Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Dec '12 20:38
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/04/israel-nukes-palestine-un-vote-rogue

    "The US and Israel: a short quiz on 'rogue nation' status"
    by Glenn Greenwald (4 December 2012)

    "So essentially it's the entire planet on one side, versus the US, its new right-wing
    poodle to the north (Canada), Israel, and three tiny, bribed islands on the other
    side. If you're a member in good standing of the Washington-based foreign policy
    community, then the way you describe these matters is as follows:
    'the international community stands by Israel and supports its position'
    because, in that warped, self-affirming world, 'international community' is a
    synonym for 'US dictates'. But for those fortunate enough to reside outside
    of that realm of intense imperial propaganda, who is actually opposed to the
    consensus of the international community here? In other words, who are the
    real 'rogue nations'?"
    --Glenn Greenwald (4 December 2012)

    "I don't think the Palestinians should need Israeli approval to have statehood."
    --Glenn Greenwald
  2. 04 Dec '12 20:59
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/04/israel-nukes-palestine-un-vote-rogue

    "The US and Israel: a short quiz on 'rogue nation' status"
    by Glenn Greenwald (4 December 2012)

    "So essentially it's the entire planet on one side, versus the US, its new right-wing
    poodle to the north (Canada), Israel, and three tiny, bribed islands on the ot ...[text shortened]... stinians should need Israeli approval to have statehood."
    --Glenn Greenwald
    How do you contend with the fact that the Arabs were offered a 2 state solution when the Mandate was set to expire, and they rejected it? How do you contend with the 1967 Khartoum Resolution, which famously stated "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel"? How do you contend with the numerous examples of Palestinian terrorism, such as the 1972 Olympics? Or how the whole conflict in general was started in 1948 when a group of Palestinian terrorists boarded a bus full of Israelis and massacred them? Or how afterwards, Palestinian snipers were actively targeting civilians?

    Your historical presentation of the conflict ignores fact.

    1948- After the Arab League rejected the 2 state partition of the territory into a Palestinian Country and an Israeli country, with one day before the mandate was to expire, Israel declared it's independence. The next day, 4 armies invaded. The land gained in the war is rightfully Israel's as they were attacked first.

    1967- Six Day War. Egypt massed its army on Israel's border in preparation for a strike. Nasser himself asserted on May 27 that "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." Again, Israel was attacked first. Land gained through this war is justifiably Israel's.

    1973- Yom Kippur War. Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel while the country was observing Yom Kippur. Israel was attacked first.

    1978- Coastal Road Massacre.

    Lets start with this. How do you defend these provocations and actions on the part of the Palestinians and Arabs?
  3. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    04 Dec '12 20:59
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/04/israel-nukes-palestine-un-vote-rogue

    "The US and Israel: a short quiz on 'rogue nation' status"
    by Glenn Greenwald (4 December 2012)

    "So essentially it's the entire planet on one side, versus the US, its new right-wing
    poodle to the north (Canada), Israel, and three tiny, bribed islands on the ot ...[text shortened]... stinians should need Israeli approval to have statehood."
    --Glenn Greenwald
    If you looked at the amount of good the United States has done in the world since World War II, I think you'd apologize for defining us as that.
  4. 04 Dec '12 22:54 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    How do you contend with the fact that the Arabs were offered a 2 state solution when the Mandate was set to expire, and they rejected it? How do you contend with the 1967 Khartoum Resolution, which famously stated "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel"? How do you contend with the numerous examples of Palestinian te do you defend these provocations and actions on the part of the Palestinians and Arabs?
    I have noticed that Blaze8492 only joined RHP yesterday, 3 December 2012.
    Shouldn't Blaze8492--if not trolling--try to spend some time reading enough
    earlier posts here before jumping in to provoke an argument (or 'flame war'?

    I am extremely busy, and I lack the time to reply to every post of 'hasbara'
    (Israeli propaganda), particularly when 'hasbara' tends to keep reiterating
    the same falsehoods that already have been discredited elsewhere.
    (I never have been employed or paid to act as a Palestinian representative.)

    In this forum, I recently created a thread in which I suggest an introductory
    reading list, "Some Books on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict".
    In that list, most of the books were written by Israeli Jewish academics.

    I already know that many, if not most, Americans apparently already have
    been completely brainwashed by long exposure to pro-Israeli propaganda.
    But you might try to 'live dangerously' and read some of my suggested books.
  5. 04 Dec '12 22:59 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    If you looked at the amount of good the United States has done in the world
    since World War II, I think you'd apologize for defining us as that.
    First of all, when I cite an article or quote some comments, that does *not
    necessarily* mean that I agree. It only means that I considered that article or
    those comments worthy of attention. Sometimes I have quoted a comment with
    which I disagree. Sasquatch672's mistaken to assume that I must agree with
    every comment that I quote. If I were to quote Hitler, that would *not
    necessarily* mean that I agree with his comment.

    In this case, Glenn Greenwald (who's an American writing for 'The Guardian'
    thinks that the United States and Israel are 'rogue nations', for reasons that he
    has explained, and I happen to concur with him generally on that point, though
    not necessarily with all of his comments.

    With regard to 'the amount of good the United States has done in the world',
    I would say that, while almost always acting in its perceived self-interests, the
    United States has done many good things and many bad things in the world.
    One cannot fairly judge the United States by considering only the evidence
    of the good and ignoring the evidence of the bad. Given that the 'patriotically
    correct' US media likes to emphasize the good, I think that Americans need to be
    reminded more about the bad, in order to attain a more balanced perspective.
    There are many people in the world who have justified, or at least understandable,
    grievances against the United States.

    If I recall correctly, Sasquatch672 has described himself as a veteran of
    US military service. Perhaps he would be interested in a recent book by an
    Israeli veteran: The General's Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine
    by Miko Peled. Miko Peled's the son of the late Mattiyahu Peled, an Israeli
    general who later regretted what he had done and became a peace activist.
    Miko Peled himself was a member of Israel's special forces. In his book, he
    described his personal and political journey from being a conventional Zionist
    with stereotypical negative feelings toward the Palestinians to discovering,
    unexpectedly, understanding and even friendship among the Palestinians.
    (As a karate expert, he began to teach karate to young Palestinians.)
    Miko Peled has become a critic of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.

    "There is no political will within Israel to give Palestinians their freedom. ...
    All that remains now is to replace the current system whereby only Israeli Jews
    enjoy the freedoms and rights of full citizenship with one that will allow
    Palestinians to enjoy these rights as well."
    --Miko Peled
  6. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    04 Dec '12 23:30
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    If you looked at the amount of good the United States has done in the world since World War II, I think you'd apologize for defining us as that.
    America has done some good and quite a lot of severe bad. Only Americans seem oblivious to the criticism. While the USA proclaims it is a friend of democracy, it is actually deeply opposed to any democratic outcome that conflicts with US interests (usually meaning corporate interests) and has been a mighty good friend of a long list of dictators and right wing movements. While the US certainly is a major funder of the UN and of course New York is the UN headquarters, it has used this position to influence the UN and its various institutions in ways many critics deeply resent. The US refuses to be bound by international law or to be accountable in law courts for international crimes. On human rights, the US appears to have granted itself many important exemptions- such as Guantanamo Bay, the use of torture, "special rendition", the use of drones in Pakistan and other places,.... US oppositon to measures to handle climate change is disgraceful when the US is a major source of environmental harm to the planet. US policies on trade are harmful to poor nations and largely driven by corrupt corporate interests. The same applies to US food policies.

    Sorry pal. I have at times tried to support the USA, which might surprise you to hear, but it is impossible to ignore the extent to which the USA has been bought and sold by corporate interests, the extremely wealthy, and the military industrial complex. The harm done to world affairs by US policies has been immense. Stop day dreaming about your lovely country and get real about its many defects.
  7. 04 Dec '12 23:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan to sasquatch672
    America has done some good and quite a lot of severe bad. Only Americans seem oblivious to the criticism. While the USA proclaims it is a friend of democracy, it is actually deeply opposed to any democratic outcome that conflicts with US interests (usually meaning corporate interests) and has been a mighty good friend of a long list of dict been immense. Stop day dreaming about your lovely country and get real about its many defects.
    In fairness to Sasquatch672, when he wrote of 'the amount of good the United
    States has done in the world', he might have been thinking of what individual
    Americans and American NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have done in
    addition to what the US government, military, and corporations have done.

    In the interest of clarity, my criticisms of the United States refer primarily to
    what the US government, military, and corporations have done rather than to
    what individual Americans and American NGOs have done. Some individual
    Americans and Americans NGOs have worked to do good both inside and
    outside the United States in spite of US government policies.
  8. 04 Dec '12 23:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    America has done some good and quite a lot of severe bad. Only Americans seem oblivious to the criticism. While the USA proclaims it is a friend of democracy, it is actually deeply opposed to any democratic outcome that conflicts with US interests (usually meaning corporate interests) and has been a mighty good friend of a long list of dictators and right been immense. Stop day dreaming about your lovely country and get real about its many defects.
    I agree, look at Panama a few years back.

    The USA put Daniel Noriega in,
    then he got too big for his boots and they took him out.

    Hamed Kharzai in Afghanistan is another puppet installed by George W Bush.

    I hope you will forgive me if the spelling of their names is wrong.

    But you get the point.

    America has lot of puppets in power around the world looking after their interests.
  9. 04 Dec '12 23:56
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody to finnegan
    I agree, look at Panama a few years back.

    The USA put Daniel Noriega in,
    then he got too big for his boots and they took him out.

    Hamed Kharzai in Afghanistan is another puppet installed by George W Bush.

    I hope you will forgive me if the spelling of their names is wrong.

    But you get the point.

    America has lot of puppets in power around the world looking after their interests.
    "...look at Panama a few years back. The USA put Daniel Noriega in..."
    --Johnnylongwoody

    Panama was ruled by Manuel (not 'Daniel' Noriega (who worked for the CIA).
    Nicaragua's president today is Daniel Ortega, who's not backed by the USA.
  10. 04 Dec '12 23:58
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "...look at Panama a few years back. The USA put Daniel Noriega in..."
    --Johnnylongwoody

    Panama was ruled by Manuel (not 'Daniel' Noriega (who worked for the CIA).
    Nicaragua's president today is Daniel Ortega, who's not backed by the USA.
    I stand corrected.......Manuel.

    But if he worked for the CIA?

    Open to question.
  11. 05 Dec '12 00:06
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    I stand corrected.......Manuel.

    But if he worked for the CIA?

    Open to question.
    In the 1988 US presidential campaign, Michael Dukakis criticized George Bush
    (the father), who had been a CIA Director, for his past close relationship with
    Manuel Noreiga of Panama. The United States has a long record of intervening,
    covertly and overtly, in the politics of central America.
  12. 05 Dec '12 00:15
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In the 1988 US presidential campaign, Michael Dukakis criticized George Bush
    (the father), who had been a CIA Director, for his past close relationship with
    Manuel Noreiga of Panama. The United States has a long record of intervening,
    covertly and overtly, in the politics of central America.
    Yes I am aware of all that even going back to the likes of

    Col. Oliver North and all that bother with the Contras, the Sandinistas and a whole bunch of other Central American Politics.
  13. 05 Dec '12 02:17
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I have noticed that Blaze8492 only joined RHP yesterday, 3 December 2012.
    Shouldn't Blaze8492--if not trolling--try to spend some time reading enough
    earlier posts here before jumping in to provoke an argument (or 'flame war'?

    I am extremely busy, and I lack the time to reply to every post of 'hasbara'
    (Israeli propaganda), particularly when 'hasba ...[text shortened]... aganda.
    But you might try to 'live dangerously' and read some of my suggested books.
    Wow. I actually did read through a couple of the previous threads, and I assumed (perhaps at my own risk) that you actually had something of concrete value to back up your positions. And this is the response I get, something with nothing of actual value and instead, a judgment on my own position on the basis of when I joined the site? Real mature. Heck, I even quoted Nasser for you. Hasbara? Come on, grow up.

    Now, if you want to dispute the origins of the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War, I'd love to hear your arguments. But if you're just gonna make a comment on how I seem to be "trolling" and offer no substance, there's not much to this conversation, is there? As opposed to your long quote of nothingness, I'm going to provide some sources for my post:

    First, the quote from nasser: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/30/newsid_2493000/2493177.stm


    Second, I'd like to point out that you seem to think that just because a book is written by a Jewish academic supporting your position, that makes it hold more worth. You are incorrect. The ethnic background of the author holds no weight in determining the objective facts.

    Third: The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

    If you have access to JSTOR, you will find the following paper to be quite illuminating, a couple quotes from it being as follows:

    "In November 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution partitioning Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Jerusalem was to be a United Nations protectorate. The boundaries of this partition allocated to the Jews some 50 per cent of Palestine...the Jewish leaders accepted the United Nation's resolution, even though they would have found it difficult to run and to defend a state thus delimited. On the other hand, the Arab nations rejected the resolution, even though it would have given them a Palestinian state without further negotiation, and 'immediately sought the arbitration of force'...."

    "...The combined Arab forces from Transjordan (crack British-trained troops), Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon (mostly under-trained and under-motivated riff-raff) invaded Palestine in an attempt to drive the Israelis into the Mediterranean Sea. By the end of 1948, the Israeli army was 100,000 strong, properly equipped with arms provided by Russia, through Czechoslovakia, and by the French (in an
    overt act of hostility towards Britain), and had established a military hegemony
    in Palestine..."

    "...The United Nations opened Armistice talks in Rhodes on January 12, 1949, that Israel signed with Egypt (February 14), Lebanon (March 23), Transjordan (April 3) and Syria (July 20). Iraq refused to sign, and all five Arab nations remained in a state of war with Israel..."

    "...The Armistice itself proved to be worthless, shredded by the Arabs almost immediately following their signatures. Between 1949 and 1956, some 1,300 Israelis were murdered during Arab raids, and Israel's retaliatory attacks became increasingly severe. On July 20, 1951, the only remaining moderate Arab leader, King Abdullah of Jordan, was assassinated by Arab militants. On July 23, 1952, a military junta ousted the Egyptian monarchy, leading
    in turn (February 25, 1954) to the populist dictatorship of Gamul Abdul Nasser who led a government overtly dedicated to Israel's destruction..."

    "...Egged on by Palestinian radicals, in early June 1967, armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt massed on Israel's borders, preparing for yet another united effort to defeat their enemy On June 5, Israel preempted the war, eliminating Egyptian air power, and simultaneously striking targets in Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Undisciplined Arab armies fled the field..."

    Source:

    Rowley, Charles K. and Jennis Taylor. 2006. "The Israel and Palestine Land Settlement Problem, 1948-2005: An Analytical History." Public Choice, Vol. 128, No. 1/2, The Political Economy of Terrorism. pp 77-90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30026634 .

    If you have any peer-reviewed academic articles which you can point to describing an alternate history, please, by all means, send them my way. As to your books, here's a couple authors you might try reading to provide an alternative viewpoint:

    Alan Dershowitz
    "The Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars" by Yaacov Lozowich

    Start there.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    05 Dec '12 02:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    How do you contend with the fact that the Arabs were offered a 2 state solution when the Mandate was set to expire, and they rejected it? How do you contend with the 1967 Khartoum Resolution, which famously stated "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel"? How do you contend with the numerous examples of Palestinian te do you defend these provocations and actions on the part of the Palestinians and Arabs?
    The Palestinians were under no obligation to accept the UN General Assembly plan of 1947. Jews comprised less than a third of the population of Palestine, so giving them even anywhere near close to half its territory was blatantly unfair. Moreover, the terms of the plan would have left almost as many Arabs as Jews in "Israel" (though it was to be a Jewish run state) while leaving hardly any Jews in the Arab area. Furthermore, it should have been up to the majority of the Palestinian people as to whether the land should have been divided into separate States. And there had been hostilities between the Jews and Arabs for many months before the illegal declaration of Israeli statehood; Jewish militias had been forcing Arabs out of areas and killing them if they refused to move (and Arab militias had been doing the same things to Jews though on a lesser scale). To pretend Israel all of sudden came into peaceful existence and then was attacked by other countries is a gross distortion of the historical record - the leaders of the outgunned Palestinian Arabs did call on other Arabs to assist them, but as they were the voice of the majority of the people in Palestine they had every right to do so.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    05 Dec '12 02:39
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    How do you contend with the fact that the Arabs were offered a 2 state solution when the Mandate was set to expire, and they rejected it? How do you contend with the 1967 Khartoum Resolution, which famously stated "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel"? How do you contend with the numerous examples of Palestinian te ...[text shortened]... do you defend these provocations and actions on the part of the Palestinians and Arabs?
    You conveniently ignore the Israel attack on Egypt in the Sinai in 1956. As to 1967, I wrote this a week ago in another thread:

    Please. Public statements by Israeli leaders subsequent to 1967 sneak attack make clear that they knew full well Nasser wasn't going to attack them:

    Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister, told Le Monde the year following the ’67 war, “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”

    Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/