Legacy of George Walker Bush

[Neo]

Where it already is.

It does exist.

What seems to be at issue is whether others have a right to destroy it.

To be technical, according to the United Nations, within the 1967 borders, unless otherwise negotiated and agreed upon by representatives of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Yes, my point was what are those borders? That seems to be something of an ongoing disagreement. And just because the UN ratified the borders as of 1967 doesn't mean it was a good idea. The area had been Palestine and contained very few Jews until wave after wave of immigrants arrived in "Palestine" (not Israel). The nation of Israel is famous for not having it's own territory, and taking over various parts of Palestine has not been a good thing for anyone. It just made one hell of a mess. I'm not anti-semetic, I just think invading other countries (as Moses did in the first place) is not a good thing.

Some quote from Wikipedia to show this is not from my bottom...

The Second Aliyah (1904?1914), began after the Kishinev pogrom. Some 40,000 Jews settled in Palestine.[37] Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,[41] but those in the Second Aliyah included socialist pioneers who established the kibbutz movement.[42] During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration, which "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

[samy5000]

Please tell me, why do you think Israel has a right to exist ?

because it was written in some superstitious book?

Israel is recognized as a sovereign state by the United Nations.

Its right to exist is, therefore, equal to every other nation recognized by the United Nations.

Sure. But it's right to exist where exactly?

according to historical sources

Baron Hirschman financed a society to establish jewish colonies around the world but he was not dedicated to the creation of a jewish-majority country( although a large settlement was created in Argentina),as were many early zionists who questioned the Russian-jewish obsession with Palestine. Isreal Zangwill was a heavy promoter of this brand of zionism. They were not opposed to the Balfour declaration,they just felt there were better options. Zangwill was the leader of this faction but unfortunately died prematurely (as did Herzl,who was also open to such views) and his movement subequently died out in the 30's. He particularly had his heart set on the three Guianas - British,Dutch and French. Fertile,rich in mineral resources and collectively as large as France,plus being right on the Caribbean and ideally positioned to dominate the North-South American import-export market - what didn't they to offer to a people without a country? They all had very low population densities,open immigration,were geographically contiguous and obviously slated for independence at some point before the 20th century ended. Zangwill's idea was that zionists should migrate to all three in large enough numbers to establish an overwhelming majority,then as each obtained it's independence they would appear on the world stage not as Racial States but as merely Jewish-majority democracies; and of course unification of the three would be an attractive option they would then have been free to exercise. The Russian Zionists sidelined Zangwill and the Palestine-or-bust bandwagon rolled on against all reason. Basically,there were more Russian Jews in the World Zionist organization that British or French Jews. Today Guyana is independent but rapidly becoming dominated by Hindu immigrants (50%) who unlike Jews know a good thing when they see it; Suriname came close to being a Jewish majority country due to 30's migration but today most have moved to the US,meanwhile the Algerian Jews evacuated from Algeria turned down the offer of French Guiana so there went yet another might-have-been jewish country. In 1905 the WZO turned down Kenya (aka Uganda) and in 1940 Tasmania,a real gem. Jews it is said can be very self-defeating. Palestine had no significance except to religious Jews and virtually none of the original Zionists were religious. The idea was to establish one or more nations that would Jewish-majority,and hence free of persecution and the risk of assimilation. Another point was to end the diaspora. Obviously Guyana could hold every Jew on earth comfortably and plenty more with proper capital investment. Instead they sit over there in Palestine viciously persecuting the Pals and not infrequently attacking neighboring states. Let's just say "nobody likes them". The poor dears. I wonder why that might be. Meanwhile it's too small to end the diaspora anyway. It's been a Russian-Jew thing all along and it still is. British and French jews would have preferred a unified Guiana large enough to be a major state. And they were right.

[Loburt]

Where it already is.

It does exist.

What seems to be at issue is whether others have a right to destroy it.

To be technical, according to the United Nations, within the 1967 borders, unless otherwise negotiated and agreed upon by representatives of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Yes, my point was what are those borders? That seems to be something of an ongoing disagreement. And just because the UN ratified the borders as of 1967 doesn't mean it was a good idea. The area had been Palestine and contained very few Jews until wave after wave of immigrants arrived in "Palestine" (not Israel). The nation of Israel is famous for not having it's own territory, and taking over various parts of Palestine has not been a good thing for anyone. It just made one hell of a mess. I'm not anti-semetic, I just think invading other countries (as Moses did in the first place) is not a good thing.

It's irrelevant, Neo. It does exist and is recognized by the UN. That's right enough under international law.

Native Americans can make the same arguments about the United States, and other peoples in other places can also make similar arguments.

It is pointless.

The way forward is to find a fair solution where both peoples can live under their own sovereignty with security, peace and economic opportunity.

Arguing over the right to exist is the way create more conflict. But go ahead and feel self righteous while continuing on a path that leads to no solution and will never end.

[eagle]

Using the logic of the genius that I'm seeing here in this thread I call for the US to be returned to the Native American tribes since it was stolen one bad treaty after another. It has no right to exist except that it does and there are those who wish to destroy it. Dam the US is Israel :shock:

[eagle]

Dam Robert you beat me to it

[eagle]

Where it already is.

It does exist.

What seems to be at issue is whether others have a right to destroy it.

To be technical, according to the United Nations, within the 1967 borders, unless otherwise negotiated and agreed upon by representatives of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Yes, my point was what are those borders? That seems to be something of an ongoing disagreement. And just because the UN ratified the borders as of 1967 doesn't mean it was a good idea. The area had been Palestine and contained very few Jews until wave after wave of immigrants arrived in "Palestine" (not Israel). The nation of Israel is famous for not having it's own territory, and taking over various parts of Palestine has not been a good thing for anyone. It just made one hell of a mess. I'm not anti-semetic, I just think invading other countries (as Moses did in the first place) is not a good thing.

It's irrelevant, Neo. It does exist and is recognized by the UN. That's right enough under international law.

Native Americans can make the same arguments about the United States, and other peoples in other places can also make similar arguments.

It is pointless.

The way forward is to find a fair solution where both peoples can live under their own sovereignty with security, peace and economic opportunity.

Arguing over the right to exist is the way create more conflict. But go ahead and feel self righteous while continuing on a path that leads to no solution and will never end.

YOu beat me to the Native American analogy. All the talk about Israel's right to exist has been spoon fed to the brain dead for years.

[Fujico]

How do you think George Walker Bush will be remembered?

What do you think was his greatest contribution during his presidency?

And what was his worst mistake?

Worst mistake: Not only one... many.

also his actions during the crisis were pretty ineffective

Greatest contribution: hmmm....Well, maybe the help after the tsunami or Pakistan earthquake. or overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan. (but he never finished the job...)

:?

[Neo]

Where it already is.

It does exist.

What seems to be at issue is whether others have a right to destroy it.

To be technical, according to the United Nations, within the 1967 borders, unless otherwise negotiated and agreed upon by representatives of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Yes, my point was what are those borders? That seems to be something of an ongoing disagreement. And just because the UN ratified the borders as of 1967 doesn't mean it was a good idea. The area had been Palestine and contained very few Jews until wave after wave of immigrants arrived in "Palestine" (not Israel). The nation of Israel is famous for not having it's own territory, and taking over various parts of Palestine has not been a good thing for anyone. It just made one hell of a mess. I'm not anti-semetic, I just think invading other countries (as Moses did in the first place) is not a good thing.

It's irrelevant, Neo. It does exist and is recognized by the UN. That's right enough under international law.

Native Americans can make the same arguments about the United States, and other peoples in other places can also make similar arguments.

It is pointless.

The way forward is to find a fair solution where both peoples can live under their own sovereignty with security, peace and economic opportunity.

Arguing over the right to exist is the way create more conflict. But go ahead and feel self righteous while continuing on a path that leads to no solution and will never end.

YOu beat me to the Native American analogy. All the talk about Israel's right to exist has been spoon fed to the brain dead for years.

Firstly (in answer to Loburt) I didn't argue over their right to exist at all. I mentioned the fact that "Israel" invaded Palestine, and that perhaps the UN ratification is unjust (it wouldn't be the first time). I still stand by the fact that moving millions of Jews into Palestine and calling it Israel made a big mess. Perhaps the best way to fix it is to undo the mess (at least partially) instead of staying the course (seem to remember that was Bush's way of solving problems).

The Native American thing is very apt. In New Zealand the Maoris have managed to get back huge swathes of their rightful property including prime downtown real estate, from within UN ratified borders, with no blood shed. It's a good thing and I wish such justice was possible for the Native American peoples too.

[DJTX]

Using the logic of the genius that I'm seeing here in this thread I call for the US to be returned to the Native American tribes since it was stolen one bad treaty after another. It has no right to exist except that it does and there are those who wish to destroy it. Dam the US is Israel :shock:

Why not go all the way - give England back to the Romans. Give France back to the Gauls. :shock: And just think how much different things might be if Leif Ericson stuck around :wink:

[Neo]

holocaust survivors had the right to be protected. they do not have the right however , to establish a state by force based on religious arguements . the bible is not proof that israelites :"were there first". it's faith based. end of argument victory.

Good point. If anyone actually bothers to check out ancient Jewish history they'll find that the promised land was already occupied. Seems like the same mistake again and again.

It's a terrible point because that is not what occurred. Perhaps this occurred in the Klan Guide Book and Talking Points Memorandum of 1967 but this is not history. This is some fiction that you have read in some pro-Palestinian leftist website or another.

Deuteronomy 20:16-17

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

17 Completely destroy [a] them?the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites?as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Nice. The first time the Jews invaded Palestine.

[eagle]

Where it already is.

It does exist.

What seems to be at issue is whether others have a right to destroy it.

To be technical, according to the United Nations, within the 1967 borders, unless otherwise negotiated and agreed upon by representatives of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Yes, my point was what are those borders? That seems to be something of an ongoing disagreement. And just because the UN ratified the borders as of 1967 doesn't mean it was a good idea. The area had been Palestine and contained very few Jews until wave after wave of immigrants arrived in "Palestine" (not Israel). The nation of Israel is famous for not having it's own territory, and taking over various parts of Palestine has not been a good thing for anyone. It just made one hell of a mess. I'm not anti-semetic, I just think invading other countries (as Moses did in the first place) is not a good thing.

It's irrelevant, Neo. It does exist and is recognized by the UN. That's right enough under international law.

Native Americans can make the same arguments about the United States, and other peoples in other places can also make similar arguments.

It is pointless.

The way forward is to find a fair solution where both peoples can live under their own sovereignty with security, peace and economic opportunity.

Arguing over the right to exist is the way create more conflict. But go ahead and feel self righteous while continuing on a path that leads to no solution and will never end.

YOu beat me to the Native American analogy. All the talk about Israel's right to exist has been spoon fed to the brain dead for years.

Firstly (in answer to Loburt) I didn't argue over their right to exist at all. I mentioned the fact that "Israel" invaded Palestine, and that perhaps the UN ratification is unjust (it wouldn't be the first time). I still stand by the fact that moving millions of Jews into Palestine and calling it Israel made a big mess. Perhaps the best way to fix it is to undo the mess (at least partially) instead of staying the course (seem to remember that was Bush's way of solving problems).

The Native American thing is very apt. In New Zealand the Maoris have managed to get back huge swathes of their rightful property including prime downtown real estate, from within UN ratified borders, with no blood shed. It's a good thing and I wish such justice was possible for the Native American peoples too.

IN the US the natives have gotten land back to build casinos :twisted:

[Neo]

The Native American thing is very apt. In New Zealand the Maoris have managed to get back huge swathes of their rightful property including prime downtown real estate, from within UN ratified borders, with no blood shed. It's a good thing and I wish such justice was possible for the Native American peoples too.

IN the US the natives have gotten land back to build casinos :twisted:

Yes, but there are other cases... like Taos, where they got back their sacred mountain, have a booming tourism industry based around their artifacts and cultural heritage, and don't have a casino ;-)

[zeusbheld]

Using the logic of the genius that I'm seeing here in this thread I call for the US to be returned to the Native American tribes since it was stolen one bad treaty after another. It has no right to exist except that it does and there are those who wish to destroy it. Dam the US is Israel :shock:

don't forget Australia needs must be given back too.

hell, it comes right down to it, we need to give Europe, Asia, North America, South America, and pretty much all islands and territories back and all go live in the Rift Valley in Africa.

to digress slightly there's a song by Midnight Oil about giving Australia back. it's quite good, i can't remember the name of it off the top of my head htough.

[zeusbheld]

holocaust survivors had the right to be protected. they do not have the right however , to establish a state by force based on religious arguements . the bible is not proof that israelites :"were there first". it's faith based. end of argument victory.

Good point. If anyone actually bothers to check out ancient Jewish history they'll find that the promised land was already occupied. Seems like the same mistake again and again.

It's a terrible point because that is not what occurred. Perhaps this occurred in the Klan Guide Book and Talking Points Memorandum of 1967 but this is not history. This is some fiction that you have read in some pro-Palestinian leftist website or another.

Deuteronomy 20:16-17

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

17 Completely destroy [a] them?the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites?as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Nice. The first time the Jews invaded Palestine.

to digress a bit (this thread needs a digression right about now)

yet one more example of how bogus the argument that the bible is a 'peaceful' book but the koran is a 'violent' book. not that anyone's making that argument, but that's on the same simplistic level as challenging Israel's right to exist (its right to hold onto the occupied territories, however, is eminently challengeable IMO).

for one thing, there is no official translation of the Koran. for another, i have read the bible and there are many passages like that which, taken out of context, could be used to justify just about anything.

i doubt you'll find anyone with less respect for organized religion than me, but the argument that there are 'good' and 'bad' books is more than a little bit silly. generally what happens is that books get distorted to suit some power houngry assholes' quest for power. blaming hte Koran for fundamentalist islam is tantamount to claiming that al Qaeda wouldn't exist if they had a nicer book. does anyone really believe that? i doubt it.

right. that said, i'm off to start a religion based on Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange.

[Neo]

holocaust survivors had the right to be protected. they do not have the right however , to establish a state by force based on religious arguements . the bible is not proof that israelites :"were there first". it's faith based. end of argument victory.

Good point. If anyone actually bothers to check out ancient Jewish history they'll find that the promised land was already occupied. Seems like the same mistake again and again.

It's a terrible point because that is not what occurred. Perhaps this occurred in the Klan Guide Book and Talking Points Memorandum of 1967 but this is not history. This is some fiction that you have read in some pro-Palestinian leftist website or another.

Deuteronomy 20:16-17

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

17 Completely destroy [a] them?the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites?as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Nice. The first time the Jews invaded Palestine.

i have read the bible and there are many passages like that which, taken out of context, could be used to justify just about anything.

Yes.. alhtough in this case if one were to read the rest of Deuteronomy one would realise that according to the bible the Israelites deed indeed invade Canaan (part of which is now Palestine)

My point was that this is not

some fiction that you have read in some pro-Palestinian leftist website or another.

and also in asnwer to

the bible is not proof that israelites :"were there first".

... since in fact the bible clearly makes the case that the israelites were not first.

[zeusbheld]

Yes.. alhtough in this case if one were to read the rest of Deuteronomy one would realise that according to the bible the Israelites deed indeed invade Canaan (part of which is now Palestine)

My point was that this is not

some fiction that you have read in some pro-Palestinian leftist website or another.

and also in asnwer to

the bible is not proof that israelites :"were there first".

... since in fact the bible clearly makes the case that the israelites were not first.

yeah i got that but i wasn't addressing that in particular--i thought i'd labelled my rant as a digression, but it's worth underlining your point anyway.

that said, the argument that it somehow invalidates the existence of Israel is not likely to get much traction, and overreaches quite a bit.

on the third hand, maybe rounding up all the humans and sending them all back to the Rift Valley isn't such a bad idea...

[Dave40]

Using the logic of the genius that I'm seeing here in this thread I call for the US to be returned to the Native American tribes since it was stolen one bad treaty after another. It has no right to exist except that it does and there are those who wish to destroy it. Dam the US is Israel :shock:

don't forget Australia needs must be given back too.

hell, it comes right down to it, we need to give Europe, Asia, North America, South America, and pretty much all islands and territories back and all go live in the Rift Valley in Africa.

to digress slightly there's a song by Midnight Oil about giving Australia back. it's quite good, i can't remember the name of it off the top of my head htough.

Beds are burning maybe?

And the lead singer Peter Garrett in now a minister in the Rudd Government,

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts.!!!!!

Love the oils!!

[Neo]

yeah i got that but i wasn't addressing that in particular--i thought i'd labelled my rant as a digression, but it's worth underlining your point anyway.

that said, the argument that it somehow invalidates the existence of Israel is not likely to get much traction, and overreaches quite a bit.

on the third hand, maybe rounding up all the humans and sending them all back to the Rift Valley isn't such a bad idea...

Sure.. I was digressing from your digression. If I had point (which I don't) it would be something along the lines of ...

No matter which point in history you look at, Israel was never really a place, it's always been a race that never had it's own country until the latest attempt at invading Palestine starting around 100 years ago. And that just made more of a mess.

[LakeGeneve]

Using the logic of the genius that I'm seeing here in this thread I call for the US to be returned to the Native American tribes since it was stolen one bad treaty after another. It has no right to exist except that it does and there are those who wish to destroy it. Dam the US is Israel :shock:

don't forget Australia needs must be given back too.

hell, it comes right down to it, we need to give Europe, Asia, North America, South America, and pretty much all islands and territories back and all go live in the Rift Valley in Africa.

to digress slightly there's a song by Midnight Oil about giving Australia back. it's quite good, i can't remember the name of it off the top of my head htough.

Beds are burning maybe?

And the lead singer Peter Garrett in now a minister in the Rudd Government,

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts.!!!!!

Love the oils!!

Love the Oils too!

Still waiting for Garret to get up in the House of Reps and start singing Short Memory or US Forces in response to a question from the opposition!

[Dave40]

Using the logic of the genius that I'm seeing here in this thread I call for the US to be returned to the Native American tribes since it was stolen one bad treaty after another. It has no right to exist except that it does and there are those who wish to destroy it. Dam the US is Israel :shock:

don't forget Australia needs must be given back too.

hell, it comes right down to it, we need to give Europe, Asia, North America, South America, and pretty much all islands and territories back and all go live in the Rift Valley in Africa.

to digress slightly there's a song by Midnight Oil about giving Australia back. it's quite good, i can't remember the name of it off the top of my head htough.

Beds are burning maybe?

And the lead singer Peter Garrett in now a minister in the Rudd Government,

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts.!!!!!

Love the oils!!

Love the Oils too!

Still waiting for Garret to get up in the House of Reps and start singing Short Memory or US Forces in response to a question from the opposition!

10 to 1 great album, it seems funny seeing him in Canberra, but I thought he would of joined the greens rather than the labor party!!! But the world has changed since the late 80's and 90's!!

[eagle]

Rather then BS about Israel's right to exist which means nothing as it does how about ways to achieve peace in the area. ooooh that would be hard on the brain :roll:

[Stramash]

Would not say that it is ALL white mans' fault, but we have had a pretty damn big hand in it.

And no, I am not only pointing the finger at your country!!

Britain must shoulder part of the blame for the way it carved out sections of the middle east and created new countries (in places where there was civilisation when we were still living in caves for chrissake) with no sensitivity towards tribal differences. And no matter how 'Islamic' a country is, it is always these tribal differences that have been the principal cause of dissension in that region since time began.

It must also shoulder blame for first imposing colonial rape on many of the countries now seen as fundamentalist, giving them a long term reason to hate the west.

More recently though, the US has to step up to the plate (to use one of your quaint rounders euphemisms) as far as guilt is concerned.

The post McCarthy paranoia about the red menace led to both overt and covert funding and support of fundamentalist groups and preachers; anything where the CIA and the Whitehouse thought there was the slightest chance of Moscow gaining a foothold.

The Iranian Revolution, rather than being a religous revolution, was in fact a people's revolution that was hijacked by the Mullahs, once the CIA assistance had helped squash the left wing elements that had played a major part.

It was like a huge game of chess with the left wing students and their Moscow backers playing against the Religous 'right' and their CIA backers.

The problem was; some desk bound analyst had obviously decided that once the revolution was over, the mad Mullahs would kow tow to Washington, while all along, it was them playing the long game; justifiably worried that with the geographical proximity of Russia, they were in danger of becoming another Soviet sattelite, but inwardly equally abhorrent of the West and the decadence that they had seen under the puppet Shah.

But hey, it's a win win situation; certainly as far as the military-industrial complex goes (and this is both sides of the Atlantic)

Now with so much paranoia and fear in the world, there is beigger per capita spending on arnaments and security than at any point during the cold war.

So while we all peer from behind the curtains in London, New York, Madrid etc etc and wonder if there will be another attack soon, the same old fat bas**rds are lounging about rolling in the cash from arms sales to Saudi, Israel, Kuwait, Oman etc etc etc

Do you think these people want a solution to the problems of the Middle East? No way; that would eat into their profits big time.

And equally to these guys, there are Zionists and Israeli right wingers who believe that Israel will not be safe till they have annexed more land all around Israel, and that there can never be peace with the Palestinians; and yes, there are rabid mullahs and extremist leaders who believe that there cannot be peace until the last Israeli has been driven into the sea.

I have no answers; I am opposed to the way Isreal has conducted itself over it's history, but I equally believe that they cannot be evicted from the land.

It's lile a sort of blunt Occam's Razor in a way; the simplest solution is the best, or in this case 1 of 2; either Israel abandons its territory (not going to happen) or Palestinians are treated as equal citizens and given a proper territory (not going to happen as long as there are extremists on BOTH sides)

[eagle]

Rather then BS about Israel's right to exist which means nothing as it does how about ways to achieve peace in the area. ooooh that would be hard on the brain :roll:

I have no say in this process. I'm simply having a conversation.

I'm really not all that interested in world peace. I don't think it is achievable. Talk of peace and the longing for peace simply weakens most states to the point that some other Nationalistic power comes in and conquers them since they no longer have the will to fight.

Peace talks have only ever led to war.

Can't say I disagree at least in this century. But seems a more peaceful coexistence is more realistic then theorizing why Israel shouldn't exist when it clearly does. And Israel is the core of a huge internationally distributed group of people which aren't going away.

[eagle]

The Native American thing is very apt. In New Zealand the Maoris have managed to get back huge swathes of their rightful property including prime downtown real estate, from within UN ratified borders, with no blood shed. It's a good thing and I wish such justice was possible for the Native American peoples too.

IN the US the natives have gotten land back to build casinos :twisted:

Yes, but there are other cases... like Taos, where they got back their sacred mountain, have a booming tourism industry based around their artifacts and cultural heritage, and don't have a casino ;-)

I have friends in the Taos pueblo and have helped set up their pow wow grounds with shade stands for the elders. The Taos Pueblo people were only temporarily detained and managed to kick out the spanish as did all the pueblo people. They took what was theirs it wasn't given to them and they are proud of it. Now the fact that gold was not found there has a lot to do with that along with the fact that Taos is at 8000 ft elevation and was not very easy to get too in the 1800s has a lot to do with that.

And their is a Casino on the Taos Pueblo Res in view of the sacred mountain. I have a friend who guides Elk hunters on Pueblo land ,another Pueblo enterprise. Pays well per day and a percentage of the meat.

[eagle]

My reference to Native Americans getting land back to build Casinos wasn't to mean they used that to get the land. The lands were proven in court to be a sacred part of their native history and then used for casinos, many time in the center of metropolitan areas. And money is a driving factor in deals like that getting passed thru the courts. Casinos are huge cash cows and a lot of Native casinos are not completely native owned.