is rarely seen in most Usenet groups.
Only a masochist or a fool would go through this
and come back for more, again and again.
Be assured that I, and very likely many of your thousands of
"admirers",
are enjoying our "learning experience".
coaster132000
> "coaster132000" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ce0c8f61-a75c-4b2c-a602-
> b073edd17...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 2, 3:13 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> <hillelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:cd517c14-133b-407e-8403-
> >> c7eb4491d...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Feb 1, 11:43 am, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> There have been no dreams in France of her becoming a super power
> >> >> since 1815.
>
> >> You've never heard of Napoleon III?
> >> Hunter, I know you're not much of a historian,
> >> but so much not a historian???
>
> > I'm not an historian. I was a lawyer. But I've read history for over a
> > half century. How about you?
> All of us here dabble in history.
I can't admit to dabbling. There was far more to it than that.
> My point was that someone who was so much not a historian
> that he didn't know about Napoleon III shouldn't make statements
> which imply that he is *not* "so much not a historian".
I've never been an historian. After graduate school most of my reading
was in European history, almost all of it academic work product and
all of it avocational. Here's what you clipped of my response to you
in order to be able to substitute a personal attack:
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Perhaps your irritation relates to the question at the end. But I
still call upon you to answer it. Personal conflict of interest is a
legitimate issue in political discourse.
> BTW, I find your current interactions with Hillel awe inspiring.
That's bourne out by the spike in my reads since the thread began.
Yesterday it was nearly 10,000. Today it's dropped to 8,900, perhaps
due to your brilliant snipping ability.
You didn't reply to my most recent question, Zev. On which side of
the
Green Line up there in Jerusalem to you live?
> He demolishes your arguments with an erudite and brusque finesse
> which is rarely seen in most Usenet groups.
> Only a masochist or a fool would go through this
> and come back for more, again and again.
In fact it's very difficult for anyone such as Hillel to prevail in
debate while on the authoritarian side of a given argument about
ideology, policy and human rights. It's a bit like the difficulties
Marxists have in arguing the case for Leninism/Stalinism.
> Be assured that I, and very likely many of your thousands of
> "admirers",
> are enjoying our "learning experience".
The readers come back when anything interesting is going on. I've
become able to predict it. The high was roughly 24,000 in a week and
it related directly to the quality of the arguments being made. The
moment that level of relevance and intensity is lost they disappear. I
suspect that they consist of both political friends and enemies both
of which I'm here to communicate with.
I invite you to contribute. You've been shy ever since I asked you
which side of the Green Line in Jerusalem you live on. Hey, it's okay
that you are awestruck by Hillel, but you shouldn't give over the
field of honor to him.
dsharavi
> On Feb 2, 4:14 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not an historian. I was a lawyer. But I've
> > read history for over a half century.
>
> have you read?
> Can you tell us about a couple of them?
>
> >How about you?
>
> I prefer to live in historical times and be a source.
> I remember the air raid sirens in the weeks before
> the 6-Day-War. I remember that half of my
> class did not come to school in June 5, 1967.
> (More and more kids came every day after that.)
>
> But if I miss a historical time, I still try to
> get close to the sources. E.g. A Palmach
> member who fought in May 15, 1948 in
> Malkiyah; a settler from Atarot who left
> everything behind and escaped, with
> rest of the village, by foot, to the Scout
> Mountain; an office that used the
> two 65 mm Napoleonchiks in the
> battle of Be'erot Yitzhak; the little
> museum in Nirim about their May 15, 1948
> battle. Interesting stories, all of them.
Very interesting. Alas, I fear the references will fly way above H's
head.
Deborah
>
> > There have been only two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet
> > Union. It's questionable whether the S.U. should ever have held the
> > title. She had some globalized military power but not much else going
> > for her. She balanced her books only twice after the end of WW II. Her
> > power in the global sense wasn't especially super.
>
> Your point?
>
> > Napoleon III ruled a second-rate colonialist "great power" in the 19th
> > Century style. There was nothing unique about his operation.
>
> Napoleon III thought about himself as a great power, like Napoleon I.
> He was wrong.
> But the issue is France's *perception* of itself, not the reality.
>
> > It wasn't even possible for superpowers to arise until the 20th
> > Century,
>
> Ha?
> When Columbus came back from America the news did not
> remain secret for long. All the European powers knew about
> Spain's source of gold. But aside from Portugal that cooperated
> with Spain, nobody could take Spain's gold sources. Spain
> was the true superpower, with colonies around the world.
> (Spain lost that position because its own mistakes.)
>
> > so the first superpower was not a traditional empire.
>
> Ha?
> Before WWII the US controlled most of the states in America.
> (Can you sayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine?)
> It had colonies in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_expansion_of_the_United_States
dsharavi
> "coaster132000" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ce0c8f61-a75c-4b2c-a602-
> b073edd17...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Ubetcha. Hillel does an absolutely splendid job, without even breaking
out into a sweat.
Deborah
dsharavi
> On Feb 3, 6:27 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "coaster132000" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > news:ce0c8f61-a75c-4b2c-a602-
> > b073edd17...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Feb 2, 3:13 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> <hillelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:cd517c14-133b-407e-8403-
> > >> c7eb4491d...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > On Feb 1, 11:43 am, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> There have been no dreams in France of her becoming a super power
> > >> >> since 1815.
>
> > >> You've never heard of Napoleon III?
> > >> Hunter, I know you're not much of a historian,
> > >> but so much not a historian???
>
> > > I'm not an historian. I was a lawyer. But I've read history for over a
> > > half century. How about you?
>
> > All of us here dabble in history.
>
> I can't admit to dabbling.
That would make it out to be more than it actually was.
> > My point was that someone who was so much not a historian
> > that he didn't know about Napoleon III shouldn't make statements
> > which imply that he is *not* "so much not a historian".
>
> I've never been an historian.
That is very obvious.
>After graduate school most of my reading
> was in European history, almost all of it academic work product and
> all of it avocational.
Oh? It doesn't show.
> > BTW, I find your current interactions with Hillel awe inspiring.
>
> That's bourne out by the spike in my reads since the thread began.
> Yesterday it was nearly 10,000. Today it's dropped to 8,900
Does anyone buy this bs?
> In fact it's very difficult for anyone such as Hillel to prevail in
> debate while on the authoritarian side of a given argument about
> ideology, policy and human rights.
Translation: H is too dense to notice when he's taken a beating.
Pretty cocky, for a hick from the sticks.
Deborah
hille...@yahoo.com
> On which side of the Green Line up there in Jerusalem to you live?
What difference does it make?
Do you understand the meaning of the "Green Line" in central Israel?
Let's educated you a little.
In 1948 Jordan army moved into the "West Bank" taking most of the
central part of a future Palestinian state. It made a perfect ethnic
cleansing. No Jews remained. Even the old Jews from the Old City
of Jerusalem were kicked out. Obama, of course, views that as
right and just. In Obama's opinion no Jews should be allowed
where they had been kicked form, Jerusalem included. By
Liberal standards Jordan's military force is a might that had
done right - perfect ethnic cleansing of Jews. Israel military
force is a might that did wrong - Jews moved back to Jerusalem.
(BTW why do Liberals call the city Jerusalem, instead of
the proper Roman name - "Aelia Capitolina"?
I am sure they support the Roman ban on Jews in
"Aelia Capitolina", even if the Roman Evil Empire
had been long gone.)
dsharavi
Does the Green Line even exist any longer, outside PalArab fantazia?
Deborah
hille...@yahoo.com
> Does the Green Line even exist any longer, outside PalArab fantazia?
Legally speaking, the Green Line in central Israel exists on the
maps attached to the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Jordan
and Israel. Right now it has no International Law status because
Jordan gave up almost all areas west of the Jordan river in
the 1996 peace treaty.
dsharavi
That's what I thought.
Deborah
coaster132000
Your assertion is contrary to the International Court of Justice's
decision on the Apartheid Wall. The ICJ is the court of last resort
for UN members.
coaster132000
No, it resembled something you wanted to hear.
hille...@yahoo.com
> > maps attached to the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Jordan
> > and Israel. Right now it has no International Law status because
> > Jordan gave up almost all areas west of the Jordan river in
> > the 1996 peace treaty.
On Feb 3, 6:36 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your assertion is contrary to the International Court of Justice's
> decision on the Apartheid Wall. The ICJ is the court of last resort
> for UN members.
So?
If the court will decide tomorrow that pi should be set to 3,
will the "real world" be changed?
What you keep missing is that International Law has no
legislature body, all we have is agreements between states,
especially superpowers. The court decided to write a new
International Law, out of thin air. It is a bad idea on two counts:
1) There should be a difference between the legislature and
the judicial branches to prevent judges from writing new laws,
out of thin air, just so a case can be decided as they like.
2) A law should be written by those who can used power
to enforce it. In the case of International Law it means
states, especially powerful states.
The UN decided to make its courts as political as the
UN General Assembly. They make *political* decisions,
not legal decisions.
mirjam
> Your assertion is contrary to the International Court of Justice's
> decision on the Apartheid Wall. The ICJ is the court of last resort
> for UN members.
This wall has saved lives , on both sides,
Because it makes it harder for Terrorists to enter Israel.
mirjam
DoD
>
> news:ce0c8f61-a75c-4b2c-a602-
> b073edd17...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Keep paying attention to him. Hillel is one sharp cookie.
DoD
You scan the bottom of the barrel looking for things you want to
see... You always
come up short and make yourself look like a superior ass. I guess
job well done to you, as always.
As an aside... where are all these thousands of your fans cheering you
on? LOL!!!!!
DoD
> On Feb 3, 1:36 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On which side of the Green Line up there in Jerusalem to you live?
>
> What difference does it make?
> Do you understand the meaning of the "Green Line" in central Israel?
> Let's educated you a little.
>
> In 1948 Jordan army moved into the "West Bank" taking most of the
> central part of a future Palestinian state. It made a perfect ethnic
> cleansing. No Jews remained. Even the old Jews from the Old City
> of Jerusalem were kicked out. Obama, of course, views that as
> right and just. In Obama's opinion no Jews should be allowed
> where they had been kicked form, Jerusalem included. By
> Liberal standards Jordan's military force is a might that had
> done right - perfect ethnic cleansing of Jews. Israel military
> force is a might that did wrong - Jews moved back to Jerusalem.
That is liberal thinking.... Most of us knew that is what we would get
with
the Dalai Obama... I guess it will take a bigger kick in the ass of
American
Jews to learn. (I am afraid that is coming).
Zev
b1ad22...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
<snipped again>
Of course I snipped it, you contradict yourself.
But I didn't snip the relevant line:
"There have been no dreams in France
of her becoming a super power since 1815".
> Perhaps your irritation relates to the question at the end. But I
> still call upon you to answer it. Personal conflict of interest is a
> legitimate issue in political discourse.
Anti-Semitism is also.
Your need to embellish your arguments
with the sure signs of anti-Semitism
(demonizing, delegitimizing, double standard)
says more about them than any post I could write.
You should stick to American interests, per se,
without confusing yourself with lies about
ethnic cleaning, illegal settlements, etc...
I've practically implored you to discuss this seriously.
But even now you fail to see that
American policy in the ME is falling apart,
while America can do more than pretend to support
the change it has been trying to prevent for decades.
>> BTW, I find your current interactions with Hillel awe inspiring.
>
> That's bourne out by the spike in my reads since the thread began.
> Yesterday it was nearly 10,000. Today it's dropped to 8,900, perhaps
> due to your brilliant snipping ability.
>
> You didn't reply to my most recent question, Zev. On which side of
> the
> Green Line up there in Jerusalem to you live?
>
>> He demolishes your arguments with an erudite and brusque finesse
>> which is rarely seen in most Usenet groups.
>
>> Only a masochist or a fool would go through this
>> and come back for more, again and again.
>
> In fact it's very difficult for anyone such as Hillel to prevail in
> debate while on the authoritarian side of a given argument about
> ideology, policy and human rights. It's a bit like the difficulties
> Marxists have in arguing the case for Leninism/Stalinism.
They should stick to Marxism.
Except for the fact that it doesn't work,
it has a lot going for it.
(I'm serious about this)
hille...@yahoo.com
> > the Palestinian anti-Israeli propaganda. Ben-Eliezer set the
> > radio to the Palestinian station (he had it preset) and gave the
> > American a simultaneous translation.
> >That's knowledge that the US just does not have.
On Feb 2, 2:56 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bullshit. We record every radiostation in the Middle East 24/7. That
> includes yours. And we have enough loyal Hebrew translators even
> though they are hard to find.
Take a look at today's Washington Post:
US intelligence on Arab unrest draws criticism
By KIMBERLY DOZIER
The Associated Press
Friday, February 4, 2011; 4:04 AM
WASHINGTON -- Intelligence agencies in the U.S. are drawing criticism
that they failed to warn of revolts in Egypt and the downfall of an
American ally in Tunisia.
A U.S. official tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama
has told the director of national intelligence that he is disappointed
with the intelligence community's failure to foresee the ouster of
President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunis. The official spoke on
condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.
On Capitol Hill, top senators on the Intelligence Committee are asking
when Obama was briefed and what he was told before the revolts in
Egypt and Tunisia.
The chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, Democratic Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, says those events should not have come upon the U.S. with
the surprise that they did.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020400633.html
######################################################
I see a failure of the US intelligence which is mostly a matter of
speed.
It just takes too much time for information to pass from the antenna
in
the tip of the tail of that dinosaur to its brain. Some inside the US
government seem to agree, see above article.
HHW sees plenty resources and great data collection:
"We record every radiostation in the Middle East 24/7".
IMO the big difference is that I look for results.
HHW does not value results.
He values doing all the right things, by the book,
putting resources, etc. It is some kind of a
religious belief that if you will just do the ceremony
that the Gods want then they will give you knowledge
and/or intelligence.
I have just one problem with this religious belief:
It does not work.
hille...@yahoo.com
> This wall has saved lives , on both sides,
That's *exactly* what angers Liberals, leftists, "human
rights" organization etc. They want to see blood for
two reasons:
1) Blame Israel. The more blood there is, the more
of it can be smears on the Jews.
2) Convince Israelis that there is no "military solution",
and the only "solution" is just to give the Arabs
whatever they want.
drahcir
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 2, 3:13�pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <hillelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cd517c14-133b-407e-8403-
>> c7eb4491d...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 1, 11:43 am, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 31, 5:50 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> > We saw that in 1948 with the US arms embargo on Israel.
>>
>> >> That was a response to the Jewish ethnic cleansing of
>> >> Palestine, a response to a great crime against humanity.
>>
>> > The League of Nation allocated land for a Jewish homeland.
>> > The Brits gave 80% of the territory to an Arab prince that
>> > his family had *NEVER* controlled that land. To help with
>> > his "claim", all Jews, who lived there much longer than him,
>> > were kicked out. �And the US supported that prince because
>> > it was against "ethnic cleansing".
>>
>> ??????
>>
>> >> > The Israeli summary to the Baghdad Pact is pretty simple:
>> >> > "???? ????, ???? ????"
>> >> > (Baghdad betrayed, Iraq deserted.)
>> >> > *We* learn.
>>
>> >> You study the wrong things. You may learn, but to what end?
>>
>> > Predicting the future of course.
>> > That's the only interesting game in town.
>>
>> ??? ???? "???? ?????" ??? ??? ?????
>> ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ????????.
>>
>> >> > France had that attitude with dreams about being a superpower.
>>
>> >> There have been no dreams in France of her becoming a super power
>> >> since 1815.
>>
>> You've never heard of Napoleon III?
>> Hunter, I know you're not much of a historian,
>> but so much not a historian???
>
>I'm not an historian. I was a lawyer. But I've read history for over a
>half century. How about you?
You've read "history", eh, H? Here's a fact: you've read not even one
objective history of Israel. Here's another fact - you've actually
felt compelled to lie to complete strangers in this group about
having done so, specifically with regard to Sachar. I can't speak to
topics not covered in this group, but insofar as subject matter here,
you've proven yourself time and again to be a nearly cmoplete
ignoramus. You've possibly read "history" for over half a century, but
a book every ten years still comes out to only five, none of which
apparently clued you in to the topics you pretend to discuss here.
>
>There have been only two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet
>Union. It's questionable whether the S.U. should ever have held the
>title. She had some globalized military power but not much else going
>for her. She balanced her books only twice after the end of WW II. Her
>power in the global sense wasn't especially super.
>
>Napoleon III ruled a second-rate colonialist "great power" in the 19th
>Century style. There was nothing unique about his operation.
>
>It wasn't even possible for superpowers to arise until the 20th
>Century, just as globalization as we know it today wasn't possible
>until the communications and computer technology advances of the late
>20th Century came about. The global reach required for each in its
>time was too technology-dependent to have been possible earlier. You
>can see that U.S. hegemony which arose in the post WW II era pretty
>much by default involved no territorial expansion whatever, so the
>first superpower was not a traditional empire. It arose because Europe
>committed suicide and because though we participated in the global
>conflict we never became a battlefield. We emerged stronger than ever
>with our immense industrial plant intact and didn't look back--until
>the time of George W. Bush who frittered it away.
>
hille...@yahoo.com
> You've read "history", eh, H? Here's a fact: you've read not even one
> objective history of Israel.
I don't think that there is, or there can be, "an objective history
of Israel". Sachar comes pretty close, in the sense that he
made a big effort to pick as many primary sources as he could,
but history has the tendency to be like Rashomon.
When I read history I usually look for several sources from
different points of view. But I demand from all of them to
be consistent with well established facts. I still look for
an Arab source that can explain "what were they thinking",
instead of just a big list of all the wrongs that were done
to them. For me, the big mystery, is "what were they
thinking?" The Arabs knew about the WWII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade
Why did they pick a fight with an enemy which
had shown ability to get organized; had thousands of
trained troops; had an industrial base that served
the British army well in WWII; and later gave the
100,000 British troops in Israel such a headache?
Was it because they did not have the facts or
because they were too stupid/crazy to think
clearly through a life & death problem?
(It is interesting that some mercenaries gave up
after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramat_Yohanan
and cut a deal with the Jews. They, and their
families, still live in peace in Israel. Why most
local Arabs did not try to get a similar deal?)
coaster132000
Experienced glottal paralysis yet, David?
coaster132000
> On Feb 3, 4:40 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 1:36 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On which side of the Green Line up there in Jerusalem to you live?
>
> > What difference does it make?
> > Do you understand the meaning of the "Green Line" in central Israel?
> > Let's educated you a little.
>
> > In 1948 Jordan army moved into the "West Bank" taking most of the
> > central part of a future Palestinian state. It made a perfect ethnic
> > cleansing. No Jews remained. Even the old Jews from the Old City
> > of Jerusalem were kicked out. Obama, of course, views that as
> > right and just. In Obama's opinion no Jews should be allowed
> > where they had been kicked form, Jerusalem included.
If you were to discover that Palesinians are the descendants of Jews
who were not kicked out of Palestine, would it make any difference to
you?
coaster132000
> "coaster132000" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> b1ad228bf...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
But you snip instead of pointing out my dereliction. You're not so
sure of yourself.
> But I didn't snip the relevant line:
> "There have been no dreams in France
> of her becoming a super power since 1815".
>
> > Perhaps your irritation relates to the question at the end. But I
> > still call upon you to answer it. Personal conflict of interest is a
> > legitimate issue in political discourse.
>
> Anti-Semitism is also.
So you admit the evil inherent in conflict of interest. That's on its
way to the bank.
> Your need to embellish your arguments
> with the sure signs of anti-Semitism
> (demonizing, delegitimizing, double standard)
> says more about them than any post I could write.
You see, Zev, you're no longer permitted to determine what anti-
Semitism is. You've abused that right much too long for political
advantage. You no longer have impunity from criticism. You can no
longer commit crimes against humanity and call criticism of it anti-
Semitism. We all know it as the lying bullshit it is. We know you
should not be permitted to defend it in any way, far less by attacking
the messenger. Go ahead, Zev, tell us precisely how it is that you
justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and again in 1967,
and gradually ever since? What basis have you for it? Russian pogroms,
the Holocaust? Jewish exceptionalism? The Torah? Come on, suck it up
and make the arguments. We're paying the price for it. What makes you
think you can get off the hook.
> You should stick to American interests, per se,
> without confusing yourself with lies about
> ethnic cleaning, illegal settlements, etc...
Lies, eh? Respond to my last paragraph on behalf of Israel, Zev.
> I've practically implored you to discuss this seriously.
I should discuss sticking to American interests seriously? The very
point I make is that Israel's interests are not America's. What more
do you want in the context of America's slavish de facto support of
Israeli aggression and inhumanity?
> But even now you fail to see that
> American policy in the ME is falling apart,
Yes, it's falling apart, but that's because it hasn't been our policy.
> while America can do more than pretend to support
> the change it has been trying to prevent for decades.
How else could we support Israel as opposed to our own interests?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> BTW, I find your current interactions with Hillel awe inspiring.
>
> > That's bourne out by the spike in my reads since the thread began.
> > Yesterday it was nearly 10,000. Today it's dropped to 8,900, perhaps
> > due to your brilliant snipping ability.
>
> > You didn't reply to my most recent question, Zev. On which side of
> > the
> > Green Line up there in Jerusalem to you live?
>
> >> He demolishes your arguments with an erudite and brusque finesse
> >> which is rarely seen in most Usenet groups.
>
> >> Only a masochist or a fool would go through this
> >> and come back for more, again and again.
>
> > In fact it's very difficult for anyone such as Hillel to prevail in
> > debate while on the authoritarian side of a given argument about
> > ideology, policy and human rights. It's a bit like the difficulties
> > Marxists have in arguing the case for Leninism/Stalinism.
>
> They should stick to Marxism.
> Except for the fact that it doesn't work,
> it has a lot going for it.
> (I'm serious about this)
>
Fine explain your position.
> >> Be assured that I, and very likely many of your thousands of
> >> "admirers",
> >> are enjoying our "learning experience".
>
> > The readers come back when anything interesting is going on. I've
> > become able to predict it. The high was roughly 24,000 in a week and
> > it related directly to the quality of the arguments being made. The
> > moment that level of relevance and intensity is lost they disappear. I
> > suspect that they consist of both political friends and enemies both
> > of which I'm here to communicate with.
>
> > I invite you to contribute. You've been shy ever since I asked you
> > which side of the Green Line in Jerusalem you live on. Hey, it's okay
> > that you are awestruck by Hillel, but you shouldn't give over the
> > field of honor to him.
Which side of the green line up there in Jerusalem do you live on,
Zev? Be frank about the extent of your personal conflict of interest.
Otherwise I can only speculate: Do you have a personal, "existential",
stake in Israel keeping East Jerusalem? Is it a rush for you to live
in Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian people? Why might it be
that you don't want to move back to a legitimate life in your own
country, Israel? You can clear all this up in a flash you know.
DoD
I witness verbal diarrhea whenever I read your posts. Does that come
close?
DoD
I am not interested in entertaining anything you have to say, because
you
are a proven dipshit.
coaster132000
>
> ######################################################
>
> I see a failure of the US intelligence which is mostly a matter of
> speed.
> It just takes too much time for information to pass from the antenna
> in
> the tip of the tail of that dinosaur to its brain. Some inside the US
> government seem to agree, see above article.
>
> HHW sees plenty resources and great data collection:
> "We record every radiostation in the Middle East 24/7".
>
> IMO the big difference is that I look for results.
What results have you found?
>
> HHW does not value results.
Sure I do. But tell us what results you have found and when and where
did you find them regardin Israel's Tunisian brilliance.
> He values doing all the right things, by the book,
What things did the Israelis do which we didn't in forecasting the
Tunisian unrest? And what do you base your judgment on. Do you have
any feel for what the Israeli contribution might have been? Do tell us
about that. Did they cover themselves in glory as they did regarding
Egypt? Remember, I'll be interested in the details.
> putting resources, etc. It is some kind of a
> religious belief
Nonsense. We've been agnostics for three generations. Oh, you didn't
really mean religious belief? Well then, why did you say it?
that if you will just do the ceremony
> that the Gods want then they will give you knowledge
> and/or intelligence.
No, I'm a realist. We don't do ceremonies We spread our finite
resources over the entire globe. By and large it works reasonably
given the immensity of the task. If you don't like our focus, abandon
us for another patron which is more effective and subservient as to
how it's resources are applied. Or you could just go it alone. How
about that? What do you say we start yesterday?
> I have just one problem with this religious belief:
> It does not work.
How could religious belief ever have been thought to work? You're
Biblical Man. You admitted it just a day or two ago. While you're at
it explain yourself and your determination to protect the right of
your other Biblical Men to keep their hold on the West Bank. We'd all
like to hear that.
DoD
> On Feb 4, 4:00 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>
> > You've read "history", eh, H? Here's a fact: you've read not even one
> > objective history of Israel.
>
> I don't think that there is, or there can be, "an objective history
> of Israel". Sachar comes pretty close, in the sense that he
> made a big effort to pick as many primary sources as he could,
> but history has the tendency to be like Rashomon.
>
> When I read history I usually look for several sources from
> different points of view. But I demand from all of them to
> be consistent with well established facts. I still look for
> an Arab source that can explain "what were they thinking",
> instead of just a big list of all the wrongs that were done
> to them. For me, the big mystery, is "what were they
> Why did they pick a fight with an enemy which
> had shown ability to get organized; had thousands of
> trained troops; had an industrial base that served
> the British army well in WWII; and later gave the
> 100,000 British troops in Israel such a headache?
>
> Was it because they did not have the facts or
> because they were too stupid/crazy to think
> clearly through a life & death problem?
>
> (It is interesting that some mercenaries gave up
> and cut a deal with the Jews. They, and their
> families, still live in peace in Israel. Why most
> local Arabs did not try to get a similar deal?)
You have asked that question before and it is totally
valid. Every interview I have come across comes up short
on anyone asking the question and any Arab giving an answer
to shed some light on that.
DoD
Hillel does a good enough job of pointing out what an ass you are.. I
say
you are just a scrub, and not worthy of a few remarks. That is why I
haven't bothered
to reply to you in such a long time. You have no credibility, no
morals, and have
trouble giving honest answers to tough questions. You are also just a
blabber mouth
and have a high opinion of yourself without any reason to have it.
You, in short, are a
clown.
coaster132000
> On Feb 3, 10:06 pm, mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
>
> > This wall has saved lives , on both sides,
The wall's primary purpose is to function as a fact on the ground
regarding a future border. It's a part of the land grab process. That
it has saved lives is obviously subsidiary. Peace will be more
effective in saving lives but youre not ready for that yet, Hillel.
Your ideological goals are not yet fulfilled.
> That's *exactly* what angers Liberals, leftists, "human
> rights" organization etc. They want to see blood
You're at war. That won't end until you settle with the Palestinians.
Quit whining about blood and pizza parlors. You essentially murdered
1,400 people recently in Gaza. It was you who wanted to see THAT
blood. You're a hypocrite. It's a leit motiv among Zionists.
for
> two reasons:
>
> 1) Blame Israel. The more blood there is, the more
> of it can be smears on the Jews.
Israel smears itself. One could ask the rest of the world but it's
filled with anti-Semites so results wouldn't be reliable, right?
>
> 2) Convince Israelis that there is no "military solution",
Ohhhhhh, okay, Hillel, what is the final military solution and how is
Israel going to implement it. I presume you want us to buy into it, so
go on to tell us why we should. We being the other 98.2% of the
American people of course. You know, the tough, athletic, cannon
fodder reservoir you value so much.
What I'm really curious about is how you're going to carry out this
final military solution so far as the Palestinians are concerned. Will
it be apartheid? Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? If you have other ideas
please inform us. We can't see others. It would be helpful if we knew
your plans in advance. It's the minimum we can ask of an ally.
> and the only "solution" is just to give the Arabs
> whatever they want.
Is confirming *to the Palestinians* 22% of their native land giving
them "whatever they want"? Surely you can't be serious. Everyone can
see this cynical "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too"
mindset. You've really got to do a better job of this. You're not
making any sense. Isn't it time for you to abandon the United States?
Really, come on, I think so. We're just becomming too much trouble to
be worth it and it's only going to get worse. But then you don't have
our F-35s yet so I could be wrong about that.
hille...@yahoo.com
> If you were to discover that Palesinians are the descendants of Jews
> who were not kicked out of Palestine,
A pretty big "if" on this one.
Too many of the original "descendants of Jews" were
killed by the Arabs, and some of the Arabs actually settled
in. E.g. I posted about the Egyptians in the 19'th century.
> would it make any difference to you?
It would fit just fine with Jeremiah 16, 10-13:
“When you tell these people all this and they ask you, ‘Why has the
LORD decreed such a great disaster against us? What wrong have we
done? What sin have we committed against the LORD our God?’ then say
to them, ‘It is because your ancestors forsook me,’ declares the LORD,
‘and followed other gods and served and worshiped them. They forsook
me and did not keep my law. But you have behaved more wickedly than
your ancestors. See how all of you are following the stubbornness of
your evil hearts instead of obeying me. So I will throw you out of
this land into a land neither you nor your ancestors have known, and
there you will serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no
favor.’
########################################
It seems like Israel's God made his mind about the
Palestinians, according to the ancient warning.
They picked another God and he threw them
"out of this land".
hille...@yahoo.com
> Sure I do. But tell us what results you have found and when and where
> did you find them regardin Israel's Tunisian brilliance.
I figured out that Tunisia was a dictatorship long
before Obama, who was so busy with the Israeli
settlement could figure that one. See
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism, soc.culture.israel, soc.culture.jewish,
alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
From: hillelg...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Jan 6 2011 11:31 am
Subject: Re: Why Israel should not exist -- no real Jews
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Jan 4, 6:53 pm, Lookout <mrLooko...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>.and tell me ONE nation that went
> from democracy to another form of government that kept the UN's
> backing.
Cambodia under Pol Pot.
Pakistan under various generals.
Zimbabwe under Mugabe.
Czechoslovakia from 1948 till the collapse of the USSR.
Tunisia with the ruling party "getting" 89.62% of the votes.
^^^^^^^^
Venezuela under Hugo Chavez.
Cuba under Castro.
Burma after the coup of 1962.
Indonesia under Sukarno and/or Suharto.
(We can split hairs when exactly the democracy died,
but 500,000 dead civilians is a bad sign.)
Algeria after the Islamic Salvation Front won the first round.
Had enough?
###################################
Which brings me back to my original point.
The US had the data about "the ruling party
'getting' 89.62% of the votes." What Obama
did not have is the understanding that Tunisia
was a dictatorship.
hille...@yahoo.com
> The wall's primary purpose is to function as a fact on the ground
> regarding a future border. It's a part of the land grab process. That
> it has saved lives is obviously subsidiary. Peace will be more
> effective in saving lives but youre not ready for that yet, Hillel.
> Your ideological goals are not yet fulfilled.
> > That's *exactly* what angers Liberals, leftists, "human
> > rights" organization etc. They want to see blood
> You're at war. That won't end until you settle with the Palestinians.
> Quit whining about blood and pizza parlors.
Once upon a time the socialists blamed capitalism for
valuing property more than human lives. Now we see
the socialists value Arab property much more than the
lives of the Jews. It is just amazing how fast European
socialism goes back to its national socialist roots.
> Is confirming *to the Palestinians* 22% of their native land giving
There can be other solutions.
E.g. kicking out the Hashemite family that took over 78% of the
original mandate for a Jewish homeland. But somehow the
property that an Arab prince stole is much more important
than the lives of Jews and Palestinians. One more fine
example of socialism in action.
drahcir
>On Feb 4, 4:00�pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> You've read "history", eh, H? Here's a fact: you've read not even one
>> objective history of Israel.
>
>I don't think that there is, or there can be, "an objective history
>of Israel". Sachar comes pretty close, in the sense that he
>made a big effort to pick as many primary sources as he could,
>but history has the tendency to be like Rashomon.
I don't know what Rashomon is, but the fact is that I don't know of
one review of Sachar accusing him of bias. The only "history" of
Israel that there is even a chance that HHW, aka iconoclast, aka
patricia, aka coaster, aka cazador has read part of is by Pappe, an
author who freely admits that he writes for propaganda purposes, with
objectivity and historical accuracy being secondary.
Zev
news:2e26e89b-7a8e-4c6f-
b19f-730...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Have you read this book?
http://books.google.com/books?id=LMIk4adlKr0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=army+of+shadows&hl=en&ei=8a1NTaOSFNHx4QayiumnCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
ARMY OF SHADOWS
Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948
by Hillel Cohen
See a review here:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/30697/sec_id/30697
mirjam
Rashumon
was the name of a Japaneses fil, . where 4 people share the same
event , and when coming to the Judge , each one tells the story from
his/her point of view , which makes each story a bit different.
mirjam
Zev
a71c-77a...@h19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
You admit that France had a dream before 1816.
You also say that such dream was impossible at the time!
Why not just admit you you didn't know about Napoleon III?
It's not that big a deal, and you're only
making yourself look worse this way.
>> But I didn't snip the relevant line:
>> "There have been no dreams in France
>> of her becoming a super power since 1815".
>>
>> > Perhaps your irritation relates to the question at the end. But I
>> > still call upon you to answer it. Personal conflict of interest is a
>> > legitimate issue in political discourse.
>>
>> Anti-Semitism is also.
>
> So you admit the evil inherent in conflict of interest. That's on its
> way to the bank.
Racism is always wrong.
Get rid of yours and stop complaining that
I use it "too long for political advantage".
>> Your need to embellish your arguments
>> with the sure signs of anti-Semitism
>> (demonizing, delegitimizing, double standard)
>> says more about them than any post I could write.
>
> You see, Zev, you're no longer permitted to determine what anti-
> Semitism is. You've abused that right much too long for political
> advantage. You no longer have impunity from criticism. You can no
> longer commit crimes against humanity and call criticism of it anti-
> Semitism. We all know it as the lying bullshit it is. We know you
> should not be permitted to defend it in any way, far less by attacking
> the messenger. Go ahead, Zev, tell us precisely how it is that you
> justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and again in 1967,
> and gradually ever since? What basis have you for it? Russian pogroms,
> the Holocaust? Jewish exceptionalism? The Torah? Come on, suck it up
> and make the arguments. We're paying the price for it. What makes you
> think you can get off the hook.
>
>> You should stick to American interests, per se,
>> without confusing yourself with lies about
>> ethnic cleaning, illegal settlements, etc...
>
> Lies, eh? Respond to my last paragraph on behalf of Israel, Zev.
http://www.crethiplethi.com/big-lies-demolishing-the-myths-of-the-propaganda-war-against-israel-part-1/israel/2009/
http://www.crethiplethi.com/big-lies-demolishing-the-myths-of-the-propaganda-war-against-israel-part-2/israel/2009/
http://www.crethiplethi.com/big-lies-demolishing-the-myths-of-the-propaganda-war-against-israel-part-3/israel/2009/
I've encouraged you to read these before.
What's the point in asking questions and refusing to read the answers?
>> I've practically implored you to discuss this seriously.
>
> I should discuss sticking to American interests seriously? The very
> point I make is that Israel's interests are not America's. What more
> do you want in the context of America's slavish de facto support of
> Israeli aggression and inhumanity?
Stop beating your wife, and I'll give you your emancipation papers.
Deal?
>> But even now you fail to see that
>> American policy in the ME is falling apart,
>
> Yes, it's falling apart, but that's because it hasn't been our policy.
Supporting Turkey, Egypt, and S. Arabia
is whose policy?
>> while America can do more than pretend to support
>> the change it has been trying to prevent for decades.
>
> How else could we support Israel as opposed to our own interests?
Huh?
>> >> BTW, I find your current interactions with Hillel awe inspiring.
>>
>> > That's bourne out by the spike in my reads since the thread began.
>> > Yesterday it was nearly 10,000. Today it's dropped to 8,900, perhaps
>> > due to your brilliant snipping ability.
>>
>> > You didn't reply to my most recent question, Zev. On which side of
>> > the
>> > Green Line up there in Jerusalem to you live?
>>
>> >> He demolishes your arguments with an erudite and brusque finesse
>> >> which is rarely seen in most Usenet groups.
>>
>> >> Only a masochist or a fool would go through this
>> >> and come back for more, again and again.
>>
>> > In fact it's very difficult for anyone such as Hillel to prevail in
>> > debate while on the authoritarian side of a given argument about
>> > ideology, policy and human rights. It's a bit like the difficulties
>> > Marxists have in arguing the case for Leninism/Stalinism.
>>
>> They should stick to Marxism.
>> Except for the fact that it doesn't work,
>> it has a lot going for it.
>> (I'm serious about this)
>>
> Fine explain your position.
This is totally off-topic so I won't write much.
I was thinking of:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs",
in light of John Stuart Mill's views on Income Distribution.
Zev
b442-447...@d23g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 1:00 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 10:06 pm, mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
>>
>> > This wall has saved lives , on both sides,
>
> The wall's primary purpose is to function as a fact on the ground
> regarding a future border. It's a part of the land grab process. That
> it has saved lives is obviously subsidiary. Peace will be more
> effective in saving lives but youre not ready for that yet, Hillel.
> Your ideological goals are not yet fulfilled.
Your silly remarks here just serve to show
how annoyed you are by the reduction
in terror attacks because of that wall/fence,
built after years of government procrastination,
after public pressure forced its hand.
You'll continue to gnash your teeth.
>> That's *exactly* what angers Liberals, leftists, "human
>> rights" organization etc. They want to see blood
>
> You're at war. That won't end until you settle with the Palestinians.
> Quit whining about blood and pizza parlors. You essentially murdered
> 1,400 people recently in Gaza. It was you who wanted to see THAT
> blood. You're a hypocrite. It's a leit motiv among Zionists.
Quit whining yourself.
You're more of a hypocrite than he is.
> for
>> two reasons:
>>
>> 1) Blame Israel. The more blood there is, the more
>> of it can be smears on the Jews.
>
> Israel smears itself. One could ask the rest of the world but it's
> filled with anti-Semites so results wouldn't be reliable, right?
>
>>
>> 2) Convince Israelis that there is no "military solution",
>
> Ohhhhhh, okay, Hillel, what is the final military solution and how is
> Israel going to implement it. I presume you want us to buy into it, so
> go on to tell us why we should. We being the other 98.2% of the
> American people of course. You know, the tough, athletic, cannon
> fodder reservoir you value so much.
>
> What I'm really curious about is how you're going to carry out this
> final military solution so far as the Palestinians are concerned. Will
> it be apartheid? Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? If you have other ideas
> please inform us. We can't see others. It would be helpful if we knew
> your plans in advance. It's the minimum we can ask of an ally.
Think out of the box.
In this case it's easy.
You have two precedents (Egypt and Jordan, for the time being).
>> and the only "solution" is just to give the Arabs
>> whatever they want.
>
> Is confirming *to the Palestinians* 22% of their native land giving
> them "whatever they want"? Surely you can't be serious.
90% was divided up before they put in their claims.
Take it up with the Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis and Jordanians.
> Everyone can
> see this cynical "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too"
> mindset. You've really got to do a better job of this. You're not
> making any sense. Isn't it time for you to abandon the United States?
> Really, come on, I think so. We're just becomming too much trouble to
> be worth it and it's only going to get worse. But then you don't have
> our F-35s yet so I could be wrong about that.
They're too expensive to buy more than 20 anyway.
Zev
be4a-7cf...@u11g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
We should all be more modest.
There are more than enough fiascos to go around, for all of us,
and probably not all of them or the successes
are known to the public.
Americans are far more free to travel to,
and talk to people in, Tunisia than Israelis are,
so that's a bad comparison.
Same goes, to a lesser extent, for Egypt.
But how about Iran?
In Sept. 1978, Israel began removing personnel from its embassy,
while the U.S. was still saying that the Shah's position was secure.
The reason is simple.
In the Israeli embassy, many of the workers spoke Persian.
In the American embassy, 2 - 3 spoke Persian.
Even CIA people stationed there didn't bother learning
Persian culture, history and language.
The Israelis had a much better "street level"
knowledge of what was happening.
In Afghanistan, American planes have bombed
weddings and old-age homes.
Is there any excuse for that kind of mistake?
hille...@yahoo.com
> See a review here:http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/30697/sec_id/30697
I'll have to take a look.
Sound interesting.
One paragraph in the review caught my eye:
"Contemporary events thus bear out the central thesis of Cohen’s
research and it is this: The version of Palestinian Arab Nationalism
as envisioned first by the Mufti during the Mandate and today by the
PLO (Yasser Arafat and currently Mahmud Abbas) or the extremist
religious organizations of Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah (whose
support is drawn in large part from Palestinian refugees in that
country), all have expected their followers to unconditionally
submerge their personal, regional, religious identity within the
concept of THE NATION, a view they hold as indistinguishable from
their leadership."
This idea of "THE NATION" is pretty strange.
E.g. in the US if there is a hurricane in Louisiana then people
from New York to California will send help. That's just "given".
But the Palestinians in the West Bank let their "brothers"
sit in refugee camps for 19 years instead of trying to settle
them.
hille...@yahoo.com
I'll have to take a look.
hille...@yahoo.com
> But how about Iran?
> In Sept. 1978, Israel began removing personnel from its embassy,
Seven where still there when the mob broke into the Israeli embassy.
The more interesting thing is the big burning in the summer on 1978.
*ALL* documents with no exception were either burned or taken to
Israel. When the mob broke in they found just an empty shell.
Compare that to the US which kept many secret documents in
the embassy and just shredded the rest. It was not safe enough.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
"Revolutionary teams displayed secret documents purportedly
taken from the embassy, sometimes painstakingly reconstructed
after shredding,"
The result was that all the US intelligence network in Iran was
either caught or just run for its life. The "rescue" operation was
done with very little intelligence "on the ground".
> In Afghanistan, American planes have bombed
> weddings and old-age homes.
> Is there any excuse for that kind of mistake?
...and in Serbia the US bombed the Chinese embassy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade
(And, of course, the same Liberals who argue that Israel
attacked Liberty knowing that the ship was American also
claim that the US attacked the Chinese embassy by
mistake. I guess it'ss because our resident Marine believes
that embassies may move around while ships always
stay in the same place.)
hille...@yahoo.com
> Bullshit. We record every radiostation in the Middle East 24/7.
Another Washington Post article that explains the
point that HHW just can't get.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020703995.html
Every once in a while, I resurrect my Oveta Culp Hobby Award. Hobby
was the Texas newspaper publisher who became Dwight D. Eisenhower's
secretary of health, education and welfare. When she was asked to
account for why she had failed to order enough of the new Salk polio
vaccine, her response, uttered after countless years of polio
epidemics and summers of sheer terror, was virtually immortal: "No one
could have foreseen the public demand for the vaccine." This year's
Hobby Award goes to the Obama administration for failing to foresee
the upheaval in Egypt.
I grant you that events in Egypt have been fast-moving. But it has
been clear for many years now that Egypt had all the ingredients for a
revolution: a repressive regime, widespread poverty, a lack of job
prospects for the burgeoning middle class, an unpopular treaty with a
loathed neighbor, a significant underground political opposition and a
leader who surrounded himself with flatterers and incompetents the
likes of whom have not been seen since Louis XVI. The only
revolutionary element missing was a rousing song. It has been replaced
by the subversive sound of the Tweet.
What is happening in Egypt is likely to happen elsewhere in the
region. There are no democratic regimes in the Arab world, nor has
there ever been one (with the possible exception of Iraq). Some of the
nations themselves are the afternoon's work of British civil servants
who drew lines on a map and created the present-day Iraq, Jordan and
some of the Gulf states. The borders were imposed, unseen by the local
tribes or the wandering goat. Hashemites were placed on the thrones of
Iraq and Jordan - a nice touch by a grateful empire, except they had
come from what is now Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi line was extinguished in
1958 with the murder of King Faisal II.
#################################################################
The Obama administration failure is, like in the case
of Oveta Culp Hobby, an intelligence failure. Hobby
was just too stupid to understand that "countless years
of polio epidemics" may create a huge demand for the
polio vaccine. More data about the previous years
epidemics would not help; she was stupid.
You may think that more data can cure stupidity.
I don't agree.
Almost every time that you write something you
show a fine example how data just can't cure
your stupidity.
Zev
The implications of books like this are fascinating.
*One idea* explains why:
1) Amin Al-Husseini had to use
religious slogans to rouse the Arab rabble
instead of nationalist ones,
2) many Palestinians (from other parts of Ottoman Palestine)
had no compunctions about entering Mandate Palestine
to share in the prosperity Jewish immigration was bringing,
3) Arab landowners sold large amounts of land to Jews,
despite death threats,
4) events after Nov 29, 1947, with all the advantages
(except motivation) on their side, found Arab Palestinians
less prepared than their Jewish rivals,
5) hundreds of thousands ran away
at the first sign of trouble, or even before,
6) Arafat promised Egypt and Jordan that PLO demands
would never be at their expense (IOW, he recognized Gaza
and the West Bank were theirs, not Palestinian!)
*One idea* demolishes Arab claims that
"They stole our country".
*One idea* demolishes claims that the Jewish presence
in the M.E. is illegal or immoral.
dsharavi
> On Feb 3, 4:58 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 2:42 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Does the Green Line even exist any longer, outside PalArab fantazia?
>
> > Legally speaking, the Green Line in central Israel exists on the
> > maps attached to the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Jordan
> > and Israel. Right now it has no International Law status because
> > Jordan gave up almost all areas west of the Jordan river in
> > the 1996 peace treaty.
>
> decision on the Apartheid Wall.
There was no "decision". There was a non-binding arbitrary opinion,
which referred to "territories which before the armed conflict of 1967
lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green
Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict" and that "the
route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within
the “Closed Area” (between the wall and the “Green Line”) some 80
percent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."
Unlike HHW, the Court was well aware that the wall was built only
partially along the 1949 Armistice Line. The ICJ's advisory opinion
was that that in principle the fence is illegal as long as any part of
it is built beyond the 1967 Green Line.
The Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice,
reviewed the legal issues in deciding the legality of a particular
section of the fence, and ruled that the disputed sections would have
to be rerouted to take into account the needs of the population. At
the same time, the court ruled that the ICJ ruling was flawed, because
it did not take into account the specifics of different sections of
the route.
"To sum up, the Court, from the material available to it, is not
convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was
necessary to attain its security objectives. The wall, along the
route chosen, and its associated régime gravely infringe a number of
rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel,
and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by
military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or
public order. The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes
breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable
international humanitarian law and human rights instruments".
The court ruled that the wall had to be rerouted.
>The ICJ is the court of last resort
> for UN members.
The ICJ's functions are to settle legal disputes submitted by states
and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted by
authorized international organs, agencies, and the General Assembly.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > for UN members.
>
> This wall has saved lives , on both sides,
>
> mirjam
That's what Hunter hates about it.
Deborah
dsharavi
> On Feb 3, 8:37 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > On Feb 3, 2:58 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 2:42 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Does the Green Line even exist any longer, outside PalArab fantazia?
>
> > > > Legally speaking, the Green Line in central Israel exists on the
> > > > maps attached to the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Jordan
> > > > and Israel. Right now it has no International Law status because
> > > > Jordan gave up almost all areas west of the Jordan river in
> > > > the 1996 peace treaty.
>
>
> > > Deborah
>
> > No, it resembled something you wanted to hear.
>
> You scan the bottom of the barrel looking for things you want to
> see... You always
> come up short and make yourself look like a superior ass. I guess
> job well done to you, as always.
>
> As an aside... where are all these thousands of your fans cheering you
> on? LOL!!!!!
In the interstices of the space between his ears.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > This wall has saved lives , on both sides,
>
> regarding a future border. It's a part of the land grab process. That
> it has saved lives is obviously subsidiary.
Obviously, then, Israel's High Court erred most greviously when it
ruled that sections of the Wall were illegal because they encroached
on Palestine Arab land, and therefore the Court ordered them rerouted.
What WERE they thinking?
>Peace will be more
> effective in saving lives but youre not ready for that yet, Hillel.
> Your ideological goals are not yet fulfilled.
It's amusing how far off the mark H can be when he's listening only
to the voices in his head.
> On Feb 4, 1:00 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > That's *exactly* what angers Liberals, leftists, "human
> > rights" organization etc. They want to see blood
>
> You're at war. That won't end until you settle with the Palestinians.
It's rather difficult to "settle" with a group which wants less to
settle than it wants to see you annihilated.
> Quit whining about blood and pizza parlors.
Translation: "Shut up, you fewken Joooz, and walk into those ovens
without whining."
>You essentially murdered
> 1,400 people recently in Gaza. It was you who wanted to see THAT
> blood. You're a hypocrite. It's a leit motiv among Zionists.
Operation Cast Lead commenced 27th December 2008, its goal to end
rocket attacks on Israel by armed Palestine Arab groups such as Hamas,
affiliated with Hamas, and other Palestinian Arab factions. An
estimated 1,400 Palestinian Arabs had been killed by 18th January
2009. The battle of Hue, during the Tet Offensive, commenced 31st
January 1968 and ended 29th February 1968. The NVA and VC massacred
approximately 2,800 civilians, and themselves lost 5,133 men at Hue,
and another 3,000 outside the city. ("Did we have to destroy the city
to save it?")
Did H want to see THAT blood? Was he glad that Americans "murdered"
those 8,133 VCs and NVAs? Of course he was. He's a hypocrite. It's a
LEITMOTIF amongst antisemites like Hunter Watson.
> > for two reasons:
>
> > 1) Blame Israel. The more blood there is, the more
> > of it can be smears on the Jews.
>
> Israel smears itself. One could ask the rest of the world but it's
> filled with anti-Semites so results wouldn't be reliable, right?
>
Who'da thunk Hunter would have confirmed Hillel's observation?
>
> > 2) Convince Israelis that there is no "military solution",
>
> Ohhhhhh, okay, Hillel, what is the final military solution and how is
> Israel going to implement it. I presume you want us to buy into it, so
> go on to tell us why we should. We being the other 98.2% of the
> American people of course. You know, the tough, athletic, cannon
> fodder reservoir you value so much.
"Tough: and "athletic" aren't terms one would associate with Hunter.
"Cannon fodder", however, describes his military career.
> What I'm really curious about is how you're going to carry out this
> final military solution so far as the Palestinians are concerned. Will
> it be apartheid? Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? If you have other ideas
> please inform us. We can't see others. It would be helpful if we knew
> your plans in advance. It's the minimum we can ask of an ally.
Hunter will just have to wait until the Ramatklal contacts Hillel and
asks his opinion.
>
> > and the only "solution" is just to give the Arabs
> > whatever they want.
>
> Is confirming *to the Palestinians* 22% of their native land giving
> them "whatever they want"?
What "native land"? And where do these weird percentages keep coming
from?
>Surely you can't be serious. Everyone can
> see this cynical "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too"
> mindset.
Yes. It's an Arab POV.
>You've really got to do a better job of this. You're not
> making any sense. Isn't it time for you to abandon the United States?
> Really, come on, I think so. We're just becomming too much trouble to
> be worth it and it's only going to get worse. But then you don't have
> our F-35s yet so I could be wrong about that.
Could be? H is wrong so often that it's more than likely he is.
Deborah
dsharavi
Heh. And that "other God" ruled that al-Arad al-Muqaddash belongs to
the Bani Isra'il and nobody else.
Deborah
dsharavi
There's also the symbolism of the story:
"Symbolism runs rampant throughout the film and much has been written
on the subject. Bucking tradition, Miyagawa directly filmed the sun
through the leaves of the trees, as if to show the light of truth
becoming obscured. The gatehouse that we continually return to as the
'home' location for the storytelling serves as a visual metaphor for a
gateway into the story, and the fact that the three men at the gate
gradually tear it down and burn it as the stories are told is a
further comment on the nature of the truth of what they are telling."
Deborah
dsharavi
> "coaster132000" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f43af438-cf46-490a-
> b442-44747b52f...@d23g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Don't forget the Egyptians who grabbed Gaza.
Deborah
dsharavi
> <hillelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:
Excellent book - and high time someone pointed this out.
Deborah
mirjam
> There's also the symbolism of the story:
> "Symbolism runs rampant throughout the film and much has been written
> on the subject. Bucking tradition, Miyagawa directly filmed the sun
> through the leaves of the trees, as if to show the light of truth
> becoming obscured. The gatehouse that we continually return to as the
> 'home' location for the storytelling serves as a visual metaphor for a
> gateway into the story, and the fact that the three men at the gate
> gradually tear it down and burn it as the stories are told is a
> further comment on the nature of the truth of what they are telling."
>
> Deborah
as a play [ with Haim Topol as the Judge]
in Haifa theater years ago.
mirjam
hille...@yahoo.com
> The implications of books like this are fascinating.
> *One idea* explains why:
Be very careful of "unified field theories" in history.
Marx' answer of "it's the economy, stupid" is
a great example of what can go wrong.
> 1) Amin Al-Husseini had to use
> religious slogans to rouse the Arab rabble
> instead of nationalist ones,
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem used religious slogans.
What's there to explain?
> 2) many Palestinians (from other parts of Ottoman Palestine)
> had no compunctions about entering Mandate Palestine
> to share in the prosperity Jewish immigration was bringing,
Economic immigrants go to where the jobs are.
> 3) Arab landowners sold large amounts of land to Jews,
> despite death threats,
The big land owners made the death threats and sold
the land. They got premium prices.
> 4) events after Nov 29, 1947, with all the advantages
> (except motivation) on their side, found Arab Palestinians
> less prepared than their Jewish rivals,
Arab Palestinians were (are?) not a nation.
A great example is in Merhavia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merhavia_%28moshav%29
They Jews knew that the Arabs in Solem prepared an
attack. Then one night there were a lot of shootings from
Solem, but no attack came. In the morning the Jews
asked the Arabs what was going on. It turned out that
in that time Merhavia had only one good stone house.
The two main families in Solem wanted that house.
So they had an all night shoot out the settle that
disagreement.
> 5) hundreds of thousands ran away
> at the first sign of trouble, or even before,
Economic immigrants tend to go away when the
economy goes down and risks go up.
> 6) Arafat promised Egypt and Jordan that PLO demands
> would never be at their expense (IOW, he recognized Gaza
> and the West Bank were theirs, not Palestinian!)
Arafat was an Arab nationalist, not a Palestinian nationalist
He wanted as much land as possible, for the Arabs.
Had the Palestinians taken Gaza and the West
Bank, the Palestinian claims would be weaker.
> *One idea* demolishes Arab claims that
> "They stole our country".
There were certainly Arabs who did not want
all this war and liked a peaceful
partition and/or live in a Jewish state. E.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghosh
They had a valid claim and I am happy that
Israel accepted that.
> *One idea* demolishes claims that the Jewish presence
> in the M.E. is illegal or immoral.
The idea of Hunter and his friend is that Jewish
presence *anywhere* "is illegal or immoral".
Zev
news:c0dffeca-bbb5-4a05-
bf3e-7bb...@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 11:40 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The implications of books like this are fascinating.
>> *One idea* explains why:
>
> Be very careful of "unified field theories" in history.
> Marx' answer of "it's the economy, stupid" is
> a great example of what can go wrong.
Perhaps I should have said:
The idea contained in this book, that Arab/Palestinian objections
to Jewish immigration were far weaker and non-universal
than their descendants of today would have us believe,
explains much of 20th century M.E. history.
>> 1) Amin Al-Husseini had to use
>> religious slogans to rouse the Arab rabble
>> instead of nationalist ones,
>
> The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem used religious slogans.
> What's there to explain?
The fact that nationalist ones were ineffective.
The book explains why.
>> 2) many Palestinians (from other parts of Ottoman Palestine)
>> had no compunctions about entering Mandate Palestine
>> to share in the prosperity Jewish immigration was bringing,
>
> Economic immigrants go to where the jobs are.
Of course.
But by working for Jewish immigrants
they were helping them "settle in".
Perhaps unconsciously, they were
"voting with their feet".
>> 3) Arab landowners sold large amounts of land to Jews,
>> despite death threats,
>
> The big land owners made the death threats and sold
> the land. They got premium prices.
There wasn't any "conventional wisdom"
which said it was wrong to sell land to Jews?
That matches the book's idea perfectly.
>> 4) events after Nov 29, 1947, with all the advantages
>> (except motivation) on their side, found Arab Palestinians
>> less prepared than their Jewish rivals,
>
> Arab Palestinians were (are?) not a nation.
Jewish Palestinians weren't a state either.
If you use the word "nation" in its larger sense,
that matches the book's idea perfectly.
> A great example is in Merhavia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merhavia_%28moshav%29
> They Jews knew that the Arabs in Solem prepared an
> attack. Then one night there were a lot of shootings from
> Solem, but no attack came. In the morning the Jews
> asked the Arabs what was going on. It turned out that
> in that time Merhavia had only one good stone house.
> The two main families in Solem wanted that house.
> So they had an all night shoot out the settle that
> disagreement.
>
>> 5) hundreds of thousands ran away
>> at the first sign of trouble, or even before,
>
> Economic immigrants tend to go away when the
> economy goes down and risks go up.
Matches the book's idea perfectly.
>> 6) Arafat promised Egypt and Jordan that PLO demands
>> would never be at their expense (IOW, he recognized Gaza
>> and the West Bank were theirs, not Palestinian!)
>
> Arafat was an Arab nationalist, not a Palestinian nationalist
> He wanted as much land as possible, for the Arabs.
> Had the Palestinians taken Gaza and the West
> Bank, the Palestinian claims would be weaker.
"We will accept what Israel gives us today,
later, we will *take* the rest".
Arafat didn't tilt at windmills,
and he needed Egypt and Jordan too much.
I disagree.
But it hardly makes a difference.
At the time, "Palestine" was any land occupied by Israel.
Even for Arafat, Palestinian nationality was no deeper than that.
As before, matches the book.
>> *One idea* demolishes Arab claims that
>> "They stole our country".
>
> There were certainly Arabs who did not want
> all this war and liked a peaceful
> partition and/or live in a Jewish state. E.g.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghosh
> They had a valid claim and I am happy that
> Israel accepted that.
>
>> *One idea* demolishes claims that the Jewish presence
>> in the M.E. is illegal or immoral.
>
> The idea of Hunter and his friend is that Jewish
> presence *anywhere* "is illegal or immoral".
At least some of his friends admit it.
hille...@yahoo.com
> Perhaps I should have said:
> The idea contained in this book, that Arab/Palestinian objections
> to Jewish immigration were far weaker and non-universal
> than their descendants of today would have us believe,
> explains much of 20th century M.E. history.
The Arabs then, and the Palestinians now, are a proxy.
Just think for a moment: could the Palestinians continue
this war, for the last 62 years, without the support of UNRWA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee
"The United Nations never formally defined the term Palestinian
refugee. The definition used in practice evolved independently of the
UNHCR definition, established by the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees. The UNRWA defines a Palestine refugee as a person
"whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1
June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of
livelihood as a result of the 1948, ands 1967 conflicts,"[22] This
definition has generally only been applied to those living in one of
the countries where UNRWA provides relief. The UNRWA also registers as
refugees descendants in the male line of Palestine refugees, and
persons in need of support who first became refugees as a result of
the 1967 conflict. The UNRWA definition in practice is thus both more
restrictive and more inclusive than the 1951 definition. For example,
the definition excludes persons taking refuge in countries other than
Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but includes
descendants of refugees as well as the refugees themselves. "
The United Nation, intentionally, finance the Palestinians
in a way that economic issues will not force them to
compromise. But in a case of a peace agreement there
will be no rational for keeping UNRWA around and the
Palestinian economy will be a basket case, like Egypt.
In other words, the UN will finance the Palestinians as
long as they will kill Jews, and the support will go away
if they will stop killing Jews. The Palestinians are just
a proxy, those who finance the war against Israel are
the real enemy.
Before the UN was around the British Empire had
a similar role. E.g. taking 78% of the Mandate
territory and giving it to an Arab prince that his
family had never lived in the area. Nominating one
of the worst Jews haters around - Amin Al-Husseini,
as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. After the Mufti
men started a riot and killed 67 Jews in Hebron
in 1929 the Brits kicked out all Jews out of Hebron.
In 1948 the Brits armed the Egyptian army and
their officers commanded the Arab Legion.
They really wanted the Jews dead.
The big dream of the UN and Europe is to keep
Hebron, and other places, as Judenrein areas
while the Arabs will be allowed to settle where
ever they want. UNRWA is just one tool in their
struggle, and the Palestinians are a proxy.
Obama, in the name of "justice" wants to kick
all Jews from any proximity to their hilliest
site. He really wants Jerusalem to be Judenrein,
and he is frustrated because Congress
does not agree with his goals.
> > Economic immigrants go to where the jobs are.
> Of course.
> But by working for Jewish immigrants
> they were helping them "settle in".
> Perhaps unconsciously, they were
> "voting with their feet".
Back then Arab nationalism was not popular.
The Europeans had to work, as a part of Divide
and Conquer, on promoting Arab nationalism.
> > Arab Palestinians were (are?) not a nation.
> Jewish Palestinians weren't a state either.
> If you use the word "nation" in its larger sense,
> that matches the book's idea perfectly.
IMO the real test of a "nation' is supporting
people just because they are in your
"nation". The Jews, before and after 1948,
showed plenty of support to Jewish refugees
from around the world. The Palestinians in
the West Bank let their "brothers" sit in
refugees' camps for 19 years instead of
settling them.
> >> 6) Arafat promised Egypt and Jordan that PLO demands
> >> would never be at their expense (IOW, he recognized Gaza
> >> and the West Bank were theirs, not Palestinian!)
> > Arafat was an Arab nationalist, not a Palestinian nationalist
> > He wanted as much land as possible, for the Arabs.
> > Had the Palestinians taken Gaza and the West
> > Bank, the Palestinian claims would be weaker.
> "We will accept what Israel gives us today,
> later, we will *take* the rest".
> Arafat didn't tilt at windmills,
> and he needed Egypt and Jordan too much.
> I disagree.
Arafat took whatever he could. He did not have
any problem getting into "civil" wars in Jordan
and Lebanon. But his real, long term, goal
was to kill Jews.
dsharavi
> On Feb 8, 11:35 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I should have said:
> > The idea contained in this book, that Arab/Palestinian objections
> > to Jewish immigration were far weaker and non-universal
> > than their descendants of today would have us believe,
> > explains much of 20th century M.E. history.
>
> The Arabs then, and the Palestinians now, are a proxy.
> Just think for a moment: could the Palestinians continue
> "The United Nations never formally defined the term Palestinian
> refugee. The definition used in practice evolved independently of the
> UNHCR definition, established by the 1951 Convention Relating to the
> Status of Refugees. The UNRWA defines a Palestine refugee as a person
> "whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1
> June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of
> livelihood as a result of the 1948, ands 1967 conflicts,"[22] This
> definition has generally only been applied to those living in one of
> the countries where UNRWA provides relief. The UNRWA also registers as
> refugees descendants in the male line of Palestine refugees, and
> persons in need of support who first became refugees as a result of
> the 1967 conflict. The UNRWA definition in practice is thus both more
> restrictive and more inclusive than the 1951 definition. For example,
> the definition excludes persons taking refuge in countries other than
> Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but includes
> descendants of refugees as well as the refugees themselves. "
>
> The United Nation, intentionally, finance the Palestinians
> in a way that economic issues will not force them to
> compromise. But in a case of a peace agreement there
> will be no rational for keeping UNRWA around and the
> Palestinian economy will be a basket case, like Egypt.
FWIW, UNRWA employs around 30,000 bureaucrats. 99% of them are
Palestine Arabs. Additionally, the countries which benefit are those
with the largest concentrations of Palestine Arab "refugees". It's no
wonder the UN et al want to perpetuate the situation.
Deborah
hille...@yahoo.com
> The idea contained in this book, that Arab/Palestinian objections
> to Jewish immigration were far weaker and non-universal
> than their descendants of today would have us believe,
> explains much of 20th century M.E. history.
The Arabs then, and the Palestinians now, are a proxy.
In other words, the UN will finance the Palestinians as
> > Economic immigrants go to where the jobs are.
> Of course.
> But by working for Jewish immigrants
> they were helping them "settle in".
> Perhaps unconsciously, they were
> "voting with their feet".
Back then Arab nationalism was not popular.
The Europeans had to work, as a part of Divide
and Conquer, on promoting Arab nationalism.
> > Arab Palestinians were (are?) not a nation.
> Jewish Palestinians weren't a state either.
> If you use the word "nation" in its larger sense,
> that matches the book's idea perfectly.
IMO the real test of a "nation' is supporting
people just because they are in your
"nation". The Jews, before and after 1948,
showed plenty of support to Jewish refugees
from around the world. The Palestinians in
the West Bank let their "brothers" sit in
refugees' camps for 19 years instead of
settling them.
> >> 6) Arafat promised Egypt and Jordan that PLO demands
> >> would never be at their expense (IOW, he recognized Gaza
> >> and the West Bank were theirs, not Palestinian!)
> > Arafat was an Arab nationalist, not a Palestinian nationalist
> > He wanted as much land as possible, for the Arabs.
> > Had the Palestinians taken Gaza and the West
> > Bank, the Palestinian claims would be weaker.
> "We will accept what Israel gives us today,
> later, we will *take* the rest".
> Arafat didn't tilt at windmills,
> and he needed Egypt and Jordan too much.
> I disagree.
Arafat took whatever he could. He did not have
hille...@yahoo.com
> The idea contained in this book, that Arab/Palestinian objections
> to Jewish immigration were far weaker and non-universal
> than their descendants of today would have us believe,
> explains much of 20th century M.E. history.
The Arabs then, and the Palestinians now, are a proxy.
> > Economic immigrants go to where the jobs are.
> Of course.
> But by working for Jewish immigrants
> they were helping them "settle in".
> Perhaps unconsciously, they were
> "voting with their feet".
Back then Arab nationalism was not popular.
The Europeans had to work, as a part of Divide
and Conquer, on promoting Arab nationalism.
> > Arab Palestinians were (are?) not a nation.
> Jewish Palestinians weren't a state either.
> If you use the word "nation" in its larger sense,
> that matches the book's idea perfectly.
IMO the real test of a "nation' is supporting
people just because they are in your
"nation". The Jews, before and after 1948,
showed plenty of support to Jewish refugees
from around the world. The Palestinians in
the West Bank let their "brothers" sit in
refugees' camps for 19 years instead of
settling them.
> >> 6) Arafat promised Egypt and Jordan that PLO demands
> >> would never be at their expense (IOW, he recognized Gaza
> >> and the West Bank were theirs, not Palestinian!)
> > Arafat was an Arab nationalist, not a Palestinian nationalist
> > He wanted as much land as possible, for the Arabs.
> > Had the Palestinians taken Gaza and the West
> > Bank, the Palestinian claims would be weaker.
> "We will accept what Israel gives us today,
> later, we will *take* the rest".
> Arafat didn't tilt at windmills,
> and he needed Egypt and Jordan too much.
> I disagree.
Arafat took whatever he could. He did not have
The Revd
coaster132000
> On Feb 4, 4:00 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>
> > You've read "history", eh, H? Here's a fact: you've read not even one
> > objective history of Israel.
Another dishonest smear of the "new historians" who refuse to recycle
the traditional hasbara about Israeli history. There was a lot to
finesse and the early generations did it. Appointments to departments
of Jewish history were handed out very selectively to loyalist
scholars. There was pressure to conform. The most dramatic victim of
the system was analysis of the most important period of Israeli
history,1947-48 and its background since the late 19th Century.
> I don't think that there is, or there can be, "an objective history
> of Israel".
Professional historians come to the task with various mixes of
preconception, political attitudes, social attitudes, theory/ideology/
schools of thought, and professional ethics. So we're speaking of
relative levels of achievement under discipline. Objectivity is an
achievement of the author and it is always relative.
Sachar comes pretty close, in the sense that he
> made a big effort to pick as many primary sources as he could,
> but history has the tendency to be like Rashomon.
All professional historians use primary sources to the extent that
they possibly can. That's what they are trained to do. It's part of
the method. One can't get anywhere in the profession without doing it.
And you know nothing of Sachar's methods. I don't mean to denigrate
Sachar. I respect him. Have you read his updated History of Israel?
That's where the ultimate test of his "objectivity" will be found.
> When I read history I usually look for several sources from
> different points of view. But I demand from all of them to
> be consistent with well established facts.
How have you handled that maxim in the context of the ethnic cleansing
of Palestine in '47-'48?
I still look for
> an Arab source that can explain "what were they thinking",
> instead of just a big list of all the wrongs that were done
> to them. For me, the big mystery, is "what were they
> thinking?" The Arabs knew about the WWIIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade
Did the Jewish Brigade see combat? They were organized late in the
war.
More important, the Palestinians (that they were "Arabs" is secondary)
probably thought like the average American did in December,1941.
> Why did they pick a fight with an enemy which
> had shown ability to get organized; had thousands of
> trained troops; had an industrial base that served
> the British army well in WWII; and later gave the
> 100,000 British troops in Israel such a headache?
They were in N. Africa and Italy. I haven't been able to find
descriptions of their combat record. Can you assist?
> Was it because they did not have the facts or
> because they were too stupid/crazy to think
> clearly through a life & death problem?
It's been sixty three years. They haven't given up yet. It's obviously
nationalism and love of country which motivates them to resist the
theft of their native land. Why do you pretend that they don't think
clearly? They are closer to having their own country in part of
Palestine than ever since 1947.
>
> (It is interesting that some mercenaries gave up
> afterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramat_Yohanan
> and cut a deal with the Jews.
What "mercenaries"?
They, and their
> families, still live in peace in Israel. Why most
> local Arabs did not try to get a similar deal?)
Because they were driven out by Jews at gunpoint. The Israeli
leadership wanted a Jewish State. They couldn't have that conveniently
living among an Arab majority. Why is this so difficult for you to
understand and admit?
The Peeler
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
wrote:
>>FWIW, UNRWA employs around 30,000 bureaucrats. 99% of them are
>>Palestine Arabs. Additionally, the countries which benefit are those
>>with the largest concentrations of Palestine Arab "refugees". It's no
>>wonder the UN et al want to perpetuate the situation.
>>
>>Debwhorah
>
> Tzipi Livni is even uglier than you, whore Nyob.
> http://wanted.org.il/tzipi_livni_en.htm
Why, do you consider yourself to be a beauty, poor The Retard? So why do you
have no one to fuck, you disgusting housebound old tub of lard? <BG>
--
The top 5 truths about our resident psychopath, The Retard:
the desperate psycho can't SLEEP anymore,
he can't get out of the house anymore,
he got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
he can't FUCK anymore,
he got no life outside Usenet AT ALL!
coaster132000
> On Feb 4, 8:54 pm, coaster132000 <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you were to discover that Palesinians are the descendants of Jews
> > who were not kicked out of Palestine,
>
> A pretty big "if" on this one.
Wouldn't it be smaller, even small, if it were proved to you that the
Romans did not exile the Jewish nation? If they weren't exiled as a
people, and they could not have been, It was impossible for the Romans
to accomplish, isn't it reasonable, even compelling, that their
descendants are still there and that they've simply changed their
language ands religion?
> Too many of the original "descendants of Jews" were
> killed by the Arabs, and some of the Arabs actually settled
> in. E.g. I posted about the Egyptians in the 19'th century.
Nonsense, "too many." You simply don't know that.
>
> > would it make any difference to you?
>
> It would fit just fine with Jeremiah 16, 10-13:
>
> “When you tell these people all this and they ask you, ‘Why has the
> LORD decreed such a great disaster against us? What wrong have we
> done? What sin have we committed against the LORD our God?’ then say
> to them, ‘It is because your ancestors forsook me,’ declares the LORD,
> ‘and followed other gods and served and worshiped them. They forsook
> me and did not keep my law. But you have behaved more wickedly than
> your ancestors. See how all of you are following the stubbornness of
> your evil hearts instead of obeying me. So I will throw you out of
> this land into a land neither you nor your ancestors have known, and
> there you will serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no
> favor.’
>
> ########################################
>
> It seems like Israel's God made his mind about the
> Palestinians, according to the ancient warning.
> They picked another God and he threw them
> "out of this land".
Surely you're joking. At times you've bragged about being an educated
and worldly man. Yes, you must be joking. Tell us, do you actually
expect us to assist you in sending the Palestinians into the diaspora
on this purely mythological basis? What's in it for us, Hillel? What
do we get? A ticket back to the Bronze Age perhaps?