Netanyahu ready to agree to temporary borders of an Arab state?
Fattush
lee
> But stays firm on Jerusalem:
>
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164833.html
About time Netanyahu put the ball back in the Palestinians court. So
they can be seen to drop it!
Joe Bruno
> But stays firm on Jerusalem:
>
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164833.html
There is already an Arab state right near Gaza and the West Bank. It's
called Jordan.
Joe Bruno
There is a second one called Egypt.
lee
Egypt was never part of the Palestine Mandate, Jordan was. However I
have heard, here on SCJM (unsubstantiated) that Israel is not
officially allowed to refer to Jordan as that, by the terms of the
peace deal with Jordan. In any case what are you suggesting? That all
the Palestinian arabs, resident in 'Greater' Israel just get up &
move elsewhere?
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
>
> Egypt was never part of the Palestine Mandate, Jordan was. However I
> have heard, here on SCJM (unsubstantiated) that Israel is not
> officially allowed to refer to Jordan as that, by the terms of the
> peace deal with Jordan. In any case what are you suggesting? That all
> the Palestinian arabs, resident in 'Greater' Israel just get up &
> move elsewhere?
Why not? They want all the Palestinian Jews, residents of what they
want to make into paleostine, to just get up and move elsewhere.
Though they would much prefer that the Palestinian Jews resist the
expulsion so that they can carry tham out bodioy whild seeping
crocodile tears for the cameras, Gaza style, or even better, to
trample them under their horses' hooves and cruch their skulls with
batons, Amona style.
GEK
wishing good Shabbas to all, and easy fasting for those fasting these
days.
mm
wrote:
>On 23 Apr, 16:13, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 6:52 am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 22, 11:16 pm, Fattush <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > But stays firm on Jerusalem:
>>
>> > >http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164833.html
>>
>> > There is already an Arab state right near Gaza and the West Bank. It's
>> > called Jordan.
>>
>> There is a second one called Egypt.
>
>Egypt was never part of the Palestine Mandate, Jordan was. However I
>have heard, here on SCJM (unsubstantiated) that Israel is not
>officially allowed to refer to Jordan as that, by the terms of the
>peace deal with Jordan.
Refer to Jordan as what? (There are those pronouns again. :) )
> In any case what are you suggesting? That all
>the Palestinian arabs, resident in 'Greater' Israel just get up &
>move elsewhere?
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
lee
wrote:
Well a major reason, why not. Is that they wont go willingly. What
then?
lee
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:30:00 +0000 (UTC), lee <schotn...@gmail.com>
Referring to Jordan as the Palestinian state
Fattush
IMO the rules should be the same for both sides.
There were hundreds of thousands of Jews who lived in Arab lands up
until the 1950's. Some Jewish communities could trace their roots back
many centuries, yet these Jewish
communities were oppressed to the point of being driven out.
They left behind vast quantiies of land, personal property, jobs,
schools, businesses, etc. Why is it OK for more than 700,000 Jews to
be forced out of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, etc. yet Israel is
expected to keep her Arab residents?
mm
wrote:
>On Apr 23, 9:08 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Well, I woudln't be surprised. King Hussein and his son are minority
group kings. They had and probably have the possibility of major
problems with their plurality or majority populations.
When the US got the USSR to remove its missiles from Cuba, I think it
promised not to invade Cuba. Other deals are made like that.
In the context of dealing with all of the so-called Palestinian Arabs,
it might be giving up a lot to not mention Jordan anymore, but within
the more narrow context of dealing with Jordan, it seems a reasonable
part of a peace treaty to not cause trouble for the other country, to
accept the status quo.
Joe Bruno
They can't move to Egypt. The Egyptians don't want them. Egypt does
not want Gaza back.
King Hussein threw them out of Jordan.
Fattush
I agree.
mm
wrote:
I think Hussein threw the PLO out of Jordan, that part of the PLO that
was in Jordan. (I"m sure it had supporters and sympathizers who
remained in the "West Bank", but the ones who were involved full-time
were in Jordan.) I think he did this because they were causing his
government trouble, not because he liked Israel, with which he had a
complicated relationshiop. I think those expelled went to Lebanon.
He also renounced Jordan's "claim" to the "West Bank" Such a thing
is not unusual in US civil law and doesn't mean there was a valid
claim to begin with. Google "quitclaim deed", or "quitclaim". People
often pay someone else to renounce even an invalid claim on a parcel
of land. I don't think there was any quid pro quo between Jordan and
Israel on this, but maybe the news didn't know or didn't say
everything.
lee
>
> There were hundreds of thousands of Jews who lived in Arab lands up
> until the 1950's. Some Jewish communities could trace their roots back
> many centuries, yet these Jewish
> communities were oppressed to the point of being driven out.
> They left behind vast quantiies of land, personal property, jobs,
> schools, businesses, etc. Why is it OK for more than 700,000 Jews to
> be forced out of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, etc. yet Israel is
> expected to keep her Arab residents?
All the above is is agreed. But if "the Palestinian arabs, resident in
'Greater' Israel" dont want to willingly go elsewhere, what then?
mirjam
The king of Jarden is now king Abaddalh [the second] , who is one of
the 4 children the Late King Hussein had with his English wife.
King Abdallah` wife is Palestinian,
mirjam
> Egypt was never part of the Palestine Mandate, Jordan was. However I
> have heard, here on SCJM (unsubstantiated) that Israel is not
> officially allowed to refer to Jordan as that, by the terms of the
> peace deal with Jordan. In any case what are you suggesting? That all
> the Palestinian arabs, resident in 'Greater' Israel just get up &
> move elsewhere?
Jarden`s population is partly Bedouin , partly `Palestinian`, Nobody
denies that . While it depends on one`s political ideas if one reminds
others about it or not ,
mirjam
mirjam
Azzah is not near the West Bank , it is Near Egypt , and has no
Geographical connection with the west Bank , which is one of the great
problems .
mirjam
Fattush
In the US, we have the concept of "emininent domain." If the
government believes a piece of land should be taken for important
government purposes, it is seized. The owner is
compensated.
Fattush
Use eminent domain . . . . It's used in the US and other nations:
Fattush
I never understood the difference between someone who is supposedly
"Jordanian" and someone who is "Palestinian." Could someone enlighten
me? To me, Jordan is a country carved out of the the Eastern side of
Palestine.
Seems like semantics to me.
Amitai
The Jordanians do not agree with you. I imagine that they regard as
true Jordanians only those who were residents of The Hashemite Kingdom
of Transjordan in 1946 and their descendents. It had been made part of
the British Mandate for Palestine after WW2, but the area east of the
Jordan River was split off soon thereafter and administered separately
as Transjordan. The de facto ruler was the Emir - later King -
Abdullah (the present King’s great grandfather) who had been a native
of Hejaz, on the west coast of what is now Saudi Arabia. Bedouins of
Hejazi origin still comprise the ruling class who cannot help but
consider the massive influx of Palestinians - let alone annexation of
the West Bank - a threat to their domination.
For a breakdown of the present population, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jordan
Amitai
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
>
> Well a major reason, why not. Is that they wont go willingly. What
>
Ah! Jews will go willingly. And, in a different context, a complaint
against European Jews is that they DID go willingly and without a
fight or fuss. You can't win.
GEK
continuing to pray thrice each weekday for the downfall of the wiched
regime.
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
>
> In the US, we have the concept of "emininent domain." If the
> government believes a piece of land should be taken for important
> government purposes, it is seized. The owner is
> compensated.
As was done to the residents of Gaza and other Jewish communities,
forced out by thugs in the employ of the Israeli government? They
didn't go willingly, but the govenment expelled them forcibly anyway.
And with no compensation at all. Paleostinia is to be judenrein, but
Judestinia is expected to keep all its paleostinian residents, and
give them full rights of citizenship noch dazu. You can't win.
GEK
continuing to pray thrice each weekday for the downfall of the wicked
regime.
lee
wrote:
> On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well a major reason, why not. Is that they wont go willingly. What
> > then?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Ah! Jews will go willingly. And, in a different context, a complaint
> against European Jews is that they DID go willingly and without a
> fight or fuss. You can't win.
Willingly at the point of the machine gun & bayonet isn't willingly!
Amitai
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:15:16 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com>
but when Israel reneged Jordan folded. Briefly, the story runs as
follows:
The results of the 1984 elections were so evenly divided that neither
Labor nor Likud could form a govenment. President Haim Herzog brokered
a deal forming a National Unity Government with rotating Prime
Ministers. Between 1984 and 1986, Itzhak Shamir (Likud) served as
P.M., with Shimon Peres (Labor) as Deputy P.M. and Foreign Secretary.
In 1986 Peres and Shamir reversed their roles.
On April 11, 1987 Peres and King Hussein met secretly in London and
Hammered out a deal in which Israel would recognize Jordanian
sovereignty over the West Bank and Jordan would guarantee a peaceful
border with Israel. The agreement was sent secretly to the US, so that
it would be proposed as an American initiative.
Shamir, who had not seen all the details and said that they had been
worked out behind his back, saw to it that the agreement was blocked.
Whereupon Hussein gave up, and relinquished all claims on the West
Bank in 1988.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peres%E2%80%93Hussein_London_Agreement
Amitai
> --
>
> Meir
>
> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fattush
Thanks for the information. Seems to me that the Beduoins from Arabia
are the invaders.
Question: is there really a big difference between the so called
Palestinians and the Beduoins? For example, do they have different
religious beliefs? Speak different languages? Are they really so
different that they are not one nation or cannot be considered one
nation?
Amitai
under Turkish domination for centuries up to the end of WW1. At that
time the Ottoman Empire included the entire area that now comprises
Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and the northwest corner of the
Arabian peninsula (Hejaz). There were no national borders, only
administrative districts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
The Bedouin tribes moved freely over large parts the area, constantly
feuding and making new alliances among themselves. At the War’s end,
the Hashemite ruler Sharif Hussein and his sons, who had helped the
Allies throw out the Turks, were awarded Hejaz, Syria (including
Lebanon, under French mandate) , Iraq and Transjordan (under a
British mandate). Sharif Hussein was then thrown out of Hejaz by Ibn
Saud and Hejaz was incorporated in Saudi Arabia. The Hashemite
presence in Syria was short lived and was not much longer in Iraq, but
it survived in Transjordan under Emir – then King – Abdullah and his
successors, Hussein and Abdulllah. Thus, you can hardly describe the
Bedouins as invaders of Jordan.
> Question: is there really a big difference between the so called
> Palestinians and the Beduoins? For example, do they have different
> religious beliefs? Speak different languages? Are they really so
> different that they are not one nation or cannot be considered one
> nation?- Hide quoted text -
>
The Arab concept of "nation" is complex (as - incidentally - it also
is for Jews).
Nearly all the Arabs in the region are Muslims, putatively members of
the same Umma (Super-nation, defined in the Babylon dictionary as
“the totality of all Muslims”) but are divided into a variety of often
antagonistic sects and sub-sects (Sunni, Shia, Alawi, Wahabi, Sufi,
etc…) and separated by the fortunes of war into geographic entities as
noted above. Moreover, the cultural differences between the residents
of the urban communities and the fellahin (village dwelling farmers)
are pronounced, and those between both of these and the nomadic
Bedouin are immense, far greater than differences across the recently
drawn borders, such as those between Syria and Lebanon, Jordan and
Saudi Arabia, or Israel and Sinai.
Amitai
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Fattush <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>> > Fattush <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
>> >> I never understood the difference between someone who is
>> >> supposedly "Jordanian" and someone who is "Palestinian."
>> >> Could someone enlighten me? To me, Jordan is a country carved
>> >> out of the the Eastern side of Palestine.
>>
>> >> Seems like semantics to me.
>>
>> > The Jordanians do not agree with you. I imagine that they regard as
>> > true Jordanians only those who were residents of The Hashemite Kingdom
>> > of Transjordan in 1946 and their descendents. It had been made part of
>> > the British Mandate for Palestine after WW2, but the area east of the
>> > Jordan River was split off soon thereafter and administered separately
>> > as Transjordan. The de facto ruler was the Emir - later King -
>> > Abdullah (the present King's great grandfather) who had been a native
>> > of Hejaz, on the west coast of what is now Saudi Arabia. Bedouins of
>> > Hejazi origin still comprise the ruling class who cannot help but
>> > consider the massive influx of Palestinians - let alone annexation of
>> > the West Bank - a threat to their domination.
>>
>> > For a breakdown of the present population, see
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jordan
>>
>> Thanks for the information. Seems to me that the Beduoins from Arabia
>> are the invaders.
>>
> It is difficult to speak of invaders in this region. All if it was
> under Turkish domination for centuries up to the end of WW1. At that
> time the Ottoman Empire included the entire area that now comprises
> Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and the northwest corner of the
> Arabian peninsula (Hejaz). There were no national borders, only
> administrative districts.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
>
> The Bedouin tribes moved freely over large parts the area, constantly
> feuding and making new alliances among themselves. At the War's end,
> the Hashemite ruler Sharif Hussein and his sons, who had helped the
> Allies throw out the Turks, were awarded Hejaz, Syria (including
> Lebanon, under French mandate) , Iraq and Transjordan (under a
> British mandate). Sharif Hussein was then thrown out of Hejaz by Ibn
> Saud and Hejaz was incorporated in Saudi Arabia. The Hashemite
> presence in Syria was short lived and was not much longer in Iraq, but
> it survived in Transjordan under Emir - then King - Abdullah and his
> successors, Hussein and Abdulllah. Thus, you can hardly describe the
> Bedouins as invaders of Jordan.
>
>> Question: is there really a big difference between the so called
>> Palestinians and the Beduoins? For example, do they have different
>> religious beliefs? Speak different languages? Are they really so
>> different that they are not one nation or cannot be considered one
>> nation?
>
> The Arab concept of "nation" is complex (as - incidentally - it also
> is for Jews).
>
> Nearly all the Arabs in the region are Muslims, putatively members of
> the same Umma (Super-nation, defined in the Babylon dictionary as
> "the totality of all Muslims") but are divided into a variety of often
> antagonistic sects and sub-sects (Sunni, Shia, Alawi, Wahabi, Sufi,
> etc...) and separated by the fortunes of war into geographic entities as
> noted above. Moreover, the cultural differences between the residents
> of the urban communities and the fellahin (village dwelling farmers)
> are pronounced, and those between both of these and the nomadic
> Bedouin are immense, far greater than differences across the recently
> drawn borders, such as those between Syria and Lebanon, Jordan and
> Saudi Arabia, or Israel and Sinai.
Amitai, thank you so much for this clear history lesson. Why don't
any Western leaders know any of this? Why do they think the
"Palestinians" (however they are to be described) "deserve" a State??
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Amitai
though they are no doubt as confused as we are by the flexible Arab
concept of nationhood. The problem is that borders, however arbitrary
to begin with, generate a sense of unity among those that live within
them. Thus the Arabs in Syria consider themselves Syrians and those in
Lebanon - Shia and Sunni alike - consider themselves to be Lebanese.
The same is true of the Palestinians. Golda's famous dictum
notwithstandng, the residients of pre-1948 Palestine consider
themselves Palestinians, i.e. memnbers of he Palestinian "sha`b"
within the greater Muslim-Arab "umma". Whether we like it or not, the
West agrees.
Is it so much easier for the West to understand the Jewish concept of
nationhood? Where do religion and nationality coincide and where do
they part company? How do we answer antisemites who (claiming to be
philosemitic anti-Zionists :-( ) argue that Jews are members of a
common religion, who are citizens of numerous countries who are for
the most part quite happy to stay where they are? Why do they call
themselves a nation and claim that they deserve a state of their own?
(I'm not saying that we don't have answers; just that it not a simple
task to convince those who find it more convenient to remain
unconvinced.)
Amitai
> --
> Moshe Schorr
> It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
> The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
> May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
> btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
> Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University- Hide quoted text -
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> writes:
>> > Fattush <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>> >> > Fattush <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>> >> >> I never understood the difference between someone who is
>> >> >> supposedly "Jordanian" and someone who is "Palestinian."
>> >> >> Could someone enlighten me? To me, Jordan is a country carved
>> >> >> out of the the Eastern side of Palestine.
>>
>> >> >> Seems like semantics to me.
>>
>> >> > The Jordanians do not agree with you.
big snip
>> > etc...) and separated by the fortunes of war into geographic entities a=
> s
>> > noted above. Moreover, the cultural differences between the residents
>> > of the urban communities and the fellahin (village dwelling farmers)
>> > are pronounced, and those between both of these and the nomadic
>> > Bedouin are immense, far greater than differences across the recently
>> > drawn borders, such as those between Syria and Lebanon, Jordan and
>> > Saudi Arabia, or Israel and Sinai.
>>
>> Amitai, thank you so much for this clear history lesson. Why don't
>> any Western leaders know any of this? Why do they think the
>> "Palestinians" (however they are to be described) "deserve" a State??
>>
> I don't think that the Western leaders are unaware of the history,
> though they are no doubt as confused as we are by the flexible Arab
> concept of nationhood. The problem is that borders, however arbitrary
> to begin with, generate a sense of unity among those that live within
> them. Thus the Arabs in Syria consider themselves Syrians and those in
> Lebanon - Shia and Sunni alike - consider themselves to be Lebanese.
> The same is true of the Palestinians. Golda's famous dictum
> notwithstandng, the residients of pre-1948 Palestine consider
> themselves Palestinians, i.e. memnbers of he Palestinian "sha`b"
> within the greater Muslim-Arab "umma". Whether we like it or not, the
> West agrees.
Part of my complaint is why they _accept_ the Palestinian version
and ignore other people's. The Kurds and Tibetans come to mind.
> Is it so much easier for the West to understand the Jewish concept of
> nationhood? Where do religion and nationality coincide and where do
> they part company? How do we answer antisemites who (claiming to be
> philosemitic anti-Zionists :-( ) argue that Jews are members of a
> common religion, who are citizens of numerous countries who are for
> the most part quite happy to stay where they are? Why do they call
> themselves a nation and claim that they deserve a state of their own?
> (I'm not saying that we don't have answers; just that it not a simple
> task to convince those who find it more convenient to remain
> unconvinced.)
I think this last sentence answers _all_ my questions <GREAT BIG SIGH>
Amitai
> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> writes:
> > mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> writes:
> [snip]
> >> Amitai, thank you so much for this clear history lesson. Why don't
> >> any Western leaders know any of this? Why do they think the
> >> "Palestinians" (however they are to be described) "deserve" a State??
>
> > I don't think that the Western leaders are unaware of the history,
> > though they are no doubt as confused as we are by the flexible Arab
> > concept of nationhood. The problem is that borders, however arbitrary
> > to begin with, generate a sense of unity among those that live within
> > them. Thus the Arabs in Syria consider themselves Syrians and those in
> > Lebanon - Shia and Sunni alike - consider themselves to be Lebanese.
> > The same is true of the Palestinians. Golda's famous dictum
> > notwithstandng, the residients of pre-1948 Palestine consider
> > themselves Palestinians, i.e. memnbers of he Palestinian "sha`b"
> > within the greater Muslim-Arab "umma". Whether we like it or not, the
> > West agrees.
>
> Part of my complaint is why they _accept_ the Palestinian version
> and ignore other people's. The Kurds and Tibetans come to mind.
>
The Kurds, and antagonize Turkey, destabilize Iraq and give them both
common cause with Iran??? !!!
The Tibetans, and antagonize China, the budding superpower??? !!!
The Palestinians, and you mollify the Arab nations and make it easier
for them to join you against Iran, whereas the only people that you
antagonize are the Jews, who need your support too much to do more
than object feebly before acquiescing.
[Remainder snipped]
Amitai
> --
> Moshe Schorr
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> writes:
>> > mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> >> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> writes:
>
>> [snip]
>
>> >> Amitai, thank you so much for this clear history lesson. Why don't
>> >> any Western leaders know any of this? Why do they think the
>> >> "Palestinians" (however they are to be described) "deserve" a State??
>>
>> > I don't think that the Western leaders are unaware of the history,
>> > though they are no doubt as confused as we are by the flexible Arab
>> > concept of nationhood. The problem is that borders, however arbitrary
> n
>> > them. Thus the Arabs in Syria consider themselves Syrians and those in
>> > The same is true of the Palestinians. Golda's famous dictum
>> > notwithstandng, the residients of pre-1948 Palestine consider
>> > themselves Palestinians, i.e. memnbers of he Palestinian "sha`b"
>> > within the greater Muslim-Arab "umma". Whether we like it or not, the
>> > West agrees.
>>
>> Part of my complaint is why they _accept_ the Palestinian version
>> and ignore other people's. The Kurds and Tibetans come to mind.
>>
> The Kurds, and antagonize Turkey, destabilize Iraq and give them both
> common cause with Iran??? !!!
>
> The Tibetans, and antagonize China, the budding superpower??? !!!
>
> The Palestinians, and you mollify the Arab nations and make it easier
> for them to join you against Iran, whereas the only people that you
> antagonize are the Jews, who need your support too much to do more
> than object feebly before acquiescing.
Amitai, are those fancy words for "Throw Israel under the bus"?
Amitai
not a global superpower; it is at most a local power in a very hostile
neighborhood. It is being told, not too gently, that if it expects to
retain the support of its more powerful ally it must be prepared to
take that ally's interests into account, even if it means giving up
some of its own aspirations.
Amitai
> --
> Moshe Schorr
> It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
> The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
> May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
> btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
> Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University- Hide quoted text -
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> writes:
>> > mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
snip
>> >> Part of my complaint is why they _accept_ the Palestinian version
>> >> and ignore other people's. The Kurds and Tibetans come to mind.
>>
>> > The Kurds, and antagonize Turkey, destabilize Iraq and give them both
>> > common cause with Iran??? !!!
>>
>> > The Tibetans, and antagonize China, the budding superpower??? !!!
>>
>> > The Palestinians, and you mollify the Arab nations and make it easier
>> > for them to join you against Iran, whereas the only people that you
>> > antagonize are the Jews, who need your support too much to do more
>> > than object feebly before acquiescing.
>>
>> Amitai, are those fancy words for "Throw Israel under the bus"?
>>
> I wouldn't go that far. However, Israel is being reminded that it is
> not a global superpower; it is at most a local power in a very hostile
> neighborhood. It is being told, not too gently, that if it expects to
> retain the support of its more powerful ally it must be prepared to
> take that ally's interests into account, even if it means giving up
> some of its own aspirations.
I _hope_ you're right and it's nothing more than that. I have a bad
feeling that it's more severe than that.
mirjam
this might interest some of you
mirjam
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
> http://www.crethiplethi.com/the-arabs-in-the-holy-land-natives-or-immigrants/arab-israeli-conflict/2009/
>
> this might interest some of you
Thanks mirjam. Of course it interests us. The problem is, it doesn't
interest Western leaders.
Fattush
Thanks so much for this explanation.
I have another question, if you don't mind: are the "Palaestinians"
really a separate national identity
or ethnic group, or are they the same as Muslims in
Lebanon, Syria, etc?
I have always thought that the "Palestinians" are not
a nation . . . just opportunists.
Fattush
In other words, its power and politics.
Business as usual.
BTW, you forgot to mention O I L.
Fattush
IMO the answer is clear:
O
I
L
Fattush
Thanks so much for your intelligent and thoughtful posts.
Personally, I believe that Obama and his helpers are willing to throw
Israel under the bus. Obama is too friendly to the Arabs; plus we
can't forget the Muslim side of his family and his left wing leanings.