America should change sides and support Palestine.

[sealadaigh]

According to the UN's 2011 Palmer report the blockade is legal.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...lYDADQ&usg=AFQjCNH4uIb0WdcQ3BwUvCF16u0yIYy8Rw

Quote from Sayit

Can you tell me the exact portions of the Palmer Report that you are siting as the report is 105 pages long and while I have familiarized myself with it I do not agree with your conclusion. Throughout the Report the commission states that it is not a court and deliberately refrains from issuing legal opinions. It appears to me that the Report is more in the nature of an attempt to reconcile the differences between the Turkish summary of the events and the Israeli version.[/QUOTE]

i read the whole thing, and if say it wants to cite that as some sort of authoritative evidence as to the legality of the blockade, i am good to go...PROVIDED he accepts similar reports by the UN and doesn't cherry pick the points he wants to make and rejects any findings in such reports contrary to his opinion.

also, he may want to check the various bodies that interpret and prosecute international law as to exactly what is israel's responsibility to the people of gaza during the imposition of such a blockade and whether such a blockade constitutes and occupation or not.

he may also want to consider the very limited scope of the report and the stated intentions and disclaimers of the report.

i myself have no problem saying the blockade is legal and, actually, have said so in the past, but i think a lot of the legality of the blockade is dependant upon how that blockade is conducted.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.

That is true. Many Jews got screwed by Israel's war.

It wasn't "Israel's" war - the Arab League decided to invade.

Jordan had no right to the territory they captured: they neither annexed it nor returned it to 'Palestinian' control - but somehow they should be absolved of any wrong-doing to anyone for those actions? How is exonerating Jordan reasonable?

Actually, history says they invaded Palestine.

Anyway, they did not invade until after Israel invaded Palestine.

Jordan is the uncle Tom of the ME.

 

[MHunterB]

There is nobody named 'history', so I am assuming there is no reference for your views, Tinny.

 

[sealadaigh]

I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.

and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.

and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se.

a similar fate befell the arab population of western al quds as a result of the same conflict. they were displaced by invading european colonial/zionest armies. they should receive the same consideration the displaced indigenous jews receive.

don't ya just love word games. maggie?

 

[sealadaigh]

I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.

America should change sides and support Palestine.

Imagine the advantages:

Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
Only one enemy in the middle east
No worries about oil supply.

Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?

With the amount of visits the pro Hamas Muzzie Brotherhood has had with B. Hussein Obama and Queen Hillary, what makes you think that we're not already?

the huskies lost too.

 

[MHunterB]

I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.

and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.

and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se......

QUOTE]

They were ordered out by Jordanian soldiers at gunpoint.

For the THIRD time: please do not call me 'maggie'.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It wasn't "Israel's" war - the Arab League decided to invade.

Jordan had no right to the territory they captured: they neither annexed it nor returned it to 'Palestinian' control - but somehow they should be absolved of any wrong-doing to anyone for those actions? How is exonerating Jordan reasonable?

Jordan was promised $3M a year for five years and the West Bank if they did not attack Israel in the 1948 war. But they failed to secure the rights of the Jews.

Do you have an actual source for that other than AL propaganda? Who did the promising?

I saw it a couple of places but I don't bookmark everything.

I did, however, find this. It doesn't give the whole story but...

The West Bank of the Jordan was occupied by Jordan and later annexed, consistent with secret agreements with the Jewish leadership made before the outbreak of hostilities.

Timeline (Chronology) of Israel War of Independence - 1948 Arab-Israeli War

 

[sealadaigh]

I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.

and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.

and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se......

QUOTE]

They were ordered out by Jordanian soldiers at gunpoint.

For the THIRD time: please do not call me 'maggie'.

and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.

and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se.

a similar fate befell the arab population of western al quds as a result of the same conflict. they were displaced by invading european colonial/zionest armies. they should receive the same consideration the displaced indigenous jews receive.

don't ya just love word games. maggie?

my understanding is that there was fleeing and orcing on both sides, and the forcing was not justified by either side and those who fled should have had the right to return.

the thing is...the israaelis are still doing it.

 

[pbel]

and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.

and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se......

QUOTE]

They were ordered out by Jordanian soldiers at gunpoint.

For the THIRD time: please do not call me 'maggie'.

and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.

and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se.

a similar fate befell the arab population of western al quds as a result of the same conflict. they were displaced by invading european colonial/zionest armies. they should receive the same consideration the displaced indigenous jews receive.

don't ya just love word games. maggie?

my understanding is that there was fleeing and orcing on both sides, and the forcing was not justified by either side and those who fled should have had the right to return.

the thing is...the israaelis are still doing it.

Years and years of posting and the same broken record of the politics of hate...of course the Palestinians got the shaft from the Western Powers to control the oil by the Israeli puppet state to instill fear into the region...The result Ethnic cleansing on both sides...The right of return or at the very least compensation for their losses is only Just.

Without that: there will never be a lasting peace.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.

America should change sides and support Palestine.

Imagine the advantages:

Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
Only one enemy in the middle east
No worries about oil supply.

Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?

Way cheaper than supporting Israel. How do you figure? Are you going to tell me that their demand for arms to destroy Israel will be less than Israels demand for enough to defend themselves?
Only one enemy in the middle east Unmitigated horse apples.
No worries about oil supply. We don't worry now.

Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
Pals are evil
The only export is death and misery
They have never done anything for the world or their community
They will be the wrong kind of muslim or arab or whatever to someone else and we would still be hated by them and the rest of the ME.



How naive do you think we are?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.

Indeed, you cannot blame the Palestinians for that. The west Bank was given to Jordan by the Zionists before the war.

 

[MHunterB]

I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.

Indeed, you cannot blame the Palestinians for that. The west Bank was given to Jordan by the Zionists before the war.

Did you mistakenly think I was 'blaming' the Pals for the actions of the Jordanians? Since over 50% of 'Jordanians' were ethnic Palestinians, I can understand your confusion....but I was simply relating information.

Of course the Pals are no more responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from 'east Jerusalem' than they were for the unconscionable Arab Leauge boycott or the AL conspiracy to beggar and eject all Jewish citizens from member nations (starting before the actual 'partition' and subsequent hostilities).

But an overall just and lasting peace isn't likely to come about unless the damages from the 'war crimes' of ALL the nations in the area are repaired so far as may be possible.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.

Indeed, you cannot blame the Palestinians for that. The west Bank was given to Jordan by the Zionists before the war.

Did you mistakenly think I was 'blaming' the Pals for the actions of the Jordanians? Since over 50% of 'Jordanians' were ethnic Palestinians, I can understand your confusion....but I was simply relating information.

Of course the Pals are no more responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from 'east Jerusalem' than they were for the unconscionable Arab Leauge boycott or the AL conspiracy to beggar and eject all Jewish citizens from member nations (starting before the actual 'partition' and subsequent hostilities).

But an overall just and lasting peace isn't likely to come about unless the damages from the 'war crimes' of ALL the nations in the area are repaired so far as may be possible.

Indeed, all people have the right to return to their homes but are separate issues.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jordan was promised $3M a year for five years and the West Bank if they did not attack Israel in the 1948 war. But they failed to secure the rights of the Jews.

Do you have an actual source for that other than AL propaganda? Who did the promising?

I saw it a couple of places but I don't bookmark everything.

I did, however, find this. It doesn't give the whole story but...

The West Bank of the Jordan was occupied by Jordan and later annexed, consistent with secret agreements with the Jewish leadership made before the outbreak of hostilities.

Timeline (Chronology) of Israel War of Independence - 1948 Arab-Israeli War

The West Bank of the Jordan was occupied by Jordan...

Jordan could not occupy the West Bank if it did not belong to a state. (Or so I have heard a million times.) What state was that?

 

[Londoner]

The USA, through a CIA coup, got rid of the only democratically elected leader Iran ever had - Mosaddeq. They replaced him with the brutal, Hussein-like Shaw because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs.

The result of this tinkering was the Iranian Revolution, the energies of which cleared a populist space for groups like Hamas.

Republicans need to study the law of unintended consequences.

Big Government tried to make the region better by getting rid of Mosaddeq. (Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help)

Then they tried to make things better by supporting Hussein (Having lost Iran to Khomeini)

In each case the plan backfired.

Republicans need to learn how to question Washington. Sometimes when big government tries to improve the world, they make it worse.

If you want to get rid of Hamas and stabilize the region, than do the opposite of what Washington wants. If the USA took a more neutral stance toward Palestinians (rather than siding so heavily against them), they could destroy Hamas by empowering Muslim moderates. This is the kind of organic change that Edmund Burke would support, rather than top down military solutions. It's called consensus building.

You can't defeat a billion muslims militarily. Dropping bombs on their sacred cities and overthrowing popular leaders only empowers the most radical elements.

To see what I mean, read "Washington's China". It describes the right wing hysteria over China in the 40s and 50s. Nixon said the only way to exist with China is to work with them rather than demonize them. Now they are the primary manufacturer for global capitalism.

When Nixon first opened China he faced serious opposition, much like what Reagan faced when he got tight with Gorby. In each instance the crazies on the far Right did not want to relinquish their enemy - which gave them a context for global intervention in important regions.

What do I mean by "context for intervention"?

The threat of the Soviet Union gave Washington the ability to pull resource-rich parts of the developing world under the protective wing of the Eagle. It became a context to create markets all over the globe. Same thing with terrorism, which replaced the Cold War as the context for intervention. Middle East instability makes it easier for the neocons to justify building bases and changing regimes in a geopolitically vital region.

Never underestimate the utility of a good enemy. Never underestimate the ability of Washington to pursue that enemy in such a way as to create unintended consequences.

 

[MHunterB]

Two Thumbs, while I generally agree with most of what you posted - this part:

"Pals are evil The only export is death and misery"

is inaccurate and incorrect. I can't condone the characterization of an entire people as 'evil' - it can't possibly be true.

We may never know what the Pals are capable of in terms of positive achievements, until there is a just and complete peace for them to flourish.

What we have seen, decade after decade, is the AL nations using 'Palestine' as an excuse for ethnic cleansing of their Jewish citizenry (who - no wonder! - are not very interested in 'returning'), for keeping the Pals unemployed and hemmed in in squalid 'camps', for abusing the Pals within their assorted nations where they serve as 'untouchables'.......

It's sadly true that the rest of the Arab tribes seem to hold little respect or affection for their Pal "brethren". I do not think that's the 'fault' of either Israelis or Pals, but those Arab tribes which hold themselves superior to the Pals.

 

[Aristotle]

The reason why the U.S will not support Palestine is because Obama while enduring all the media hype due to his "arabic" name will be seen as realizing the accusation that he is Muslim A Barack Hussein Obama would be seen as going against the grain by opposing "God's chosen people" by supporting "the muslims."

Point blank do I believe United States should support Palestine? No.

I say let Israel and Palestine blow each other up. There is too much going on in the United States to start taking sides in a conflict.

 

[pbel]

The USA, through a CIA coup, got rid of the only democratically elected leader Iran ever had - Mosaddeq. They replaced him with the brutal, Hussein-like Shaw because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs.

The result of this tinkering was the Iranian Revolution, the energies of which cleared a populist space for groups like Hamas.

Republicans need to study the law of unintended consequences.

Big Government tried to make the region better by getting rid of Mosaddeq. (Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help)

Then they tried to make things better by supporting Hussein (Having lost Iran to Khomeini)

In each case the plan backfired.

Republicans need to learn how to question Washington. Sometimes when big government tries to improve the world, they make it worse.

If you want to get rid of Hamas and stabilize the region, than do the opposite of what Washington wants. If the USA took a more neutral stance toward Palestinians (rather than siding so heavily against them), they could destroy Hamas by empowering Muslim moderates. This is the kind of organic change that Edmund Burke would support, rather than top down military solutions. It's called consensus building.

You can't defeat a billion muslims militarily. Dropping bombs on their sacred cities and overthrowing popular leaders only empowers the most radical elements.
To see what I mean, read "Washington's China". It describes the right wing hysteria over China in the 40s and 50s. Nixon said the only way to exist with China is to work with them rather than demonize them. Now they are the primary manufacturer for global capitalism.

When Nixon first opened China he faced serious opposition, much like what Reagan faced when he got tight with Gorby. In each instance the crazies on the far Right did not want to relinquish their enemy - which gave them a context for global intervention in important regions.

What do I mean by "context for intervention"?

The threat of the Soviet Union gave Washington the ability to pull resource-rich parts of the developing world under the protective wing of the Eagle. It became a context to create markets all over the globe. Same thing with terrorism, which replaced the Cold War as the context for intervention. Middle East instability makes it easier for the neocons to justify building bases and changing regimes in a geopolitically vital region.

Never underestimate the utility of a good enemy. Never underestimate the ability of Washington to pursue that enemy in such a way as to create unintended consequences.

That is the problem in the long run. Technological military powers today like America and Europe are great for "Shock and Awe," but are useless in changing politics because you need boots on the ground for a long time to make permanent change.

Look at Vietnam, Iraq, and soon Afghanistan quagmires lost because in wars of attrition numbers win...Over 400 million Arabs and 1.4 billion Muslims...

The only way Israel will ever be accepted is her inclusion into the very fabric of the ME through peace, and trade before Islamists are in power in all of the ME...The 2002 peace proposal offered by the Arab League in 2002 should be given a second look.

 

[theHawk]

The USA, through a CIA coup, got rid of the only democratically elected leader Iran ever had - Mosaddeq. They replaced him with the brutal, Hussein-like Shaw because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs.

The result of this tinkering was the Iranian Revolution, the energies of which cleared a populist space for groups like Hamas.

Republicans need to study the law of unintended consequences.

Big Government tried to make the region better by getting rid of Mosaddeq. (Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help)

Then they tried to make things better by supporting Hussein (Having lost Iran to Khomeini)

In each case the plan backfired.

Republicans need to learn how to question Washington. Sometimes when big government tries to improve the world, they make it worse.

If you want to get rid of Hamas and stabilize the region, than do the opposite of what Washington wants. If the USA took a more neutral stance toward Palestinians (rather than siding so heavily against them), they could destroy Hamas by empowering Muslim moderates. This is the kind of organic change that Edmund Burke would support, rather than top down military solutions. It's called consensus building.

You can't defeat a billion muslims militarily. Dropping bombs on their sacred cities and overthrowing popular leaders only empowers the most radical elements.

To see what I mean, read "Washington's China". It describes the right wing hysteria over China in the 40s and 50s. Nixon said the only way to exist with China is to work with them rather than demonize them. Now they are the primary manufacturer for global capitalism.

When Nixon first opened China he faced serious opposition, much like what Reagan faced when he got tight with Gorby. In each instance the crazies on the far Right did not want to relinquish their enemy - which gave them a context for global intervention in important regions.

What do I mean by "context for intervention"?

The threat of the Soviet Union gave Washington the ability to pull resource-rich parts of the developing world under the protective wing of the Eagle. It became a context to create markets all over the globe. Same thing with terrorism, which replaced the Cold War as the context for intervention. Middle East instability makes it easier for the neocons to justify building bases and changing regimes in a geopolitically vital region.

Never underestimate the utility of a good enemy. Never underestimate the ability of Washington to pursue that enemy in such a way as to create unintended consequences.

Agreed to some degree. I don't think we should meddle with ME governments just to get a "pro-US" one in place. I'd rather we deal with an anti-US government if the people of that nation are anti-US as well.

But that also means we should hold the entire country responsible for its government's actions.

I disagree that muslims cannot be defeated militarily. Bombing them from pillar to post will put them in their place. Doing this nation building crap and pretending muslims can be peaceful if they have a democratic government is a waste of time and only gives us a false sense of security.

 

[jtpr312]

I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.

America should change sides and support Palestine.

Imagine the advantages:

Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
Only one enemy in the middle east
No worries about oil supply.

Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?

There is no such nation as Palistine and their are no such people as Palistinians. Next.