One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Israeli settlements and peace with the Palestinians.
Page <prev 2 of 2
Dec 27, 2016 11:13:23   #
PeterS
 
patrioticmind wrote:
Between 1933 and 1945, Britain, along with its U.S. imperialist ally, severely restricted Jewish immigration into their own countries. This policy, aimed at pushing Jews to immigrate to Palestine, was carried out while the Jewish people in Europe faced the Holocaust. (During World War 2, the U.S. and Britain also refused to bomb the tracks leading to the Nazi concentration camps.) Zionist leaders also cut deals with the Nazis—such as the Havara Agreement- -allowing some wealthier Jews to escape to Palestine and undercutting Jewish resistance in Nazi-controlled areas.

There was Palestinian resistance to the Zionist settlers as early as the turn of the twentieth century. In 1936 Palestinians launched an armed uprising against the British authorities and the Zionist settlers. The British brutally crushed the uprising in 1939 and passed emergency laws condemning to death any Palestinian found with a gun. ( Roots , p. 68).

Zionist leader David Ben Gurion wrote at the time: "In our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us...[but] let us not ignore the truth among ourselves... Politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country...." (Chomsky, pp. 90-91)
Between 1933 and 1945, Britain, along with its U.S... (show quote)


Nice summation. One has to wonder how there can ever be peace when both sides think they have exclusive right to the land they hold. I still don't see what Israel thinks they can achieve by building more settlements. This can only act to antagonize the Palestinians and push peace even further away. But so long as you have the strongest military who cares about peace anyway...

Reply
Dec 27, 2016 13:29:00   #
fidelis
 
The "palastinians" already have a nation, its called Jordan. Palestinians live or better described as exist in Jordan in refugee camps. Even their own brother arabs dont want them in their towns. Given the way they live in ISRAEL you would think they would be grateful, but that isn't the the way of camel humpers. Look what they did to Gaza. The only thing they want is to have Israel gone.

Reply
Dec 27, 2016 13:29:03   #
fidelis
 
The "palastinians" already have a nation, its called Jordan. Palestinians live or better described as exist in Jordan in refugee camps. Even their own brother arabs dont want them in their towns. Given the way they live in ISRAEL you would think they would be grateful, but that isn't the the way of camel humpers. Look what they did to Gaza. The only thing they want is to have Israel gone.

Reply
 
 
Dec 27, 2016 13:58:46   #
CDM Loc: Florida
 
PeterS wrote:
Nice summation. One has to wonder how there can ever be peace when both sides think they have exclusive right to the land they hold. I still don't see what Israel thinks they can achieve by building more settlements. This can only act to antagonize the Palestinians and push peace even further away. But so long as you have the strongest military who cares about peace anyway...

As I said to Jim there have been millions upon millions of words written on this subject in modern times; patrioticmind does a wonderful job of 'reprinting' several thousand of them but does not answer the question you posted “ why Obama's actions are making peace in the middle east more difficult?”...

A larger question that provides guidance is 'what has Obama ever done to encourage or cultivate middle east peace? The answer to that question provides the path to your answer. From Obama's strategic position and view there is nothing to be gained by middle east peace - through negotiation - Note, through negotiation - settlement by and between the aggrieved parties. Why?

Because Obama does not believe in the individual, the independent thought process, a Republic that stands for itself. Obama believes that all human activity must reflect the direct dictates of a small, elite body of super humans such as himself. A negotiated peace anywhere is antithetical to this ideological insanity.

To answer your own question simply read the Resolution in question. You will immediately see that it is fraught with ambiguities and raises more questions than answers such as where the line exists that limits Israel's building. No clear definition. And most egregious the Resolution states that Israel (and Palestine) must turn all decision making over to the U.N. or some other 'neutral' body and abide, without question, with all decisions of that body. What sovereign state would ever agree to such terms? None. And so, what is the alternative? Fight... The peace bar just got moved up; way up.

This is no different than the race game or the homophobe game or any other disruptive element of the hard core Leftist agenda to impose single, dictatorial rule on all peoples of this planet. Peace and harmony are the least desired outcomes.

Reply
Dec 27, 2016 14:36:40   #
rich boise Loc: Idaho
 
I would say "Zionism" was founded by God about 2000 B.C. when He promised specific territory to Abraham and then specified it would be Isaac and Jacob (not Esau or Ishmael) And actually, God seems to think Zion is HIS.

Reply
Dec 27, 2016 15:00:32   #
patrioticmind
 
The Security Council resolution condemns Israel for building “settlements” in areas of Palestine that the UN recognizes as territory that should be administered by Palestinians. Those settlements are highly militarized encampments of heavily armed Israeli settlers engaged in expanding the terrorist ethnic cleansing of sections of Palestine.
The settlements violate international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention—which has been adopted by nearly every country on Earth—prohibits an occupying power from transferring its citizens into the territory it occupies and from transferring or displacing the population of an occupied territory within or outside the territory (See “Occupation Inc.” from Human Rights Watch.)
The wording of the UN resolution condemns “all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia [among others], the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.” And it expresses “grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines.”1
Every other country represented on the UN Security Council voted for the resolution. Because the U.S. abstained (didn’t vote), and didn’t veto the resolution, it passed.

Reply
Dec 27, 2016 15:11:41   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
PeterS wrote:
My question is why Obama's actions are making peace in the Middle East more difficult? As I see it the more Israel builds settlements in the Palestinian areas the more difficult peace in the future becomes--not the other way around. Now I understand that you cons don't like Obama but why do you think Israel should be able to build settlements where ever they want?


Not wherever they want. Just on their land.

Reply
 
 
Dec 27, 2016 15:19:29   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
patrioticmind wrote:
The Beginnings of Zionist Settlement
Israel is a Zionist state—a state based on the political ideology known as Zionism. Israel was founded by Zionist Jews from Europe, who began to colonize historic Palestine (what is now Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank) in the late 1880s. At that time, there were small Jewish communities that had long existed in the Middle East, but Jews had not been a large part of the population in Palestine for some 2,000 years. Most Jews who lived in the area in ancient times had migrated to other parts of the world following the fall of the last Jewish kingdom in Palestine to the Roman Empire, around 70 AD. By the time the Zionist movement arose in the late 1800s, there had been many centuries of Jewish migrations, persecutions, and intermarriage with other people. Most Jews lived in Europe, and they were a very diverse group which included many different nationalities as well as religious and political viewpoints.

The Zionists based their movement on the claim that Jews were god’s "chosen people" and that Palestine was the land god promised them. They said that Jews could never assimilate into other societies and could only deal with anti-Semitism by having their own state. Zionism did not reflect the views of many Jews who saw themselves as part of the life and struggles of the people in the countries where they lived. The Zionist movement reflected the interests of bourgeois Jews in Europe, and from the beginning it was based on allying with imperialism against the masses in the Middle East. Theodor Herzl, a founder of Zionism, wrote that a future Zionist state "would be the advance post of civilization against barbarism." (Rodinson)

The Zionists promoted the myth that Palestine, which is about the size of the state of Maryland, was a barren desert, "a land without people for a people without land." In truth, some of the first urban societies in the world originated in historic Palestine, and Palestinians had lived and farmed there for centuries. In 1947 some Palestinians could trace their land ownership back a thousand years. (Guyatt, p. 1),
The Beginnings of Zionist Settlement br Israel is ... (show quote)


Jewish temple dates 3,000 years. 1948 law gave Israel that land. The Palestinians are squatters.

Reply
Dec 27, 2016 15:57:36   #
CDM Loc: Florida
 
patrioticmind wrote:
The Security Council resolution condemns Israel for building “settlements” in areas of Palestine that the UN recognizes as territory that should be administered by Palestinians. Those settlements are highly militarized encampments of heavily armed Israeli settlers engaged in expanding the terrorist ethnic cleansing of sections of Palestine.
The settlements violate international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention—which has been adopted by nearly every country on Earth—prohibits an occupying power from transferring its citizens into the territory it occupies and from transferring or displacing the population of an occupied territory within or outside the territory (See “Occupation Inc.” from Human Rights Watch.)
The wording of the UN resolution condemns “all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia [among others], the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.” And it expresses “grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines.”1
Every other country represented on the UN Security Council voted for the resolution. Because the U.S. abstained (didn’t vote), and didn’t veto the resolution, it passed.
The Security Council resolution condemns Israel fo... (show quote)


The wording of this resolution is not different from the many historic attempts that have been made to resolve this issue in favor of the Arab nations through third party carving up of the spoils, so to speak. The point is there is no 'settlement' language much less demonstrated understanding of the tribal nature of this conflict but only a restatement of the same tripe that has failed in the past. Bottom line as I said; the Israelis, like all sovereign nations, will never agree to abide by the biased rulings of any third party much less a corrupt body such as the U.N.

And because the U.S. abstained the resolution passed? What was the purpose of the abstaining position if not to see the resolution pass? Is this not the core of the question that started this thread? That typically, our current administration chooses to take an ideological position that presents a limp wristed U.S. posture while advancing no actions toward the magical gold ring of peace?

Are you serious in pointing out the obvious, that every other country represented on the UN Council voted favorably? Really? Is this significant in your mind? Perhaps in justification of the U.N.? Since when does the U.N. not take full advantage of any opportunity to politically disenfranchise, embarrass and demean the United States? Or to opportunistically favor the Arab states over others?

Your comments serve to amplify the question; how has the peace process been furthered by this action? How has the U.S. position been enhanced?

Reply
Dec 27, 2016 16:16:21   #
Red Onion Rip Loc: Oklahoma
 
Before the state of Israel was established in 1948, a Jew in Palestine was called a Palestinian and that is what it said on his passport. An Arab in Palestine was called.....an Arab and that is what it said on his passport. After the establishment of the Jewish state, a Jew' s passport said Jew while an Arab' s passport said Palestinian. Funny how that worked out.

Reply
Dec 27, 2016 16:17:06   #
robmull Loc: florida
 
PeterS wrote:
My question is why Obama's actions are making peace in the Middle East more difficult? As I see it the more Israel builds settlements in the Palestinian areas the more difficult peace in the future becomes--not the other way around. Now I understand that you cons don't like Obama but why do you think Israel should be able to build settlements where ever they want?










Because it's been Jewish lands for about 4000 years, pecker. I'm certainly glad you've finally noticed why {being very mild}, "WE, don't like Obama," but have you yet noticed that Hamas and Hezbollah and the "PLO," have been lobbing "stupid" bombs into Israel for over a half century, and that they just need to get a little closer to be more accurate??? Until Hamas, PLO and Hezbollah are completely gone, (D)isbanded, ANY "Two State Peace Agreement," is as "stupid" as the bombs radical Islam has been haphazardly lobbing at Israel!!! No ifs ands or buts!!! Hummmmmmmmmm. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP!!!

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.