Pages

 

Jump to bottom

94 comments

1 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 2:39:32pm

I'm a Canadian, so no. And even if I was an American I'd say no. It would be acknowledging that the land Israel took from other countries in the Six Day War is now Israel's.

Now let me make my position clear. I think the Six Day War was a brilliant military maneuver, and Israel did the right thing. Their neighbours were planning a gangbang with Israel as the party favour. By hitting Egypt, Syria and the rest first Israel stopped that.

But, by keeping the land they took Israel changed an act of self defence to an act of theft. There were good military reasons for keeping that land but it's illegal under international law.

So if the U.S. or any other nation moves its embassy to Jerusalem it is signalling it has no problem with nations taking land from other nations by force. Smart force as I've already pointed out, but force nonetheless.

This means the next time one nation invades another the nations that moved their embassies to Jerusalem will have no moral right to condemn such actions.

So no. The embassy should stay in Tel Aviv where the Israeli capital is, and was not taken by force.

2 freetoken  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 3:03:08pm

The title of this Page is phrased as a question (though without the punctuation), so I'll give the answers:

1) Presidents don't like Congress meddling in foreign affairs, as it's considered a power grab;
2) It's too difficult;
3) The US has attempted to portray itself as a neutral actor wrt Jerusalem.

And no, I don't support the petition offered. And, those bills stuck in committees ought to sink in those committees.

3 Bob Levin  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 3:49:29pm

re: #1 Romantic Heretic

But, by keeping the land they took Israel changed an act of self defence to an act of theft. There were good military reasons for keeping that land but it's illegal under international law.

It's more complicated than that. Israel also took the Sinai peninsula, which was under the sovereignty--and this is the key word--the sovereignty of Egypt. Egypt never relinquished sovereignty over the Sinai, and because of that, Israel was able to return the Sinai to Egypt. However, the West Bank was under the sovereignty of Jordan. Jordan relinquished sovereignty over this area, making it essentially a legal no-man's land. Even if Israel wanted to give the land back to Jordan, it couldn't because Jordan wouldn't take it.

Israel was then faced with a quandary. First, as you note, Israel needed to defend itself from nations wanting to push the Jews into the sea, as Nasser put it. The nine mile width at the waist, so to speak, of Israel therefore needed to be expanded to avoid further vulnerability. Second, the group eventually taking charge of the West Bank was a terrorist organization, and a successful one at that--meaning that they did indeed murder Israeli civilians, quite a few. And Fatah still hasn't given up on this goal. The sovereignty question is not solved, nor are legalities so cut and dried.

And you'd have to do some research on how Fatah, or the PLO, came to be the legal representatives, in place of Jordan, for the people in the West Bank.

Presently, the only land that Israel is keeping would be called Area C, which they aren't keeping, but rather, Israelis are allowed to live there, according to the Oslo Accords.

4 andres  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 4:09:58pm

No. 1) Tel Aviv is Israel's capital. 2) This is a very complicated matter that Israel should solve themselves without anyone else's intervention. As stated above, any international interference will bring worst consequences.

Besides, this is an Evangelical/Apocalyptic wish. The law (requiring the embassy in Jerusalem) should be eliminated.

5 Bob Levin  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 4:16:05pm

re: #4 andres

Many embassies are located in Tel Aviv, which is more fun. But the Knesset is in Jerusalem. Fortunately, the distance between the two is like a long ride on the 405.

6 Skandal  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 4:48:24pm

re: #4 andres

Tel Aviv is not Israel's capital. It never has been since the state was declared in 1948.

7 sliv_the_eli  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 5:07:05pm

re: #1 Romantic Heretic

I'm a Canadian, so no. And even if I was an American I'd say no. It would be acknowledging that the land Israel took from other countries in the Six Day War is now Israel's.
* * *
So no. The embassy should stay in Tel Aviv where the Israeli capital is, and was not taken by force.

I am afraid your view of the subject is based upon some fundamental factual errors. First of all, Israel's capital is Jerusalem, as it has been since the middle of December 1949. Tel Aviv is as much the capital of Israel as New York City is the capital of the United States.

More importantly, the United States' refusal to located its embassy in Jerusalem -- which makes Israel the only country in the world in which we have not placed our embassy in the capital city -- has nothing whatsoever to do with the June 1967 war or its outcome.

A significant portion of the city of Jerusalem, commonly referred to as "West" Jerusalem, has been located within sovereign Israel since the conclusion of the 1948-1949 war between Israel and the Arab states and the armistice ending that war. it is in this portion of Jerusalem that Israel has located its declared capital, and its political, legislative, judicial and administrative center, since December 1949, when Israel's first Knesset (their Parliament) formally moved Israel's capital there.

Successive Presidents, from both political parties, have nevertheless refused to place our embassy in Israel's capital city, even in the portion of the city that has been part of Israel since 1948 and has been its capital since 1949.

Since this refusal pre-dates by nearly two decades Israel's capture of the rest of Jerusalem, clearly it cannot be explained by any dispute over the portions of Jerusalem that Israel captured in the June 1967.

So why, then, have twelve successive presidents refused to move the embassy to Jerusalem? The answer is simple - to avoid antagonizing the Arab states which, with two exceptions, have refused for six and a half decades to recognize Israel’s right to exist or to exercise sovereignty over any land west of the Jordan River, including the portions of Jerusalem that have been part of Israel since 1948.

Finally, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 does not mandate that the U.S. place its embassy in the portion of Jerusalem that Israel captured in 1967, only that it be placed in Jerusalem. Moving the embassy to the portion of Jerusalem that has been Israel’s capital since December 1949 therefore would not serve to "acknowledge" Israel’s claims or position with respect to the future of any other part of Jerusalem. It would, however, at least live up to the United States' declared policy that “An embassy is always located in the capital city of a foreign nation.” (Emphasis added).
[Link: diplomacy.state.gov...]

Oh, and it would probably also piss off the Arab states whose apologists claim are willing to recognize Israel’s sovereignty within the Green Line. Which remains the real reason that it hasn't been done since 1995 and likely won't be done any time soon, either.

8 sliv_the_eli  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 5:15:37pm

re: #2 freetoken

The title of this Page is phrased as a question (though without the punctuation), so I'll give the answers:

1) Presidents don't like Congress meddling in foreign affairs, as it's considered a power grab;
2) It's too difficult;
3) The US has attempted to portray itself as a neutral actor wrt Jerusalem.

And no, I don't support the petition offered. And, those bills stuck in committees ought to sink in those committees.

I agree that the issue of presidents not wanting Congress meddling in foregin affairs is a legitimate issue. But it is not the reason that the embassy has not been placed in Jerusalem by any of the dozen occupants of the White House since Israel's independence.

Your second reason is inaccurate. We expend billions of dollars the world over to build and even relocate embassies all the time.

Your third reason is at least arguably accurate as to the actual raeson. (Although, as suggested by my previous post, I believe it has more to do with not wanting to antagonize the Arab states than with wanting to actually be or appear to be impartial). The problem with that approach, however, is that sometime, in trying to appear impartial, one actually takes a position that undermines one side of the dispute. In this case, by refusing to recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, we are actually undermining an ally and encouraging its enemies to act as though there is still a legitimate dispute over the portions of Israel within the Green Line (or, as the media often incorrectly call it within Israel's "1967 borders).

9 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 6:51:27pm

re: #3 Bob Levin

Thank you for the information. Much appreciated.

10 Bob Levin  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 7:09:14pm

re: #9 Romantic Heretic

You are most welcome. I'll admit that your comment kept my thoughts provoking, and I wondered what would have happened had Jordan kept its sovereignty rights.

First, woe to those Jordanians living on the West Bank, as King Hussein did not show much tolerance for Arafat. The king would not have been as eager to embrace the idea of thwarting attacks--as Arafat would also have planned assassination attempts on the king.

Second, there would have been a peace agreement in place that allowed Israelis to live anywhere they wanted west of the Jordan.

Ironic plot twist, yes?

11 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 7:16:46pm

re: #10 Bob Levin

You are most welcome. I'll admit that your comment kept my thoughts provoking, and I wondered what would have happened had Jordan kept its sovereignty rights.

First, woe to those Jordanians living on the West Bank, as King Hussein did not show much tolerance for Arafat. The king would not have been as eager to embrace the idea of thwarting attacks--as Arafat would also have planned assassination attempts on the king.

Second, there would have been a peace agreement in place that allowed Israelis to live anywhere they wanted west of the Jordan.

Ironic plot twist, yes?

Indeed.

12 What, me worry?  Mon, Jul 16, 2012 8:43:09pm

I gave you an upding because I appreciate the enthusiasm and I agree with you. It should be in Jerusalem. Bob and Sliv gave awesome answers (as always) and Sliv was right on. It would be considered an antagonistic move. And as just as well stated, Jerusalem is still Israel's capitol with or without the embassy. As with much of Israel's politics, there's much more than meets the eye.

I do feel, however, we need to stop using it as a point of contention, usually with which to beat a president over the head. So no, I can't sign the petition either. I'll sign it in spirit, which doesn't help you much, I know.

13 researchok  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 1:31:06am

re: #1 Romantic Heretic

Immediately following thew war, Israel offered all the land back in exchange for peace.

The offer was refused.

To this day, the three predicates to peace in the region as agreed to by the UN, NATO, Quartet, et al, are as follows;

Cessation of acts of terror.
Diplomatic recognition of Israel.
Secure borders.

Which of these things are too onerous a burden for the Palestinians or Arab world?

14 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 1:31:21am

re: #12 What, me worry?

I agree. Although it is no secret how I feel about the United States' shameful behavior on this issue for the past 63 years, the Constitution gives the President, not Congress, the authoirty to act in this manner. Granted, Congress has the power of the purse, which is intended to give it some say in foreign affairs, but holding all appropriations for U.S. embassies hostage to this issue is not the right way to get this done.

15 theye1  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 5:31:17am

re: #8 sliv_the_eli

It would be read as the USA is acknowledging Israel's claims on Eastern Jerusalem.

16 JEA62  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 5:39:05am

Maybe the American embassy is still in Tel Aviv because even though Jewish large-state zealots claim it's their capital, Jerusalem's status is still legally disputed.

17 Bob Levin  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 5:55:05am

re: #16 JEA62

How large is large? Alaska large? Canada large? And what's a zealot? Was Bob Hope a San Fernando Valley zealot? Are you a zealot if you just want a front or backyard?

18 Destro  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 6:08:27am

re: #13 researchok

Immediately following thew war, Israel offered all the land back in exchange for peace.

The offer was refused.

To this day, the three predicates to peace in the region as agreed to by the UN, NATO, Quartet, et al, are as follows;

Cessation of acts of terror.
Diplomatic recognition of Israel.
Secure borders.

Which of these things are too onerous a burden for the Palestinians or Arab world?

The Palestinians were cursed with a leader like Arafat who was not able to transition from a guerilla fighter to a statesman.

It can also be a case of the Arabs or Muslim side looking at history and saying, this happened before, Europeans made a state in the holy land and it lasted about a hundred years till the Muslims got a Saladin that defeated the Crusaders. So the Arabs maybe thinking; "why negotiate with Israel when we will win in due time due to attrition?"

19 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 8:14:35am

re: #15 theye1

It would be read as the USA is acknowledging Israel's claims on Eastern Jerusalem.

I have explained above why that statement is factually and logically false. However, I would be interested in your explanation how placing the U.S. Embassy in West Jerusalem, which
1. Has been within Israel's territory since 1948
2. Has been Israel's declared capital since December 1949 and
3. According to supporters of the Palestinian cause is purportedly not territory in which the Palestinians desire to create a state,
may logically be interpreted as supporting any claim on East Jerusalem.

20 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 8:19:01am

re: #16 JEA62

Maybe the American embassy is still in Tel Aviv because even though Jewish large-state zealots claim it's their capital, Jerusalem's status is still legally disputed.

1. Please state your position on the legal status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

2. If your position is anything other than that it is "legally disputed", the term that you apply to the portion of Jerusalem that has been within Israeli territory since 1948, please explain, legally, makes West Jerusalem disputed, but East Jerusalem and the West Bank something other than disputed.

3. Explain, on the basis of international law or other cognizable legal principles, what makes West Jerusalem, to which no member state of the United Nations other than Israel and no legally recognized non-state actor (in this case the Palestinian Authority) has laid a claim, "legally disputed".

21 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 8:21:43am

re: #18 Destro

It can also be a case of the Arabs or Muslim side looking at history and saying, this happened before, Europeans made a state in the holy land and it lasted about a hundred years till the Muslims got a Saladin that defeated the Crusaders. So the Arabs maybe thinking; "why negotiate with Israel when we will win in due time due to attrition?"

I think you might be onto something there. Like historically supported facts that go a long way to explaining why this conflict has endured for the large part of the past century.

22 Destro  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 9:07:19am

re: #19 sliv_the_eli

I have explained above why that statement is factually and logically false. However, I would be interested in your explanation how placing the U.S. Embassy in West Jerusalem, which
1. Has been within Israel's territory since 1948
2. Has been Israel's declared capital since December 1949 and
3. According to supporters of the Palestinian cause is purportedly not territory in which the Palestinians desire to create a state,
may logically be interpreted as supporting any claim on East Jerusalem.

Americans seem to not like diplomacy or negotiations or being honest neutral brokers of power as is politic to do being a lone superpower that also truth be told has limited world powers as well.

Americans need to decide if they want to dictate policies to other nations sometimes based on American domestic politics or be a "Solomonic" power and act as an honest broker to all sides even if we tend to 'like' or 'favor' one side (the Israeli side) over the other side (Palestinian).

The call of moving the American embassy to Jerusalem is for American domestic politics consumption and not befitting America's super power status as an honest broker of negotiated settlements.

Americans need to find their inner George W. Bush that calls for impolitic diplomatic thinking like moving the American embassy to Jerusalem (east or west) and flush it down the toilet once and for all.

23 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 9:35:51am

re: #22 Destro

1. The United States is not required to be "an honest broker". It is entitled to pursue its interests, support its allies and promote its world view.

2. Being an "honest broker" does not mean treating the claims of each disputant as equally valid or even valid at all. It means being honest with each of the disputants. As in, telling the Israelis, as our government regularly does, when we disagree with them about their policies, including settlement policies, in the West Bank. As in also telling the Palestinians that they need to actually engage in negotiations if they want the world to believe that they are interested in a negotiated resolution. Being an "honest broker" means that when we say we support a solution involving two states living side by side in peace and security, that we actually mean it. Which leads to point:

3. The phrase "honest broker" when applied to the role of the United States government in connection with the Arab-Israel dispute has not been and is not used to mean the United States acting as a faitful mediator to try and help the parties reach an accomodation consistent with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 (which incorporated in international law the concept of an Israeli withdrawal from territory it captured in June 1967 in exchange for "secure and recogized" borders. Instead, it has been used, and contniues to be used to mean "The United States should stop cow-towing to the Jews, withdraw/reduce its support for Israel and throw its support behind Israel's Arab adversaries."

Finally, and most importantly, if you think that the United States has not acted as an honest broker in connection with the Arab-Israel dispute, you are simply ignoring reality. The United States has gone to great lengths and invested significant treasure and prestige to try to assist the parties to reach a resolution of their conflict. Virtually every candidate for the presidency, and every actual President of the United States, invests his or her personal and political prestige to try and bring about peace -- a real peace, not the peace of Saladdin -- between Israel and her Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians. Indeed, our current sitting President stated only days ago that his greatest regret is not having succeeded in doing so. There are tomes written on the extensive diplomacy in which the United States government has engaged for decades, both behind the scenes and in front of the cameras, to try to broker a peace.

The absence of peace cannot be blamed on the United States government -- or Americans, generally -- not being interested in diplomacy or negotiations.

Now, if you are honestly interested in learning more about why no peace has been achieved in the 64 years since Israel won her independence and survival, I suggest you take the portion of your earlier post that I quoted in Post #19 and use it as the basis for some historical research.

If, on the other hand, you are unwilling to challenge through evidence your previously espoused view that Israel and its Jewish supporters have the United States government wrapped around their proverbial fingers and that the United States government pursues their agenda at the expense of the United States' agenda, there is little I or anyone else can do for you.

24 Destro  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 10:09:21am

1) The USA as a lone superpower can no longer act like it did under retard Bush's "with us or against us'. Unless you want more dead Americans and no one listening to America unless we bomb or bribe them.


2) I did not say view both sides equally. I said be 'Solomonic' and not impolitic.


3) I did not say the USA is not acting as an honest broker towards the Arabs, I said
at the congressional level at home pandering to domestic politics should never be allowed to influence the workings of the president's foreign policy which needs to adhere to statecraft and diplomacy.

I will repeat what I wrote:

The call of moving the American embassy to Jerusalem is for American domestic politics consumption and not befitting America's super power status as an honest broker of negotiated settlements.

Americans need to find their inner George W. Bush that calls for impolitic diplomatic thinking like moving the American embassy to Jerusalem (east or west) and flush it down the toilet once and for all.

25 Destro  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 10:19:14am

re: #23 sliv_the_eli

Oh, and PS:

I never ever wrote or hinted at this for you to make this claim about me.

If, on the other hand, you are unwilling to challenge through evidence your previously espoused view that Israel and its Jewish supporters have the United States government wrapped around their proverbial fingers and that the United States government pursues their agenda at the expense of the United States' agenda, there is little I or anyone else can do for you.

Where the fuck did you get that from? The closest I can think of is that I said both asshats George W retard Bush and Bibi Netanyahu (he was not PM at that time and thus not representing Israel though he claimed in a WSJ article he was) supported a preemptive war against Saddam's Iraq and for that they are asshats and get an eternal middle finger at them by me.

26 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 10:37:04am

re: #18 Destro

It can also be a case of the Arabs or Muslim side looking at history and saying, this happened before, Europeans made a state in the holy land and it lasted about a hundred years till the Muslims got a Saladin that defeated the Crusaders. So the Arabs maybe thinking; "why negotiate with Israel when we will win in due time due to attrition?"

That would only be viable if there were a large a pan-Arab state that encompassed an area & population similar to that of the Ayyubid dynasty founded by Saladin. The Arabs don't have leaders like that anymore (and he wasn't an Arab anyway, he was a Kurd), nor do they have that sort of cohesion. There have been several attempts at creating a pan-Arab state over the past 100 years or so and all have failed. Anyone who is waiting for that is daydreaming.

Besides, everyone assumes that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though they maintain a policy of ambiguity. I have zero doubt it would use them if it felt its existence was threatened. That, in turn, would undoubtedly trigger WW III, leading to death, destruction, and suffering the likes of which I'd rather not be alive to witness.

27 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 11:35:02am

re: #25 Destro

Oh, and PS:

I never ever wrote or hinted at this for you to make this claim about me.


Where the fuck did you get that from? The closest I can think of is that I said both asshats George W retard Bush and Bibi Netanyahu (he was not PM at that time and thus not representing Israel though he claimed in a WSJ article he was) supported a preemptive war against Saddam's Iraq and for that they are asshats and get an eternal middle finger at them by me.

Yeah, I saw where you have taken to pretending that you have not repeatedly fallen back on antisemitic canards about the supposed ability of the Israel/Jewish lobby to get the United States to pursue their interests instead of our own. Unfortunately for you, this internet thing has a way of saving what we write. So here is one, among many, of your screeds on point:

Yea, people who are not Americans are foreigners. That is not so hard tp grasp is it? Israelis are not Americans. And Likud is trying to get the USA to launch a war with Iran and having American politicians cow tow to Israel over which American would be first to attack Iran. Maybe I am still sore about being suckered into attacking Iraq at the behest of others agendas.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

28 Destro  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 12:03:00pm

re: #27 sliv_the_eli

Yeah, I saw where you have taken to pretending that you have not repeatedly fallen back on antisemitic canards about the supposed ability of the Israel/Jewish lobby to get the United States to pursue their interests instead of our own. Unfortunately for you, this internet thing has a way of saving what we write. So here is one, among many, of your screeds on point:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I stand by everything I wrote and what I wrote still does not imply what you wrote. It is your interpretation but then again you sound like a Bush W supporter, because that is my interpretation.

As you can see the above statement was directed at Likud and the Republicans in an article about Mitt going to visit Israel to use that trip to bash Obama.

29 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 12:03:16pm

re: #24 Destro

OK, let's pretend that you have a serious interest in this discourse, rather than in just repeating knee-jerk the "Bush is a retard", "Bush is evil", "Americans are boorish louts who bring their own deaths upon them" cliches, and take your points, such as they are, in order:

Point 1:
a. Please explain, with historical references, the basis for your suggestion that the United States only first pursued a "you are with us or against us" strategy in its foreign relations beginning with and during the Bush presidency.

b. Please explain, with factual and historical references, the basis for your assertion that no one listens to the U.S. unless we bomb or bribe them during periods when the U.S. is engaged in power politics in the international arena. Please explain, in particular, why the popularity of the United States among the newly democratized states of Eastern Europe in the post-Cold War ear does not undermine your thesis.

c. Please furnish the factual basis for your assertion that it is only the U.S.'s pursuit of a "you are with us or against us" policy in international relations that leads "to dead Americans". Were Americans never killed by our adversaries when we pursued a more conciliatory approach to foreign affairs? How does the plummeting standing of the U.S. in the Muslim world under the current administration support or undermine your thesis.

d. Why does the fact that the U.S. does not currently have a contending and equal superpower mean that the United States cannot pursue its interests, supporting its allies and opposing those whose policies and worldviews are inimical to that which we promote?

Point 2:

a. Please explain what you mean by the term: "dictat[ing] policies to other nations sometimes based on American domestic politics." To what "domestic politics" do you refer?

b. And why is it inappropriate for the United States, a representative republic, to pursue a foreign policy that reflects the desires of its poplulation as determined through the process of "domestic politics"?

c. Please explain, with references to specific policy prescriptions (your own or those propounded by others), what, in your view, it would mean to "be a "Solomonic" power and act as an honest broker to all sides". We are all, after all, familiar with the story of Solomon proposing that a baby be split in two. By "Solomonic" do you mean dictating to the parties a 50-50 split between their positions, even if that is not an appropriate resolution? Or do you simply mean "wise", with the word "wise" meaning what the "underdog" Palestinians demand.

Point 3:

a. Yes, that is exactly what you said. It is inherent in your positing a duology between ""dictat[ing] policies to other nations sometimes based on American domestic politics", which is what you have repeatedly claimed on this web site is what the U.S. does with reference to the desires of Israel and its "domestic supporters", and "acting as an honest broker".

b. I will grant you that the Jerusalem Embassy Act is for domestic political purposes and, even, largely for purposes of pandering by politicians (of both political parties). However, while you would place the authority for foreign policy entirely in the hands of the executive branch (unless, presumably, the White Hosue is occupied by "right wing kooks" or a "retard" Republican) the Constitution created a system of checks and balances even with respect to foreign affairs. Among other things, it gives the power of the purse solely to Congress, and that is precisely what Congress elected to use here. Moreover, there is nothing wrong, for reason I lay out in Post #7, above, with Congress, as the people's elected representatives, taking the position that the U.S. government should enforce its own declared policy that our embassy be in the capital of each country.

30 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 12:10:06pm

re: #28 Destro

Keep trying, but your words are there for anyone who wishes to follow the link, read what you actually wrote and draw their own conclusions. As for who and what I support, my position is clear. I support any person of any political party whose positions on the issues that are important to me most coincide with my own views. Sometimes those politicians are liberal Democrats, sometimes they are conservative Republicans. I vote, and have voted for many decades, on the issues, not on some meaningless claptrap cliche such as "right-wing kookery" or "left wing communist".

And when it comes to issues of Middle Eastern affairs, I come to my views after decades of academic study and life experience, not based on some antisemitic notion that the Israeli government, acting through its lobby in the United States (that would be the Amish, right?), got us to invade Iraq -- on the contrary, as others and I pointed out, despite your blindness to the facts, Israel's leadership warned the U.S. not to topple Saddam -- and is now pushing us to attack Iran "for their own agenda" and in opposition to American interests.

31 Destro  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 12:10:08pm

re: #29 sliv_the_eli

I will with absolute glee continue to declare not only is W a scumbag (I hate to use retard since I don't want to make fun of handicapped people) and a war fucking criminal.

And I wrote it perfectly the first time:

Americans seem to not like diplomacy or negotiations or being honest neutral brokers of power as is politic to do being a lone superpower that also truth be told has limited world powers as well.

Americans need to decide if they want to dictate policies to other nations sometimes based on American domestic politics or be a "Solomonic" power and act as an honest broker to all sides even if we tend to 'like' or 'favor' one side (the Israeli side) over the other side (Palestinian).

The call of moving the American embassy to Jerusalem is for American domestic politics consumption and not befitting America's super power status as an honest broker of negotiated settlements.

Americans need to find their inner George W. Bush that calls for impolitic diplomatic thinking like moving the American embassy to Jerusalem (east or west) and flush it down the toilet once and for all.

32 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 12:20:21pm

re: #31 Destro

You are entitled to your view about the former President or anyone else. I don't purport to try and convince you otherwise. However, if you want to go spouting about matters concerning Israel, Jews, the Israel/Jewish lobby and other matters, you are going to have to do so based upon facts not meaningless platitudes. We started this discussion with my suggestion that you had made a good point about why it is that the Palestinians might still remain unwilling to make the critical compromises that will be necessary to achieve what many of us in the West refer to as the "two-state solution". I suggested, given that from your many posts these past weeks I get the impression Middle Eastern history, politics and affairs are not an area in which you have a deep knowledge base, that you pursue your line of thought with some research. I again urge you to do so. If you approach the research with an open mind and pursue objective information, I have a pretty good idea what you will learn. But it is for you to draw your own conclusions from the facts.
Further, I see that you continue to avoid all of the questions I posed and, instead, simply copied and pasted your earlier statement. If there is some substance to your position other than what I believe it to be, I am more than willing to be educated. The ball is now in your court. AS for me, I have to part for a while and take care of some business.

33 Destro  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 12:24:57pm

re: #30 sliv_the_eli

Keep trying, but your words are there for anyone who wishes to follow the link, read what you actually wrote and draw their own conclusions. As for who and what I support, my position is clear. I support any person of any political party whose positions on the issues that are important to me most coincide with my own views. Sometimes those politicians are liberal Democrats, sometimes they are conservative Republicans. I vote, and have voted for many decades, on the issues, not on some meaningless claptrap cliche such as "right-wing kookery" or "left wing communist".

And when it comes to issues of Middle Eastern affairs, I come to my views after decades of academic study and life experience, not based on some antisemitic notion that the Israeli government, acting through its lobby in the United States (that would be the Amish, right?), got us to invade Iraq -- on the contrary, as others and I pointed out, despite your blindness to the facts, Israel's leadership warned the U.S. not to topple Saddam -- and is now pushing us to attack Iran "for their own agenda" and in opposition to American interests.

I specifically mentioned not Israeli's then leaders but Likud's Bibi. Here he is pushing that war criminal Bush into a preemptive war while he claims he speals for all of Israel in the Wall Street Journal no less:

The Case for Toppling Saddam

By Benjamin Netanyahu

The Wall Street Journal | September 20, 2002

Though I am today a private citizen, I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam's regime.

If a pre-emptive action will be supported by a broad coalition of free countries and the U.N., all the better. But if such support is not forthcoming, then the U.S. must be prepared to act without it. This will require courage, and I see it abundantly present in President Bush's bold leadership and in the millions of Americans who have rallied behind him.

With us or against us! Go it alone! USA USA USA How that work out for us, sparky?

34 Destro  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 12:27:01pm

re: #32 sliv_the_eli

You are entitled to your view about the former President or anyone else. I don't purport to try and convince you otherwise. However, if you want to go spouting about matters concerning Israel, Jews, the Israel/Jewish lobby and other matters, you are going to have to do so based upon facts not meaningless platitudes. We started this discussion with my suggestion that you had made a good point about why it is that the Palestinians might still remain unwilling to make the critical compromises that will be necessary to achieve what many of us in the West refer to as the "two-state solution". I suggested, given that from your many posts these past weeks I get the impression Middle Eastern history, politics and affairs are not an area in which you have a deep knowledge base, that you pursue your line of thought with some research. I again urge you to do so. If you approach the research with an open mind and pursue objective information, I have a pretty good idea what you will learn. But it is for you to draw your own conclusions from the facts.
Further, I see that you continue to avoid all of the questions I posed and, instead, simply copied and pasted your earlier statement. If there is some substance to your position other than what I believe it to be, I am more than willing to be educated. The ball is now in your court. AS for me, I have to part for a while and take care of some business.

You put up straw man arguments and my answer was what I posted. You don't like my answer. And stop bullshitting, you cheered like crazy for war criminal Bush and his war in Iraq.

35 Bob Levin  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 1:07:23pm

This article has been referenced twice during this thread.

This section has not been quoted, sort of edited away. However, this is a quote from the introduction Why? Because that's where we find the theme of the piece:

Sept. 11 alerted most Americans to the grave dangers that are now facing our world. Most Americans understand that had al Qaeda possessed an atomic device last September, the city of New York would not exist today. They realize that last week we could have grieved not for thousands of dead, but for millions.

But for others around the world, the power of imagination is apparently not so acute. It appears that these people will have to once again see the unimaginable materialize in front of their eyes before they are willing to do what must be done. For how else can one explain opposition to President Bush's plan to dismantle Saddam Hussein's regime?

I do not mean to suggest that there are not legitimate questions about a potential operation against Iraq. Indeed, there are. But the question of whether removing Saddam's regime is itself legitimate is not one of them. Equally immaterial is the argument that America cannot oust Saddam without prior approval of the international community.

Evidently, President Bush was already in the process of putting together an international coalition to topple Saddam Hussein. This article publicly expressed support for this. Netenyahu is following, not pushing President Bush. Crucial difference.

36 Destro  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 6:48:38pm

re: #26 CuriousLurker

That would only be viable if there were a large a pan-Arab state that encompassed an area & population similar to that of the Ayyubid dynasty founded by Saladin. The Arabs don't have leaders like that anymore (and he wasn't an Arab anyway, he was a Kurd), nor do they have that sort of cohesion. There have been several attempts at creating a pan-Arab state over the past 100 years or so and all have failed. Anyone who is waiting for that is daydreaming.

Besides, everyone assumes that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though they maintain a policy of ambiguity. I have zero doubt it would use them if it felt its existence was threatened. That, in turn, would undoubtedly trigger WW III, leading to death, destruction, and suffering the likes of which I'd rather not be alive to witness.

All your points are good though we don't know what the future holds. Arabs may unite (they tried it in the 50s) and Israel maybe forced to give up her nukes and then the point is mute (South Africa has nukes and she was forced to give them up) and so on.

Also, what I wrote was not my point of view, but rather trying to place myself in those Arab shoes and see what pie in the sky future they hold on to to not want to negotiate. Also, Israel may not be facing Arabs alone but a Turkish hegemony in the future. Maybe Israel survives as a Turkish client state under Turkish occupation? I can game up lots of future scenarios.

37 Destro  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 6:53:04pm

re: #35 Bob Levin

This article has been referenced twice during this thread.

This section has not been quoted, sort of edited away. However, this is a quote from the introduction Why? Because that's where we find the theme of the piece:

Evidently, President Bush was already in the process of putting together an international coalition to topple Saddam Hussein. This article publicly expressed support for this. Netenyahu is following, not pushing President Bush. Crucial difference.

So at best Bibi is a lackey of Bush and at worse a fool. But the right wing in Israel and the USA are both scumbags. Nice of Bibi to give Bush cover for the war making the lies Bush told seem legit, eh?

38 Bob Levin  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 7:18:30pm

re: #37 Destro

Oh, you think the war was about Bush?

39 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Jul 17, 2012 9:52:54pm

re: #34 Destro

You put up straw man arguments and my answer was what I posted. You don't like my answer. And stop bullshitting, you cheered like crazy for war criminal Bush and his war in Iraq.

You are correct. I don't like your answer. But not because of its substance, since your "answer" lacks any substance whatsoever. Instead, you continue to simply parrot a bunch of meaningless cliches that lack any historical, juridical or factual support. The moment you begin to substantively answer any of the questions I posed to you above is the moment your immature and puerile responses will be worthy of being called intelligent discourse. Until then, your "answer" would not be sufficient to get you a passing grade on a middle school social studies exam.

As for my views on the U.S. re-invading Iraq in 2003, before you accuse me of "bullshitting", you should perhaps try and find somewhere where I have misrepresented my views on that war. For any who are interested, I supported the war for reasons that have much to do with the context of living in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and an understanding that the sanctions regime which was put in place in the wake of the first war against Iraq ten years earlier was on the verge of complete disintegration. I did not "cheerlead" for the war then or at any time thereafter. I know too many people who have fought wars to ever "cheerlead" for war. I also have roundly criticized the Bush administration for their conduct of the aftermath of the war, which squandered an opportunity to replace Saddam's Iraq with a liberated Iraq that was strong enough to stand as a regional counterweight to Iran. In short, my views on the subject are far more complex than anything you have spouted on any of these subjects.

40 Destro  Wed, Jul 18, 2012 8:59:40am

re: #39 sliv_the_eli

You are correct. I don't like your answer. But not because of its substance, since your "answer" lacks any substance whatsoever. Instead, you continue to simply parrot a bunch of meaningless cliches that lack any historical, juridical or factual support. The moment you begin to substantively answer any of the questions I posed to you above is the moment your immature and puerile responses will be worthy of being called intelligent discourse. Until then, your "answer" would not be sufficient to get you a passing grade on a middle school social studies exam.

As for my views on the U.S. re-invading Iraq in 2003, before you accuse me of "bullshitting", you should perhaps try and find somewhere where I have misrepresented my views on that war. For any who are interested, I supported the war for reasons that have much to do with the context of living in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and an understanding that the sanctions regime which was put in place in the wake of the first war against Iraq ten years earlier was on the verge of complete disintegration. I did not "cheerlead" for the war then or at any time thereafter. I know too many people who have fought wars to ever "cheerlead" for war. I also have roundly criticized the Bush administration for their conduct of the aftermath of the war, which squandered an opportunity to replace Saddam's Iraq with a liberated Iraq that was strong enough to stand as a regional counterweight to Iran. In short, my views on the subject are far more complex than anything you have spouted on any of these subjects.

You and your ilk who supported the Iraq war disgust me. The blood of millions of innocents is on your head. I wish there was a god to bring you to account for your support of that war and the needless deaths it inspired. And as a former conservative I could your rightwingism easy enough.

41 Destro  Wed, Jul 18, 2012 9:05:34am

re: #38 Bob Levin

Oh, you think the war was about Bush?

Bob, "with all due respect" but I kind of won't address you directly because it seems to me you have a mental condition that seems to take any response you don't agree with and cite it as evidence of ant-sem or some such. I mean the last time we spoke you said I applied the Protocols of Zion towards you, so someone that deeply deranged in how he views the world can not really be talked to in a rational manner.

42 sliv_the_eli  Wed, Jul 18, 2012 9:20:07am

re: #40 Destro

Here are a few more questions to add to the many substantive questions in this threat that you have still failed to even attempt to answer:

1. Did the regime in Iraq that was overthrown as a result of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq kill, maim or commit any other actions that, under the rules of international law, are crimes against humanity?

2. Is it your position that, absent the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, no blood of innocents would have been spilled at the hands of the Saddam regime? If yes, please provide factual support for your argument.

3. Is it your position that Saddam's victims, past and potential, were not entitled to cosideration or protection by the international community and that he should have smiply been allowed to continue butchering, raping, torturing and otherwise opporessing the population of his country? If yes, please explain why the blood of Saddam's victims are not the "blood of innocents".

4. Here's a more basic one. Please provide support for your assertion that "The blood of millions of innoncents" was spilled by the Iraq War (you need not provide factual support for your assrtion that I, personally, am responsible for any of those deaths, much less millions of deaths). For comparison sake, here is information from a source, The Guardian newspaper in Britain, that you cannot simply write off as right-wing, Replublican or -- heaven forbid -- American:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

I eagerly await your erudite responses.

43 Bob Levin  Wed, Jul 18, 2012 9:27:40am

re: #41 Destro

Yeah, I pretty much think you're still a screaming backwoods redneck, despite your 'newfound' religion of being 'leftwing'. Of course, you still don't answer direct questions. And you can pretend that you didn't say all of things that you clearly said. But blame it all on me, that's what the David Duke's of the world do. It's always the fault of someone else.

Surely there are other people you can talk to in a rational manner. But you don't. Wouldn't expect much more from someone with a third grade edumacation.

I guess you shouldn't have replied in comment 37. It must have seemed to you like you had me trapped--I was rational enough then, eh? But I responded with one simple question, which I suppose prompted your redneck, David Duke dance. The question still stands, and will stand.

44 Destro  Wed, Jul 18, 2012 4:47:27pm

re: #43 Bob Levin

Yeah, I pretty much think you're still a screaming backwoods redneck, despite your 'newfound' religion of being 'leftwing'. Of course, you still don't answer direct questions. And you can pretend that you didn't say all of things that you clearly said. But blame it all on me, that's what the David Duke's of the world do. It's always the fault of someone else.

Surely there are other people you can talk to in a rational manner. But you don't. Wouldn't expect much more from someone with a third grade edumacation.

I guess you shouldn't have replied in comment 37. It must have seemed to you like you had me trapped--I was rational enough then, eh? But I responded with one simple question, which I suppose prompted your redneck, David Duke dance. The question still stands, and will stand.

Bibi is a war criminal along with Bush and his administration in helping Bush's administration sell a criminal war based on lies no different than the "mushroom cloud" lie Condi Rice proclaimed was on the horizon unless we went to war no different than Blair's lie about Saddam's threat.

Like I wrote before, you have a probable mental disorder bordering on paranoia. It seems you are also a soft racist with your 'redneck' charge even though for the record I am the wrong color and ethnicity for such a label.

45 Destro  Wed, Jul 18, 2012 5:00:32pm

re: #42 sliv_the_eli

Here are a few more questions to add to the many substantive questions in this threat that you have still failed to even attempt to answer:

1. Did the regime in Iraq that was overthrown as a result of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq kill, maim or commit any other actions that, under the rules of international law, are crimes against humanity?

2. Is it your position that, absent the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, no blood of innocents would have been spilled at the hands of the Saddam regime? If yes, please provide factual support for your argument.

3. Is it your position that Saddam's victims, past and potential, were not entitled to cosideration or protection by the international community and that he should have smiply been allowed to continue butchering, raping, torturing and otherwise opporessing the population of his country? If yes, please explain why the blood of Saddam's victims are not the "blood of innocents".

4. Here's a more basic one. Please provide support for your assertion that "The blood of millions of innoncents" was spilled by the Iraq War (you need not provide factual support for your assrtion that I, personally, am responsible for any of those deaths, much less millions of deaths). For comparison sake, here is information from a source, The Guardian newspaper in Britain, that you cannot simply write off as right-wing, Replublican or -- heaven forbid -- American:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

I eagerly await your erudite responses.

1) Since the USA helped Iraq carry out atrocities and war crimes by selling chemicals and providing intel and weapons to Iraq during the Cold War the USA can not be the one that brings Iraq's leadership to justice while America's leaders of that era were also not jailed as war criminals. Cue picture of Rumsfeld visiting Saddam. Google it.

2) The US invasion and sanctions caused deaths that would not have happened otherwise. ORB survey of Iraq War casualties 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict. The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. An estimatec 200,000 dead from the Iraq-Iran war (US armed both sides even after atrocities were reported thus guilty by association). Not counting the wounded or refugees. That's close to two million dead that the USA shares the blame for and is guilty for.

3) Christians and secularists were more free and protected under Saddam than under what the US imposed. So the USA FAILED to protect anyone and widened the victim pool.

4) See #2.

Republicans and Bush supporters = Baby killers and proud of it.

46 Bob Levin  Wed, Jul 18, 2012 6:34:56pm

re: #44 Destro

It seems you are also a soft racist with your 'redneck' charge even though for the record I am the wrong color and ethnicity for such a label.

I don't care what you look like in a mirror. You're a right wing reactionary redneck. It's a state of being. Besides, if your wear the right hood and accessories, everyone looks the same. Remember, the accessories are the key.

You talk a lot about the people you hate, and the computer screen can barely hold back the foam coming out of your mouth--what's that called in your universe, righteousness?

In the real world, that's called being a right-wing reactionary.

47 Destro  Wed, Jul 18, 2012 7:39:57pm

re: #46 Bob Levin

I don't care what you look like in a mirror. You're a right wing reactionary redneck. It's a state of being. Besides, if your wear the right hood and accessories, everyone looks the same. Remember, the accessories are the key.

You talk a lot about the people you hate, and the computer screen can barely hold back the foam coming out of your mouth--what's that called in your universe, righteousness?

In the real world, that's called being a right-wing reactionary.

Yea, show me one post of mine on here that shows I am a right wing reactionary. I dare you. I double dog dare you. Like I said, sadly more evidence you have a lack of reality perception.

48 Bob Levin  Wed, Jul 18, 2012 8:07:32pm

re: #47 Destro

#45, this thread. If that isn't blind hatred, what is? That's how I define, and I would hope most define right-wing reactionaries, by their uncontrolled hatred.

I don't care if you can see it or not. The point is, you can't see it. You think it's cool.

49 Destro  Wed, Jul 18, 2012 9:01:17pm

re: #48 Bob Levin

#45, this thread. If that isn't blind hatred, what is? That's how I define, and I would hope most define right-wing reactionaries, by their uncontrolled hatred.

I don't care if you can see it or not. The point is, you can't see it. You think it's cool.

Blind hatred? Because the USA used BS to pretty much kill lots of Iraqis in order to 'save' them and I am upset about it that makes me a right wing reactionary? Wow. I am the first right wing reactionary who is anti-war and upset his country killed a whole lot of brown people. Like I said, sadly more evidence you have a lack of reality perception.

50 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 12:55:50am

re: #49 Destro

Nope. That's not my point. And you're not just upset. Either that or you have a poor command of the language (uneducated). If you do believe that you have a good command of the language, is English your first language? And if English is your first language and you believe that you have a good command of the language, why use language to stir up such hatred, either directly or through innuendo?

Do this thought experiment. You pick the country (that is, name this country) that you think possesses a criminal justice system with the most integrity, and say that this justice system has jurisdiction over all of the people that you call war criminals, both directly and indirectly. What should happen to all of these people? It's a large number.

You see? I'm thinking Rule of Law, and at the very least, you are thinking of slogans that stir up hatred. If you are also thinking Rule of Law, then what should happen to these war criminals?

You sure are hung up on skin color. I told you, when you wear your sheets, everyone looks the same.

You are now free to begin your David Duke Dance of Evasion.

51 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 4:56:53am

re: #45 Destro

You did not actually answer a single one of the questions posed.

And, seriously, the ORB Survey as a source for the number of casualties?? You mean the calculation that was determined using the following methodology:
"The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults"

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

As for your inclusion of deaths attributed to the sanctions regime, you are, as usual, historically challenged. The sanctions were put in place by the United Nations, not the United States, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Saddam's massacre of the Shi'a in southern Iraq following the war.

Again, any time you want to try to actually answer the questions with something other than a rant against anything "right-wing", "Republican", "Bush" or, in general, "American", and with actual factual support, I will be more than interested to be educated. Until then, thanks for the entertainment.

52 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 5:39:33am

re: #51 sliv_the_eli

You did not actually answer a single one of the questions posed.

And, seriously, the ORB Survey as a source for the number of casualties?? You mean the calculation that was determined using the following methodology:
"The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults"

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

As for your inclusion of deaths attributed to the sanctions regime, you are, as usual, historically challenged. The sanctions were put in place by the United Nations, not the United States, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Saddam's massacre of the Shi'a in southern Iraq following the war.

Again, any time you want to try to actually answer the questions with something other than a rant against anything "right-wing", "Republican", "Bush" or, in general, "American", and with actual factual support, I will be more than interested to be educated. Until then, thanks for the entertainment.

The war criminal Bush administration did not actually keep numbers of the dead. Makes America look bad to be a civilian/baby killer nation.

53 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 5:43:57am

re: #50 Bob Levin

Nope. That's not my point. And you're not just upset. Either that or you have a poor command of the language (uneducated). If you do believe that you have a good command of the language, is English your first language? And if English is your first language and you believe that you have a good command of the language, why use language to stir up such hatred, either directly or through innuendo?

Do this thought experiment. You pick the country (that is, name this country) that you think possesses a criminal justice system with the most integrity, and say that this justice system has jurisdiction over all of the people that you call war criminals, both directly and indirectly. What should happen to all of these people? It's a large number.

You see? I'm thinking Rule of Law, and at the very least, you are thinking of slogans that stir up hatred. If you are also thinking Rule of Law, then what should happen to these war criminals?

You sure are hung up on skin color. I told you, when you wear your sheets, everyone looks the same.

You are now free to begin your David Duke Dance of Evasion.

And like I said you are a bigot and mentally damaged who sees paranoid connections. Like I said, sadly more evidence you have a lack of reality perception and think somehow what I wrote is akin to what the KKK would say. Kook.

54 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 5:59:33am

re: #53 Destro

It's too bad Charlie Mingus is not with us--who could compose the tune entitled "The David Duke Dance of Evasion."

As for your oft repeated agitprop regarding me, I believe you repeat it because you believe it is somehow getting to me. However, I let you repeat it because you will have a more difficult time denying that you say it.

I will respond later in the day--in the meantime, I know it would be too much to expect you to respond to my questions.

(Cue Mingus)

55 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 6:30:13am

re: #54 Bob Levin

It's too bad Charlie Mingus is not with us--who could compose the tune entitled "The David Duke Dance of Evasion."

As for your oft repeated agitprop regarding me, I believe you repeat it because you believe it is somehow getting to me. However, I let you repeat it because you will have a more difficult time denying that you say it.

I will respond later in the day--in the meantime, I know it would be too much to expect you to respond to my questions.

(Cue Mingus)

I repeat it because out of the blue several people on here say you accused them of being anti-sem also and that you throw that chareg out like putting on your pants.

That's 3 to 4 people in one day saying so.

And as proof you call me a reactionary right winger and I ask you to show me what position I have that I stated on this thread is 'right wing' and your reply is that it is a feeling. Then you say when confronted by others in my defense (who I do not know and did not prompt) to show what I wrote was anti-sem your reply is that you can't prove what I wrote is anti-sem and in fact can't be seen as such but you have some sort of inner radar that makes you see "coded" language, you know like a crazy person does.

And last I saw David Duke was not evasive and was an out and out racist. He did not dance around that.

Nor do I dance around calling you for what you appear to be, a mentally unbalanced and a paranoid delusional person who dances around the fact that he supports right wingers who are buddies with the vile GOP and the vile Mitt Romney people (Sununu) who smear against Obama in racist ways.

56 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 7:05:42am

re: #13 researchok

Immediately following thew war, Israel offered all the land back in exchange for peace.

The offer was refused.

To this day, the three predicates to peace in the region as agreed to by the UN, NATO, Quartet, et al, are as follows;

Cessation of acts of terror.
Diplomatic recognition of Israel.
Secure borders.

Which of these things are too onerous a burden for the Palestinians or Arab world?

I've been doing some reading on this subject. It's quite a lot to digest, but one thing I noticed was that Israel didn't offer all the land back—it was prepared to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria—the Gaza Strip (previously occupied by Egypt) and Jerusalem were not part of the deal according to the sources I found online.1

I'm fully aware of the violent conditions that brought about the Six-Day War, the apparent existential threat posed to Israel by the Arab armies sourrounding it, and how obstinate the Arabs were being in their demands subsequent to their defeat, not to mention their attitude of "no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel." Nonetheless, I have to admit that I'm disappointed that no one here corrected researchok's mistake.

What I'm trying to express is that even though I realize that had Israel included (East) Jerusalem & Gaza in its offer, it would still have almost surely been rejected, the up-dings & lack of correction feel like (intellectual) dishonesty by omission. I know that many of you are well versed in everything Israel-related and would have noticed right away that what was stated was incorrect. If a group of people is knowledgeable and claims the moral high ground, then, YES, I do hold them to a higher standard WRT truth telling.

Anyway, lesson learned—from now on I'll check all facts for myself. :-|

---
1. I found several sources, the two most notable being The American Interest magazine (which also supplies a link to a PDF of the 200-page Hebrew document and a 5-page English extract), and a CAMERA-owned site.

57 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 8:49:34am

re: #53 Destro

First things first.

And like I said you are a bigot and mentally damaged who sees paranoid connections. Like I said, sadly more evidence you have a lack of reality perception and think somehow what I wrote is akin to what the KKK would say. Kook.

Placing this in the context of the Rule of Law, should I be committed, or should I be in out-patient treatment? What are the criteria for committment, and what would be the treatment plan? Are you aware of treatment plans, and their relation to the rule of law? Of what do you think this relationship consists?

Would I no longer be allowed to state when I see antisemitism, or would I be "better" were I to admit that there is no antisemitism at all? If there is indeed antisemitism, then why would I not be allowed to mention this when I see it? Or could I only mention this with doctor's permission?

If antisemitism exists, what do you think it looks like? How would a genuine antisemite act, according to you? And given the social stigma, in certain circles, is it possible that antisemitic people would try to hide their malevolent feelings? If so, how would they act? And again, would I be prohibited from making comments on such behavior?

Take as much space as you need to answer the questions. As is stands, your worldview seems more conducive to mob rule, where the most inflammatory words act as lighting the fuse to chaos. You irresponsible statement regarding war crimes, your irresponsible statements regarding mental health fit very well with tyrannical regimes of the past where vast sections of the population seem to disappear. That is the hallmark of a right wing society, where people disappear according to the whims of whomever is in charge.

58 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:12:16am

re: #57 Bob Levin

I don't have a problem with you trying to expose anti-sem it is that I don't think you are able to discern reality as follows:

I am trying to figure out how saying the USA's leaders committed war crimes is somehow "right wing reactionary". Right wing reactionaries tend to love killing foreigners and waving the flag and marching and all that. That means you either have no clue what a right wing reactionary is or are making up shit up as you go along because you want to get me in some sort of trollish fight but can't actually cite an example.

I don't know why you went with right wing reactionary and did not call me a commie, that would at least kind of make sense as to my leanings (I am not a commie but I can see where a right wing asshole might think that just like they think Obama is a socialist) but I figure this maybe more left leaning a forum so calling me a leftist or commie would backfire on you.

Then on top of that you call me a KKK hood wearing David Duke racists when I post against the GOP being a racist KKK like party all the time. You, know, if I was a racist I would not be supporting Obama and declaring the GOP racist. Right, doc? That is just common sense.

So, you pal, either have no clue what these political terms mean or you are a little touched in the head.

59 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:24:22am

re: #56 CuriousLurker

I've been doing some reading on this subject. It's quite a lot to digest, but one thing I noticed was that Israel didn't offer all the land back—it was prepared to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria—the Gaza Strip (previously occupied by Egypt) and Jerusalem were not part of the deal according to the sources I found online.1

I'm fully aware of the violent conditions that brought about the Six-Day War, the apparent existential threat posed to Israel by the Arab armies sourrounding it, and how obstinate the Arabs were being in their demands subsequent to their defeat, not to mention their attitude of "no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel." Nonetheless, I have to admit that I'm disappointed that no one here corrected researchok's mistake.

What I'm trying to express is that even though I realize that had Israel included (East) Jerusalem & Gaza in its offer, it would still have almost surely been rejected, the up-dings & lack of correction feel like (intellectual) dishonesty by omission. I know that many of you are well versed in everything Israel-related and would have noticed right away that what was stated was incorrect. If a group of people is knowledgeable and claims the moral high ground, then, YES, I do hold them to a higher standard WRT truth telling.

Anyway, lesson learned—from now on I'll check all facts for myself. :-|

---
1. I found several sources, the two most notable being The American Interest magazine (which also supplies a link to a PDF of the 200-page Hebrew document and a 5-page English extract), and a CAMERA-owned site.

It is clear to me also the Palestinian leadership was composed of near criminals and terrorists but who were not smart enough to end that behavior like the Northern Irish IRA did. It is not easy to transition from a fighter to a statesmen but the IRA did it and I think the Basque ETA did. The Armenians also used to have terror operations against the Turks but that ended when Armenia got her independence. It is smaller than historic Armenia but Armenia re-emerging seems to have allowed some healing there. The PLO under Arafat reminded me a lot of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka (I am a bit of a foreign policy nerd) and the Tamils were offered autonomy and a I felt a generous peace deal to end the war and they refused to sign like the PLO leadership refused to sign. Then they go and elect nuts like Hamas over secularists who may try and deal with Israel. With that said the far right in Israel (Likud) does seem to want to antagonize the Palestinians by expanding settlements into the West Bank. When you antagonize people they tend to double down on being confrontational. At this point neither the Palis nor the Israelis want to deal with each other though of course the Israelis have the dominant position of power and alliances.

60 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:26:37am

re: #56 CuriousLurker

A few points for your consideration:
First, thank you for pointing out the oversight. We should have been more precise with respect to the facts and caught the error. And I applaud you for your effort to learn the facts for yourself. Nobody here, even those of us with deep knowledge of the subject, knows everything. Thank you, as well, for bringing the source to which you linked to my attention. I had not had an opportunity to read this material before and, although I have only been able today to read the summary on Mr. Mead's blog and the Lozowick blog to which he links, I plan to read the underlying de-classified documents in the coming days.
Some additional items that you may wish to consider.
1. The discussions that were recently declassified are a limited snapshot of Israel's leaders trying to decide what instructions they should give Israel's ambassador to the UN in the immediate aftermath of the war.
2. The underlying documents, as Lozowick describes them, are a bit more nuanced re: the Gaza Strip. They reveal: (i) Israeli decision makers discussed the issue (as well as the West Bank and Golan Heights) in the context of its status under international law, namely that since it had not been part of Egypt's sovereign territory and its statuts was legally that of disputed territory, Israel had the greater right to it, under international law, by virtue of their possession of the space, until its status was resolved (oddly, in the immediate aftermath of the war, they were more dispassionate on the subject than most people who "discuss" it today); and (ii) while there were those in the room who wanted to annex the Gaza Strip, they did not decide one way or another what to do with it, including whether they would "return" it to Egypt, in the context of a peace deal.
3. With respect to the portion of Jerusalem that Israel captured, you are absolutely correct that at that moment there was unanimity among the people whose discussions were recently declassified that no part of Jerusalem would be returned to Jordan. There also was almost certainly near unanimity on that point among Israel's Jewish population at the time. Bear two points in mind with respect to the context, though: (1) Israel had just captured the balance of Jerusalem after being attacked by Jordan, despite their pleas to King Hussein to stay out of what until then was only a war with Egypt and Syria; and (ii) Israel's population had, only days before, been digging graves in their parks for the expected casualties in the war of annihilation which their Arab neighbors had promised. As you well know, over the ensuing years, the position of Israel's leaders and of its population have ceased to be unanimous on point.
4. I take you at your word that you are "fully aware of the violent conditions that brought about the Six-Day War". However, your use of the phrase "the apparent existential threat posed to Israel by the Arab armies sourrounding it" is somewhat vague. If you mean that it is unclear that was the desire or intent of Israel's Arab neighbors, your statement is factually incorrect, and there is an extensive historical record on that point. If, on the other hand, you mean that it is questionable whether the Arabs could actually have achieved their stated intention, you are absolutely correct, although, as noted, the fear that they might achieve that result was certainly widespread not only in Israel but around the world.
5. Similarly, with respect to your description of the famous "Three No's" as an "attitude" among the Arabs, I am sure you know that "no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel" was formailzed as policy among the Arab states at their Khartoum conference only weeks later. You are, however, correct, that the policy represented the widespread attitude in the Arab world (and, for many, it unfortunately still is)

61 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:27:29am

re: #55 Destro

That's 3 to 4 people in one day saying so.

That sounds about right. However, rather than debating the merits of my observations, my statements, by themselves, are enough to damn me. One of the most interesting aspects of post WWII Germany, was that as the war ended, everyone was innocent, so they said. Few German soldiers were convicted of any crimes whatsoever, and many went right back to their lives--as if nothing had happened. One reason, according the the PBS special, Elusive Justice, is that the nations of the world simply didn't want to look at what happened. The other reason, of course, is that it is so hard to prove on an individual basis--according to the Western concept of proof.

In one of my graduate classes, the professor began by telling us all that we were racists. Large class. What could he mean? Some students did take offense. But the professor meant that if you grow up in America, it takes a little extra effort, a little more monitoring of yourself, a little more willingness to engage in dialogue with Black folks, a little more listening, to keep this disease from entering your mind. His position was that it has already entered, just by the fact of living here. I wasn't bothered, and was more than willing to do the extra work. It's just something for which the individual must be vigilant.

One overall point is that if the Rule of Law is a part of who you are, then racism and antisemitism are not punishable crimes that carry the penalty of incarceration. They are choices that one must make about self-identity. Many people look the other way when it comes to their own hearts, and frankly, anything can crawl in there. If there is overwhelming evidence that antisemitism and racism exists, then there must be antisemitic people and racists--who will never, ever, admit that they carry the disease. No one has been convicted of the crime of being a racist, or of being antisemitic, nor should they be. However, many people, allowing themselves to become thoroughly engulfed in their racism and antisemitism, do commit punishable crimes.

However, you may know something that I do not. Please tell me the objective criteria that I may use to identify someone who is antisemitic. And please tell me the objective criteria that will identify such a person trying to hide their malevolent feelings. I'm open to new ideas.

The history of antisemitism in Europe is the history of mob rule, or mobs moving at the behest of religious or political authority. Of course, when these events occur, in the aftermath, everyone participating is innocent--they have always known full-well that there is no X-ray into the human heart. David Duke knows this quite well, and is extremely elusive when talking outside of his hooded circle. He was even elected to Congress. He did not do this through absolute honesty. To assume that he is so virtuous is so foolish.

He dresses his hate in any number of costumes, and hides from anyone daring to pull of the mask. One such trick is to be shocked, shocked that anyone could make such an accusation, a trick filled with falsehoods, such as this:

Nor do I dance around calling you for what you appear to be, a mentally unbalanced and a paranoid delusional person who dances around the fact that he supports right wingers who are buddies with the vile GOP and the vile Mitt Romney people (Sununu) who smear against Obama in racist ways.

These are simply lies, that, like Goebbels, you know that if you repeat them often enough, eventually take on the aura of fact. Now you take the burden of proof, and show me how many Republicans I have voted for in my life. And call me a liar outright if I say that I will vote for the President.

Of course, I have already stated that I will be voting for the President, a statement you brush away because, why?

62 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:34:37am

re: #52 Destro

The war criminal Bush administration did not actually keep numbers of the dead. Makes America look bad to be a civilian/baby killer nation.

I get that you believe every member of the Bush administration and anyone who ever had an opinion that favored the re-invasion of Iraq in 2003 is a war criminal or otherwise has the blood of innocents on his or her hands. However, you still have not answered the actual questions I posed. Since it has been a while since I asked them, I am reposting some of them (there are many more in the thread above) below for your convenience:

1. Did the regime in Iraq that was overthrown as a result of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq kill, maim or commit any other actions that, under the rules of international law, are crimes against humanity?

2. Is it your position that, absent the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, no blood of innocents would have been spilled at the hands of the Saddam regime? If yes, please provide factual support for your argument.

3. Is it your position that Saddam's victims, past and potential, were not entitled to cosideration or protection by the international community and that he should have smiply been allowed to continue butchering, raping, torturing and otherwise opporessing the population of his country? If yes, please explain why the blood of Saddam's victims are not the "blood of innocents".

4. Here's a more basic one. Please provide support for your assertion that "The blood of millions of innoncents" was spilled by the Iraq War (you need not provide factual support for your assrtion that I, personally, am responsible for any of those deaths, much less millions of deaths).

And, as I pointed out above, answers to a public opinion poll do not qualify as actual support for your statement.

If you are uncertain what a well-reasoned response would look like, please see Point #56. Although CL and I may not agree, his post is well-reasoned and factually supported. Hence my acnkowledgment of his position and upding to his post. That is how it's supposed to be done.

63 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:37:12am

re: #59 Destro

It is clear to me also the Palestinian leadership was composed of near criminals and terrorists but who were not smart enough to end that behavior like the Northern Irish IRA did. It is not easy to transition from a fighter to a statesmen but the IRA did it and I think the Basque ETA did. The Armenians also used to have terror operations against the Turks but that ended when Armenia got her independence. It is smaller than historic Armenia but Armenia re-emerging seems to have allowed some healing there. The PLO under Arafat reminded me a lot of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka (I am a bit of a foreign policy nerd) and the Tamils were offered autonomy and a I felt a generous peace deal to end the war and they refused to sign like the PLO leadership refused to sign. Then they go and elect nuts like Hamas over secularists who may try and deal with Israel. With that said the far right in Israel (Likud) does seem to want to antagonize the Palestinians by expanding settlements into the West Bank. When you antagonize people they tend to double down on being confrontational. At this point neither the Palis nor the Israelis want to deal with each other though of course the Israelis have the dominant position of power and alliances.

You lost me. I don't understand what any of that has to do with the singular and very specific point I was addressing.

64 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:45:48am

Sir, you did not use the example of a professor challenging the racial built in bias of his class as a means to educate when you accused me of racism and anti-sem so who are you trying to fool?

In addition you accused me of being David Duke and you accused me of being a fringe right wing reactionary and such comparisons are so loony I am forced to conclude as I did you are not sophisticated in terms of such things or a little touched.

By the way, right wing reactionaries gravitate towards a leader. Leftists gravitate towards rule by the masses without a central leader aka "anarchy" or as a rightwinger who hates the left anarchists would call it "mob rule".

If you don't know that about political identities then how can I take what you say seriously?

65 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:48:42am

re: #63 CuriousLurker

You lost me. I don't understand what any of that has to do with the singular and very specific point I was addressing.

My apologies, regarding Israeli land for peace. It seems it has been the basis for a negotiated settlement in the past but for the political conditions as I wrote above.

66 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:56:31am

re: #58 Destro

Why do I have to repeat myself? Read number 50 again.

My definition of a right-wing reactionary society is one where large sections of the population disappear. The opposite is a society based on the Rule of Law. Lenin and Stalin, to me and other leftists, were no better than the monarchy. They modernized Russia, but they were right wing reactionaries, killing upwards of 20 million people. The Rule of Law did not apply in Russia. It's not right wing or left wing. The Rule of Law exists or it doesn't. If the Rule of Law does not exist, to me, that's right wing--because mass murder, historically, usually follows. Mass murder at home, mass murder, sometimes abroad.

I don't even know what a commie is. Something to do with Marx, maybe, until Lenin got rid of Marx from his belief system. It's not Marxist-Leninism, it's plain old Leninism, then Stalin-ism. Until Marx said he was not a Marxist. Until Marx completely erased the blackboard when writing the Grundrisse because he found his ideas on history simply were not true. So what's a commie, I don't know. You want to be a leftist? Read Telos magazine from issue 1 to issue 60, as a start.

Then on top of that you call me a KKK hood wearing David Duke racists when I post against the GOP being a racist KKK like party all the time.

Yes, because I don't hear you standing up for the Rule of Law, I don't read it in your writings. You evade questions, you play rhetorical tricks. If you're honest, it will be clear even down to your semicolons. And, for the umpteenth time, if you're not standing up for the Rule of Law, there is a strong tendency to stand for mob rule--and your language is inflammatory. My language can impassioned, but I'm not accusing anyone of crimes. And again, in Mob Rule, people disappear, lots of people.

You, know, if I was a racist I would not be supporting Obama and declaring the GOP racist. Right, doc? That is just common sense.

Dude, this has nothing to do with skin color. Drop the skin color thing. It's only skin color.

So, you pal, either have no clue what these political terms mean or you are a little touched in the head.

I know what many people think the words mean, but you may have noticed, I don't agree with the majority on many things, especially definitions that everyone seems to 'know'.

67 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:58:19am

re: #62 sliv_the_eli

You pose leading questions designed to defend the Bush admin policy by implying that even if the Iraq war was a mistake, the USA took out a bad guy that had some sort of UN approval to be taken out, etc etc.

68 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:00:51am
My definition of a right-wing reactionary society is one where large sections of the population disappear. The opposite is a society based on the Rule of Law. Lenin and Stalin, to me and other leftists, were no better than the monarchy.

Who made you the dictionary where you can re-write definitions of words and concepts to suite your views? That is just laughable to me. So I am to have a conversation with someone who uses words and concepts he makes up his own meanings for? You know what hey say about arguing with crazy people.....

69 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:01:33am

Okay, I have appointments. I have to go. I've made everything as clear as I could. CL, have a meaningful Ramadan. I'll answer any questions, but I'm not in the mood to defend myself against baseless accusations.

So if you have any issues with me, use questions.

70 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:02:44am

re: #63 CuriousLurker

Wow! I just remembered your name! Long time no chat, bro.

71 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:03:14am

re: #68 Destro

Oh for Gds sake, read a book or two. There have been thousands of books on leftist philosophy since Marx. You want a reading list, just ask.

72 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:10:27am

re: #67 Destro

You, sir, clearly have no idea what a leading question is. Also, there is nothing wrong with asking leading questions. In fact, the right to do so is enshrined in our jurisprudence because it is considered one of the best ways to elicit the truth.
More importantly, my questions were a direct response to your assertion that anyone who had an opinion favoring the US-led reinvasion of Iraq in 2003 has the "blood of millions of innocents" on their hands, to which I simply requested that you clarify and defend your position with respect to the key assumptions on whch your statement appears to be based. (OK, your comment was actually that I personally had the blood of millions on my hands based upon my opinion, but I am comfortable that there is no basis for that statement in anything that can legitimately be called reality).
Finally, you stil have not answered the questions. Feel free to do so any time. I am happy to be educated or, if not, at least entertained by your evasion.

73 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:12:59am

re: #72 sliv_the_eli

I have blood on my hands too by being a tax payer and I voted for Bush. That is on me and I can't wash it off.

74 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:15:16am

re: #71 Bob Levin

Oh for Gds sake, read a book or two. There have been thousands of books on leftist philosophy since Marx. You want a reading list, just ask.

And you will call Marx a "right-wing reactionary" I guess by your definition that you made up for yourself. My definition of a leftist is someone who hands out ice cream free to kids on a warm sunny day. A commie is by my definition some who adds extra sprinkles.

75 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:18:49am

re: #60 sliv_the_eli

I'd be interested in hearing your take on the declassified documents once you've had a chance to read them, if you don;t mind sharing.

Regarding the additional items:

1. Duly noted.

2. Ditto.

3. Ditto.

...Israel's population had, only days before, been digging graves in their parks for the expected casualties in the war of annihilation which their Arab neighbors had promised.

E gad.

4. Of course I meant the latter, in the sense that the outcome proved that Israel could indeed defend herself and survive. Of course, the Israelis at the time couldn't have known that, hence the well-founded fears, but certainly the win must have provided some measure of confidence (though certainly not complacence, which could be deadly given the ongoing, undiminished hostility).

5. Yes, the Wiki page on the Khartoum Resolution's "Three 'No's" was part of what I read to get up to speed on the subject.

Trying to read about anything to do with the I-P situation is like stepping in quicksand. O_o

There were/are so many international players involved and so many external political forces that have an impact on such a tiny, concentrated area that trying to grasp all the threads and arrange them in some semblance of order that allows me to have an at least somewhat clear idea about the bigger picture is usually an exercise in confusion & frustration. All the partisan framing & advocacy doesn't help either—it's often difficult to find an objective sounding source that looks reliable, especially since I don't exactly consider Wikipedia a reliable source (though the footnotes are often helpful in that regard).

76 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:23:16am

re: #65 Destro

My apologies, regarding Israeli land for peace. It seems it has been the basis for a negotiated settlement in the past but for the political conditions as I wrote above.

No need to apologize. It's just that I don't really like to argue or debate (I prefer to try to learn). This subject is a very complex one, therefore I try to focus on learning about it in small, digestible pieces so my head won't explode, heh.

77 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:25:11am

re: #70 Destro

Wow! I just remembered your name! Long time no chat, bro.

I'm not a bro and I've only been registered at LGF since April 2010, so you've probably mistaken me for someone else.

78 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:33:28am

re: #69 Bob Levin

Okay, I have appointments. I have to go. I've made everything as clear as I could. CL, have a meaningful Ramadan. I'll answer any questions, but I'm not in the mood to defend myself against baseless accusations.

So if you have any issues with me, use questions.

Regarding Ramadan, thanks!

Um, I don't think I've ever made any baseless accusations against you, and I certainly don't intend to start now, but okay.

As for my #56 I said what I meant and meant what I said, no hidden meanings or accusations, just straight up what I saw and how I felt about it. That's pretty much how I operate 24/7. Life's too short to waste time doing otherwise, IMO.

79 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:34:52am

re: #60 sliv_the_eli

BTW, thanks for providing additional context. That always helps. ;)

Edit: And I'll try to remember that you guys are human and might forget or overlook things sometimes.

80 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 10:42:07am

re: #75 CuriousLurker

I will be happy to share my thoughts once I have read the original source documents.

Kudos to you for the attempt to understand this incredibly complex area of the world and issue. The thoughts you describe in your last paragraph are a large part of why I have found this to be a fascinating area of academic interest. As for the politics and obfuscation, I agree it is often difficult to discern truth from spin. That is one of the reasons why, although I am clearly pro-Israel, I also regularly read newspapers from around the Arab and Muslim world in addition to Israeli and other Western news sources (h/t to Bob Levin, by the way, for getting me to read the Turkish Hurriyet Daily News on a regular basis).
For what it's worth (and with the caution that this betrays my view on the subject), I have found two quotes about the Arab-Israel conflict to be pretty accurate. The first poses the dichotomy that if the Arabs were to lay down their arms, there would be peace, but if Israel was to lay down arms they would be annihilated. As yesterday's atrocity in Bulgaria shows, there remain far too many in this world who would kill Jews and Jewish Israelis for no other reason than that they dare to live.
The second is the famous statement attributed to the late Golda Meir (ironic that for all the accusations of Israel being a racits, bigoted state, it had a female head of state within two decades of independence; the U.S. has yet to match that feat after well over two centuries), who said there will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate [the Jews]. Obviously, in its stereotype and generalization that Arabs do not love their children her statement is tremendously overbroad and inaccurate. However, there was and still is a too strong cultural and religious current in the Arab and Islamic world that believes death in violent jihad against the non-believer (and particularly against Jewish Israelis) is a positive thing. Suicide bombers who manage to kill Israeli Jews are still celebrated as shahid (as, for example, by naming public squares after them). For there to be a true peace, those forces within the Arab and Muslim worlds that embrace life and the right to live as an unassailable right of every person (recall, it is the first of the three inalienable rights referred to in the U.S. Constitution) will have to defeat those who continue to promote the glory of death for Allah's sake as a greater value.
For the sake of us all, I hope and pray they succeed.
And, on that note, as I have to turn my attention elsewhere, my best to you for a meaningful and blessed Ramadan.

81 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 11:08:42am

re: #80 sliv_the_eli

I will be happy to share my thoughts once I have read the original source documents.

Cool! I'll be definitely be looking forward to that.

For what it's worth (and with the caution that this betrays my view on the subject), I have found two quotes about the Arab-Israel conflict to be pretty accurate. The first poses the dichotomy that if the Arabs were to lay down their arms, there would be peace, but if Israel was to lay down arms they would be annihilated.

Much as I'm loath to admit it, that statement is probably true. *sigh*

The second is the famous statement attributed to the late Golda Meir (ironic that for all the accusations of Israel being a racits, bigoted state, it had a female head of state within two decades of independence; the U.S. has yet to match that feat after well over two centuries), who said there will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate [the Jews]. Obviously, in its stereotype and generalization that Arabs do not love their children her statement is tremendously overbroad and inaccurate.

Thanks for qualifying that second statement as it always makes me twitch when I hear it.

For there to be a true peace, those forces within the Arab and Muslim worlds that embrace life and the right to live as an unassailable right of every person (recall, it is the first of the three inalienable rights referred to in the U.S. Constitution) will have to defeat those who continue to promote the glory of death for Allah's sake as a greater value.
For the sake of us all, I hope and pray they succeed.

Me too. I have a feeling it's gonna be a long, hard fight.

And, on that note, as I have to turn my attention elsewhere, my best to you for a meaningful and blessed Ramadan.

Thank you! Hope you have a great afternoon (or evening/night if you're in Israel).

Also, many thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.

82 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 12:03:36pm

re: #77 CuriousLurker

I'm not a bro and I've only been registered at LGF since April 2010, so you've probably mistaken me for someone else.

My apologies again. An old mate had the same name for online purposes a while back pre facebook era

83 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 12:32:23pm

re: #82 Destro

No problem. ;)

84 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 1:02:17pm

re: #78 CuriousLurker

I didn't say anything one way or the other. Things are moving too fast on the thread. I think Sliv handled it pretty accurately. Regarding researchok's comment, I focused on the latter point.

85 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 1:43:45pm

re: #74 Destro

Okay, let me help you here.

And you will call Marx a "right-wing reactionary" I guess by your definition that you made up for yourself. My definition of a leftist is someone who hands out ice cream free to kids on a warm sunny day. A commie is by my definition some who adds extra sprinkles.

Write it like this:

Would you call Marx a 'right-wing reactionary'? My definition of a leftist is someone who hands out ice cream free to kids on a warm sunny day. A commie, by my definition is someone who adds extra sprinkles.

My answer would be:

For me, there is quite a bit of history since Marx began writing. In fact, there was quite a bit of history while Marx was writing that forced him to change what he was doing--a few times. First, he was writing in Victorian England, which by any standard was a hellhole for workers. It was a reasonable assumption for him to believe a revolution was imminent. He was under the mistaken belief that he had discovered the calculus, so to speak, of history. But he found this out while writing The Grundrisse. He then went back to the drawing board the wrote a critique of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which we all know as Das Kapital. It was a good critique. I view him as a guy who worked hard, nothing more than that.

I wouldn't hesitate to call Lenin or Stalin right-wing reactionaries. Living under their regimes wouldn't have felt any different than living in Nazi Germany--as evidenced by many Eastern European countries welcoming the Nazis as liberators.

I don't know how seriously to take your definition of leftist. For many leftists, after WWII, life was about much more than handing out ice cream. It was about studying what happened in Germany and trying to make sure it never happened again. Many of these 'Marxists' are extraordinarily insightful--the most famous group is known as the Frankfurt School. There were also some significant psychological experiments done, one of which is the Milgram Experiment, the other is known as the Asch conformity experiments--which were quite shocking, showing that psychologically, we are much much closer to the Nazi abyss than we thought. The question was not how psychopaths emerged in full Nazi regalia, but how did average citizens, nice people, fall under the spell. The average citizens in the victorious West didn't fare so well--showing very strong tendencies to sacrifice their basic morals and integrity to please an authority figure or to fit in with a group. So for me, this is the leftist path--addressing this problem. This problem don't solve so easily.

Historically, Communists ended up supporting Stalin, which to me, simply made them irrelevant, not even worth the name. You've probably never had an extended conversation with a full blown Stalinist. It's an experience.

However, there are quite a few leftists, besides the Germans that also provide great insight into what makes us tick. The French philosopher/historian Foucault is once such writer. I could go on, but you, at the moment, seem to be concerned with how society divides the pie.

That process, I have found, is not so easy, and historically, the pie ends up in the hands of the folks with the knife. And the folks with the knife tend to use that knife for purposes other than dividing pie.

This means that I choose sides for about two minutes every two years. Once I'm out of the voting booth, I'm on my own, trying to be kind of person that would be worthy of the society in which I want to live. That is what I derive from the two experiments I cited above--that your own internal sense of morality and strength of spine are the ultimate defenses against falling into the abyss of anomie and alienation that contribute to the willful participation in totalitarian regimes.

86 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 1:53:59pm

re: #78 CuriousLurker

Oh, now I get what you mean by baseless accusations. I was referring to the fact that Destro and I are trying to choke each other to death through conversation.

87 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 1:55:16pm

re: #85 Bob Levin

I wouldn't hesitate to call Lenin or Stalin right-wing reactionaries.

Right, OK, see that is like saying, you see that orange? I call that an apple.

Since you invent your own vocabulary/definitions that would mean continuing a conversation with you would be whacky because I speak English and you speak your own invented language that only you and your imaginary friends can understand.

88 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 1:56:19pm

re: #86 Bob Levin

Oh, now I get what you mean by baseless accusations. I was referring to the fact that Destro and I are trying to choke each other to death through conversation.

I don't wish death on you or anyone and I am not trying to choke you, Again, you have issues here.

89 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 1:57:22pm

re: #88 Destro

You have no sense of humor.

90 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 1:59:35pm

re: #87 Destro

Read some books. I've given you a synopsis of a leftist dialogue that has been going on since before you were born. I'm not inventing anything. I'm footnoting. I'm providing a bibliography.

91 Destro  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 4:30:50pm

re: #90 Bob Levin

Read some books. I've given you a synopsis of a leftist dialogue that has been going on since before you were born. I'm not inventing anything. I'm footnoting. I'm providing a bibliography.

Yea, I know of no books that declare soviets to have been right wing reactionaries. Nice try. The hole you dug for yourself is deep.

92 Bob Levin  Thu, Jul 19, 2012 5:06:56pm

re: #91 Destro

Not nearly as deep as your are a giant idiot. I don't think you know of any books at all. Now we're back to trying to kill each other. Just for the record, here's a start of the search for the very thing you said doesn't exist.

93 Destro  Fri, Jul 20, 2012 8:50:35am

re: #92 Bob Levin

Not nearly as deep as your are a giant idiot. I don't think you know of any books at all. Now we're back to trying to kill each other. Just for the record, here's a start of the search for the very thing you said doesn't exist.

None of those books equate Communism with right wing reactionary ideology nor do they bolster your side of the issue of you making up your own definitions for concepts that in the wider world (outside of your head) have a different meaning.

94 Bob Levin  Fri, Jul 20, 2012 10:22:23am

re: #93 Destro

None All of those books articles equate Communism with right wing reactionary ideology. Thank you for doing my homework.

Fixed it for you. You're not terribly honest. I don't see you handing out ice cream to small children on a sunny day. I see you taking their money and driving off.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
5 days ago
Views: 148 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 311 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1