Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Israel has forbidden any foreign journalists into Gaza, so that they themselves could solely control the media campaign and propaganda, and not allow the truth of what's happening to be seen around the world. According to the UN spokesperson, there were no Hamas militants firing or sheltering in the UN compound that the Israelis so mercilessly attacked. Of course the Israelis would have you believe otherwise. There are, conveniently for Israel, no independent journalists to report the truth. And they refuse to entertain the possibility of having an independent inquiry into what happened - now there's a surprise, something to hide possibly?
@cabdriver, ah, ok so she's really a doctor, posting about medical matters... wow, I feel sorry for her patients. And I did address the contents of her posts. "Much denseness" about covers the propagandist crap.
British policy in Palestine in favouring outsiders (Jewish settlers) in predominantly Arab land. He had an even greater concern and it bears repeating: "They not only claim the boundaries of the old Palestine but they claim to spread across the Jordan into the rich countries lying to the east and indeed there seems to be very small limit to the aspirations which they now form". It's hardly necessary to point out that these expansionist notions existed long before the Holocaust that took place for five years during the evil reign of Germany's Third Reich.
You'd wonder why Britain's foreign policy was so sympathetic to a few thousand immigrant Jews, as Curzon pointed out. I suppose the answer is the same as it's always been "Follow the money" and the Middle East provided the oil for an increasingly mechanised world. The British elite was never anything if not cunning and bankers such as Rotschild financed the British in the Peninsular War against Napoleon who was stirring up Europe with ideas of republicanism. The same British administraton that showed so much compassion to immigrant Jews in 1920 was sadly lacking in that virtue in Ireland. 1920 was a year in which Irish people fought a war with the forces of the British Crown in an effort to gain an independent country without ties to a monarch and dynasty which was foreign to us.
It seems to me that your central point is:
the only way to resolve this once and for all is to arrive at peace solution
Well, yeah. Only wackos (on both sides) see things differently. But aren't you forgetting a few small facts?
1. Israel's peace treaty with Egypt
Israel gave back a huge amount of territory which had been used as an invasion path to Israel - twice - to Nazi-buddy Sadat, who had been willing to sacrifice a million Egyptians to conquer Israel. Israel took a big chance on him, giving back all that land in exchange for a peace of paper. And look what happened. Who killed him?
2. Israel's peace treaty with Jordan
Not as big a deal as Egypt, but still, it proved again that Israel could and would make peace with Arab states.
3. Israel's ongoing peace negotiations with Syria
I'm not sure these are a good idea, but it further answers your question about the mainstream in Israel being willing to make peace, notwithstanding the risks involved.
4. Israel's ongoing peace negotiations with the PA
Nobody knows where these are going, but the fact is they were taking place, until it became impossible to live next to Hamas.
So, Malkatraz, in view of these facts, I'd say your position is pretty weak. For 60+ years, Israel has consistently been ready to make peace with the Arabs.
Now, I'd like to turn the tables on you. Prove to me that Hamas is willing to make peace with Israel.
I take your point about the Jordan River. It's plain that water resources are significant for the sustenance of any population, and their allocation often has political implications that can be stressful. That isn't a situation that's unique to the Middle East. I'm familiar with the issue. I live in California.
But- once again, beyond the religious rationales- I'd like you to consider that there's another reason why so many Israelis are loath to return the West Bank region to Palestinian sovereignty and rule, having to do with territorial self-defense.
Most people familiar with the issue are able to visualize the pre-1967 map of Israel in their minds...you know that part that bulges in from the Jordan River, all the way to West Jerusalem, the "West Bank" part? That border comprises what is known in military science as an indefensible salient. You know...when there's defensive perimeter that looks like a straight line, that's a strong perimeter. When it has a bulge in the middle- a salient- it's useless.
Not only that...from the edge of that salient, a hostile group like Hamas can fire those homemade Qassam rockets all the way to the beaches on the Mediterranean, if they have a strong east wind with them. From one border to another.
It's a piece of cake for a hostile armed force to cut Israel in two, under the pre-1967 borders. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that they wouldn't even require weapons.
It isn't often spoken of. But that's how terribly vulnerable that part of the border of Israel is, as drawn up pre-1967. And the 1947 borders of the Jewish territories were even more vulnerable. That vulnerability wouldn't even be an issue of the Jewish settlements were able to peacefully co-exist with the Arab territory alongside those borders. But it hasn't worked out that way. And every time the Israelis managed to repel attempts to overrun them, they sought to obtain more defensible borders.
At this point, they have them- as long as they maintain military predominance in the West Bank. But- UN resolutions notwithstanding- the Israelis fear that the real-time, on-the-ground consequences of returning to the 1967 borders would be a repeat of what's happening in Gaza right now, only worse. A lot worse.
I tell you, looking at it as an outsider, it makes me crazy. I tear my hair out thinking about it. If I ran it all- big laugh- I'd consider something more territorially fair to the Palestinians, like providing them with sea access by ceding Haifa and northern Israel to them, along with half of the Golan, in return for Israel getting all of Jerusalem and most or all of the West Bank. But I can't even claim to have the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about. That's simply what the map suggests to me. And I never really got the part about people being attached to their olive groves, or whatever. I'm a tumbling tumbleweed.
I do understand defensive perimeters. I studied military history battlefield maps at age 6, literally on my daddy's knee.
Ironically, I no longer understand warfare. The technology has gone so far that it's unmasked the true nihilism that lies at the heart of the concept. There's no "heroism", no "glory", no "victory." Go somewhere else, if you're looking for that. In warfare, that can all be nullified by machinery and automation in a matter of seconds. The only thing remaining is horror.
But people still seem to want to do it. I don't get it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
