# Palestine's attempt to gain Nation status vetoed by US.



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Palestine's attempt to gain Nation status was vetoed by the US this week. The Palestinian Head of State was told that he, and they, should wait until the time was right; that it was too soon and independent statehood could only be achieved by patience and negotiation with Israel, (who are using every minute that Palestine waits to encroacvh further and further onto Palestinian territory). 
If the Founding Fathers of US independence had followed that line, they would still have been attempting to negotiate their independence from an intransigent British government in 1839!
Am I missing something here?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Fortunately, there was no UN in 1839.

How did you miss that??

Now that there is a UN, do you expect them to ignore their own rules??

Of course you (and many others) do!!

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277339/palestinians-defy-un-charter-david-french#

Palestinians Defy the U.N. Charter
September 15, 2011 2:06 P.M.​By

Does international law matter? Do U.N. member states respect the U.N. Charter? The Palestinian Authority has declared it will seek statehood at the U.N. as early as next week. They will do so with the full backing of every Islamic nation in the world and with the expected backing of numerous other nations that are historically hostile to Israel. It's critical to understand, however, that if the U.N. recognizes the Palestinian Authority, it will violate its own charter, violate longstanding norms of international law, and further impair its credibility with vital (and powerful) members of the world community.
Let's take a closer look:
*The Charter requires respect for existing treaties.*
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising out of treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained." (From the )​By recognizing a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, the U.N. would be an accomplice to a fundamental breach of the Oslo Accords which prohibit either side from taking any steps to change the status of the West Bank or Gaza pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations.
*The Charter opens U.N. Membership to "states" only, not to "movements."*
Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. ()​The Palestinian Authority flunks this test on several counts. First, U.N. membership is open to "states" only. Granting membership to an entity which cannot meet the most basic and accepted international legal requirements for statehood would not only be a violation of this foundational requirement, it would set a dangerous precedent in international relations. Note that the question of whether the Palestinian entity can qualify as a state is a distinct question from whether one thinks the Palestinians ought to have a state. To regard the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a "state" would mean stretching the meaning of the term beyond all reason.
The accepted international criteria for statehood are laid out in the Montevideo Convention of 1933: a permanent population, a defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The West Bank and Gaza Strip clearly fail to meet these criteria. The only authority exercised by the Palestinian Authority (PA) is that which it has through the sufferance of Israel, the parameters of which are defined in the Oslo Accords: the population and territory under the PA's authority, the extent of its governing power and ability to carry on foreign relations only extend as far as that to which Israel has agreed. If the PA presses ahead with its unilateral course, its breach of the Oslo Accords would allow Israel to actually dismantle the PA.
The danger of the PA's approach is obvious. If the U.N. nullifies all objective criteria for statehood - leaving recognition open for all aspiring separatist movements with sufficient political influence - then it has laid a foundation for perpetual, bloody conflict. The floodgates would open for the multitude of secessionist groups worldwide who would easily qualify for statehood under the "new rules," whether they be Tibetans, Tamils, Basques, Kurds, or any of the countless others seeking recognition of their "right" to independence and statehood. 
*The proposed Palestinian state is engaged in open, offensive war against Israel.*
To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors" ()​To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace" ()​Any declaration of independence on 1967 lines leaves the most populous city in the new Palestinian "state" in the hands of Hamas, a terrorist organization at open war with Israel. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have declared an intention to form a unity government, leaving the whole of Palestinian territory under at least partial control of terrorists. 
As for "equal rights," the PLO's ambassador to the United States declared that any new Palestinian state should be _judenrein_, cleansed of all Jews. This declaration stands in stark contrast to Israel, which grants its Arab citizens full civil rights - indeed, Israel's Arab citizens enjoy more civil liberties than the citizens of any Arab country in the Middle East.
The Charter repeatedly emphasizes the need for peaceful resolutions to conflict:
All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.()​All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. ()​The prevailing deeply-held belief (and longstanding practice) of the PLO and Hamas is that they are entitled to use violence - to advance the maximalist goal of destroying Israel, or the more modest goal of ending Israel's so-called "occupation" of the "Territories." The unrelenting campaign of Palestinian terror, the content of the charters of the PLO and Hamas, and the widespread incitement to violence in Palestinian society are beyond dispute.
This commitment to violence demonstrates that the Palestinians at present are simply not "able and willing" to carry out their obligations under the Charter. Even if, for argument's sake, one were to accept that the Palestinians were genuinely "willing" to take on the obligations attendant to U.N. membership, very recent history shows they are not "able" to do so. The Palestinian Authority lost its short and vicious civil war with Hamas, leaving Hamas in total control of the Gaza Strip. Does any reasonable person believe that the PA is "able" to restrain Hamas? Has the PA ever demonstrated an ability to restrain Hamas? Can the Palestinian delegation to the U.N. provide any reassurance that Hamas won't also seize the West Bank - either through bullets or the ballot? 
*The Palestinians Intend to Circumvent the Proper Admission Procedure.*
The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. ()​The Charter's meaning is plain: A Security Council recommendation is a prerequisite to membership. There were sound reasons for the framers of the Charter to vest this responsibility with the world's leading powers in the Security Council, among them the need for the Security Council to act as a brake on the General Assembly. Since the U.S. is so far vowing to veto the Palestinian membership bid, the Palestinians may ask the General Assembly to use the obscure "Uniting for Peace" framework and adopt a resolution which, although not legally binding under the Charter, would be a "moral equivalent" to admitting a Palestinian state as a U.N. member. To use a domestic legal example, such a maneuver would be the equivalent of using a congressional resolution to circumvent the Bill of Rights.
Does international law matter? Is the U.N. Charter viable? The questions are that stark. Abandoning international law for the political expedience of recognizing a non-existent Palestinian state could very well lead to even greater violence. The Middle East is a tinderbox, and the Palestinians are trying to strike a match.
_- Co-authored with David Benjamin, a Jerusalem-based international law consultant and a former senior legal adviser to the Israel Defense Forces._


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Not that your source is biased at all.....


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> ...
> Am I missing something here?


You sure are missing something....the Israelies have already spanked the Palastinians collective derriers on a consistent and regular basis on the field of battle. Whereas the US of A defeated the Brits of the battlefield. The prowess of the Isralie military is unparraled, at the moment. Hell, they could even kick our military a**es on the battlefield! They are fighting for their very lives and it shows.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Not that your source is biased at all.....


Stop whining and refute it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Stop whining and refute it.


I don't need to, the replies I've had have, effectively, given me my answer!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> You sure are missing something....the Israelies have already spanked the Palastinians collective derriers on a consistent and regular basis on the field of battle. Whereas the US of A defeated the Brits of the battlefield. The prowess of the Isralie military is unparraled, at the moment. Hell, they could even kick our military a**es on the battlefield! They are fighting for their very lives and it shows.


I think that you'll find that it was French and Spanish military intervention that allowed the US to win. Your answer suggests that Palestine looks for military assistance from their friends, or from people opposed to Israel. Perhaps they will. How will that promote international peace?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Your answer suggests that Palestine looks for military assistance from their friends, or from people opposed to Israel. Perhaps they will. How will that promote international peace?


Silly.

They already have.

They have violated the UN's charter.



> All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.()​All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. ()​


Therefore, even being considered as a member State is out of the question.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Palestine's attempt to gain Nation status was vetoed by the US this week. The Palestinian Head of State was told that he, and they, should wait until the time was right; that it was too soon and independent statehood could only be achieved by patience and negotiation with Israel, (who are using every minute that Palestine waits to encroacvh further and further onto Palestinian territory).
> If the Founding Fathers of US independence had followed that line, they would still have been attempting to negotiate their independence from an intransigent British government in 1839!
> Am I missing something here?


You have a point with regard to the principle of the thing: self-determination, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. etc. What you're missing is context: imagine if England back in 1776 were not across the sea on an island protected by the world's most powerful navy but rather nothing more than the strip of land on the extreme edge of the American continent. (Please keep in mind that Israel is the size of New Jersey, so any "extreme edge" is bound to be vast in comparison). Now imagine if the Americans who wanted independence were not themselves of predominantly British origins, Anglophiles, businessmen who traded with the British, and people who otherwise had no quarrel with Mother England. Imagine that the dominant religion in America was not itself the Church of England and that most of the minority sects did not also have mother institutions in Britain and deep ties to Britain and the British. Imagine that Americans were not a people who had never expressed any interested in attacking the English qua English or destroying Mother England. Imagine instead that they were fundamentally hostile to all things British and the very idea of Britain, its culture, its history, its Church, its values, its existence Imagine that the Americans had spent 100 years prior to 1776 declaring and demonstrating their intent to exterminate the British, go after them in their homes, and efface Britain from the world. Imagine that, when given the opportunity, they have tried to do just that.

So when Palestinians claim in the halls of the UN the right to self-determination, rational observers have cause to hesitate.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> So when Palestinians claim in the halls of the UN the right to self-determination, rational observers have cause to hesitate.


You could say that.

I'd say rational observers have cause to laugh their collective asses off!!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WAshington never ordered suicide bombers to blow themselves up in crowded London banquet halls where families were celebrating religious festivals. Arafat did, using eu money, by the way. How confident are we about his successors? And they're not the radicals, or so we tell ourselves.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> I think that you'll find that it was French and Spanish military intervention that allowed the US to win. Your answer suggests that Palestine looks for military assistance from their friends, or from people opposed to Israel. Perhaps they will. How will that promote international peace?


Indeed, Chouan, we did have allies in that most historic and glorious of all revolutionary conflicts, but it was the courage, spirit and vision of the colonials that served as the catalysts for victory. However, that really is not the point...now is it? As others have mentioned, the Palestinians have been looking to their "friends" for assistance for quite some years/decades now, as has Israel. That trend will not soon end. Should you care for a preview of how it will end, read your Bible...the Book of Revelations provides a pretty good description of the blast effects of thermonuclear weapons. Thanks to the now defunct Soviet Union, there is a fair amount of fissionable material floating around out there, unaccounted for. Certain of the nations presently counted as members of the Nuke club are pretty shaky, as are the controls they claim to maintain over their most prized military toys. Somewhat demented religious extremists of many faiths are simply dying (pun intended) to get their hands on a nuke or any other types of weapons of mass destruction.

On the financial front, virtually every developed nation seems to be living on credit, financed by the other guy and running up bills that will never be paid. China will never have to defeat the US on the battlefield...Hell, they have already bought and paid for us. Great Britian and other nation states comprising the European Union are all living on borrowed money. When our collective houses of cards fall, gentlemen, those left holding the bag are going to be looking for payback...and there will be none coming. Perhaps it's time for all of us to form a Conga line and line up behind Turkey? :crazy:

Choose your poison, Nationalism/patriotism, religious extremism or irresponsible financial excesses; the time for paying the piper is rushing down upon us and carries with it the prospects of a perfect storm, formed of all three issues in conflict. In short Chouan, what was suggested by my original post, "will do nothing to promote international peace!" That just is not in the foreseeable future. I would be more inclined to suggest that we are looking at the early days of the beginning of the 'by gawd' end times! :teacha:


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda is right on the mark. The whining Palestinians should wait another sixty three years or until the "time is right" for their own state. I mean, what the heck is wrong with these people, Israel treats them okay right?

The Palestinians have wealthy Americans watching out for them and to guide the U.S. political process to see to it that they're looked out for right?

I mean one of the most tuned in American diplomats to middle east issues Jimmy Carter only called the conditions the Israeli's have put the Palestinians living under as akin to apartheid,....

From a Philadelphia Inquirer:

In 2006, former president and Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter drew the scorn of the Israeli government and its supporters when he published a book outlining a plan for peace in Palestine that equated Israel's policies in the occupied territories with South African "apartheid." For context, the International Criminal Court classifies apartheid as one of 11 "crimes against humanity" and defines it as an act "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
In other words, it's not an accusation to be made lightly.
Defending his position on the MSNBC show _Hardball_, Carter pointed as evidence for his claims to: '[t]he [Israeli] occupation of Palestinian land, the confiscation of that land that doesn't belong to Israel, the building of settlements on it, the colonization of that land and then the connection of those isolated but multiple settlements &#8230; with each other by highways on which Palestinians can not travel and in many cases can not even cross." *He went on to characterize the conditions of life in the Occupied Territories as "one of the worst examples of human rights abuses I know."*
*Regardless of how one feels about Carter's assertions, it's impossible to quibble with the man's authority on the subject.* Since the 1990s he has traveled extensively in the Middle East and North Africa on missions of diplomacy and coalition building. In 1978, as president, Carter came closer than any leader before or since to establishing a roadmap for peace between Arabs and Israelis. The Camp David Accords led to the establishment of the first diplomatic ties between Israel and an Arab country (Egypt) and laid the foundation for the sporadic dialogue between the parties (Oslo 1993, for instance) that has continued―albeit tenuously―to this day.
Last Tuesday, Carter came out in support of the Palestinian Authority's planned move to gain official status in the United Nations, saying he "reluctantly" backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's bid for state membership as an "alternative to a deadlock." Carter stressed that his support was predicated on the failure of the Obama administration to further peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Since Obama took office, the two sides have only met once, briefly, a testament to the doggedness of conservative Likud Party Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu―who refused to pick up negotiations where his more progressive predecessor Ehud Olmert left off.

But the Israeli's just want to promote international peace right?

The U.N. charter is inherently corrupt in that the state of Israel should not have been allowed to be created until a *real *solution of where, as in a state with borders, the Palestinians would live.

One would never know that my Grandfather was a German Jew or that I support the Jewish state.

Israel is dead wrong on this one. The longer they wait to give the Palestinians their own state with secure borders to live in the more hatred will be created by future generations of Palestinians who grow up in squalor.

post script: The best point of all was made when it was asserted that the Israeli's kicked butt on the battlefield and therefore their will should prevail. Supporters of Israel better hope and pray, literally, that the U.S. never abandons them because if that were to ever happen their "Battlefield strength' would be limited to getting their collective butts kicked unless they chose to employ Nuclear weapons.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You could say that.
> 
> I'd say rational observers have cause to laugh their collective asses off!!


Yeah, that's the way, point and laugh at the Palestinians, poke them with a stick,....just like the Germans did to the Jews.

You're obviously a fellow who's waiting for the Messiah,....


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> I mean one of the most tuned in American diplomats to middle east issues Jimmy Carter...
> 
> From a Philadelphia Inquirer:
> 
> In 2006, former president and Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter drew the scorn of the Israeli government and its supporters when he published a book outlining a plan for peace in Palestine that equated Israel's policies in the occupied territories with South African "apartheid."





Chouan said:


> Not that your source is biased at all.....


:biggrin:


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

I agree, it is funny. In a very diseased kind of way.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Chouan said:


> If the Founding Fathers of US independence had followed that line, they would still have been attempting to negotiate their independence from an intransigent British government in 1839!
> Am I missing something here?


You are missing the fact that the government of Great Britain recognized American independence in 1783, in the Treaty of Paris.

Israel has not recognized Palestine as an independent nation, at least not so far as I'm aware.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Other problems with the analogy:

The American colonists were Britons who _left_ and went and established colonies on a whole different continent, which - except for the presence of those colonists themselves - had precious little to do with Great Britain. From day 1 they had their own legislatures. They _never_ subjected themselves to the English parliament. Would've been kind of weird if they did, since they - unlike people in Britain - didn't elect anybody to it.

They did acknowledge the English king as their sovereign, up until he abused that role, as detailed in the Declaration of Independence. What? There's no history of subjects of the English crown removing themselves from his authority? What happened in 1649, then?

If you really wanted to draw an analogy between Israel today and America in the 18th Century, the Israelis would be the Americans and the Palestinians would be the Indians. Not the best historical analogy.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Silly.
> 
> They already have.
> 
> ...


It's a good thing then that Israel isn't looking for nationhood now, given their numerous breaches of UN resolutions!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

The israelis hardly treat them alright though. The restrictions on Palestinians are very harsh by any standards, even if sometimes motivated by legitimate security concerns. Palestinians have been treated like second class citizens in Israel for a very long time. They want to sit at the front of the bus too in the country they where born in...

Also, taking a legalistic approach to the charter is not a very strong position, as any lawyer with basic knowledge of international law vs the practicalities of interstate relations would probably agree that the UN could very well choose to make Palestine a state. Had the US backed the idea, that is. International law is, for better or worse, not very strong in the legalistic sense. There's no appeal on a UN decision to make Palestine a state.

However one stands on the issue, and I could argue both ways, it will definitely cost the US (and president Obama in particular). 

It's also a little late in the game to refer to Palestine and say that they need to wait another 60 years for independence, when everyone in the international community is currently working towards just that, recognising that it is the most stable approach to peace.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> It's a good thing then that Israel isn't looking for nationhood now, given their numerous breaches of UN resolutions!


It's a good thing most places aren't looking for nationhood. People (not individuals) are inherently violent critters. We draw lines in the sand, and we try to kill the people who cross the line.

Most nations _historically_ couldn't pass a quick once over if being peaceful was a prerequisite.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

So why judge Palestine differently?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> So why judge Palestine differently?


https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ This is an *excellent* article. I have no doubt that this article could not have been published in an American based press organization. It is an in depth analysis of why American political policy is so highly biased in favor of the Israeli lobby.

Problem is most people, especially Americans, need something that can fit on a bumper sticker, preferably rhyming, in order for it to resonate with them.

I have to state once again that my Grandfather was a German Jew and I am pro-Israel.

That being said, with each passing year that the Palestinians continue to live as third class citizens without a nation with borders the world is stacking dynamite next to a great fire that has been building for sixty three years.

Chouan, from your posts I can tell that I'm preaching to the choir but please take the time to read this article.

Thank you Kingstonian.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Well said, 127.72MHz. The lack of balance in the American media is staggering - one finds much more balance in the Israeli media than here. In America, everyone seems to be a card-carrying member of the Likud party; there is far more diversity of thought on this subject in Israel than in the U.S.!

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's essay on the power of the Israeli Lobby - and its impact on American foreign policy - is a masterwork. Of course, as soon as it was published, AIPAC and the usual suspects labeled them as anti-Semitic. Why use truth and logic when a smear campaign loaded with distortions is so much more effective?

It is unfortunate that Americans can't get an honest appraisal of this situation from the mainstream media, and that U.S. politicians are so beholden to a foreign power and its lobbying arm(s). George Washington's admonition about avoiding permanent alliances and foreign entanglements is as true today as it was in 1796...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> WAshington never ordered suicide bombers to blow themselves up in crowded London banquet halls where families were celebrating religious festivals. Arafat did, using eu money, by the way. How confident are we about his successors? And they're not the radicals, or so we tell ourselves.


On the other hand, Israeli terrorists carried out a bombing campaign against British civilians prior to them gaining acceptance as a Nation by the UN. Did terrorism then not count? Or is it only Palestinian terrorism that counts?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ This is an *excellent* article. I have no doubt that this article could not have been published in an American based press organization. It is an in depth analysis of why American political policy is so highly biased in favor of the Israeli lobby.
> 
> Problem is most people, especially Americans, need something that can fit on a bumper sticker, preferably rhyming, in order for it to resonate with them.
> 
> ...


A fascinating article, and the comments posted about it were also illuminating. Thanks for directing me to it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> It's a good thing most places aren't looking for nationhood. People (not individuals) are inherently violent critters. We draw lines in the sand, and we try to kill the people who cross the line.
> 
> Most nations _historically_ couldn't pass a quick once over if being peaceful was a prerequisite.


So why disqualify Palestine then?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> So why disqualify Palestine then?


Just as I suspected.

Past poor behavior justifies present poor behavior even when there is no analogy so long as it fits an agenda.

"The sorry truth is that if the *Arabs had no weapons there'd be peace*, *while if* *Israel had no weapons there'd be no Israel*."


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Just as I suspected.
> 
> Past poor behavior justifies present poor behavior even when there is no analogy so long as it fits an agenda.
> 
> "The sorry truth is that if the *Arabs had no weapons there'd be peace*, *while if* *Israel had no weapons there'd be no Israel*."


If the original American rebels had had no weapons, there would have been peace as well. And a slightly larger Britain.

If the original settlers hadn't had guns, there'd be an Indian US. If the British had had no weapons there'd be a larger Germany.

It's a little sad to say that 'if just THAT people where to submit to their betters, there'd be peace'.

If Israel had no weapons it would not be able to survive as a state. True. Palestine isn't a state so I guess by that logic they need to keep their weapons?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Referring to post #29.
Amen and amen!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> If the original American rebels had had no weapons, there would have been peace as well. And a slightly larger Britain.
> 
> If the original settlers hadn't had guns, there'd be an Indian US. If the British had had no weapons there'd be a larger Germany.
> 
> It's a little sad to say that 'if just THAT people where to submit to their betters, there'd be peace'.


So why did you say it??

Everyone knows if Free Men submit to tyranny there will be peace.

Most beleive Palistine will be a State one day.

The issue here is a matter of process.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So why did you say it??
> 
> Everyone knows if Free Men submit to tyranny there will be peace.
> 
> ...


A matter of process? 

The veto came because of procedural concerns? Could the process have been challenged and reversed? If not, what was the concern?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Just as I suspected.
> 
> Past poor behavior justifies present poor behavior even when there is no analogy so long as it fits an agenda.
> 
> "The sorry truth is that if the *Arabs had no weapons there'd be peace*, *while if* *Israel had no weapons there'd be no Israel*."


Not just no Israel, but a seriously big mass grave. Or are we seriously to consider the possibility that the world would open its arms to waves of Jewish refugees the way it did in the 1930s, the 1940s-post war, and after the Arab world drove out its Jews in the 1950s... oh, wait...


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

For the record, I think a two-state solution is absolutely necessary, as are serious negotiations and a REAL halt to settlements. Deferring Palestinian aspirations further will, as another poster commented, only increase the danger to all of us.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

The attacks are hardly comparable: a Palestinian wipes out a family in an Israeli city while it celebrates a religious holiday. Zionist terrorists bomb a hotel in Jerusalem, killing visiting Brits. Are these really the same to you?

Yes, they did kill British civilians, although not in Britain. There was never any interest in killing British people because they were British or whiping out Britain. Britain itself was never, ever, threatened by the Jewish palestinian terrorists. You should also note that in the course of Israeli politics, the extremists associated with the terrorism were purged. Look up the so-called Atalena. That hasn't exactly happened among the Palestinians.



Chouan said:


> On the other hand, Israeli terrorists carried out a bombing campaign against British civilians prior to them gaining acceptance as a Nation by the UN. Did terrorism then not count? Or is it only Palestinian terrorism that counts?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Just as I suspected.
> 
> Past poor behavior justifies present poor behavior even when there is no analogy so long as it fits an agenda.
> 
> "The sorry truth is that if the *Arabs had no weapons there'd be peace*, *while if* *Israel had no weapons there'd be no Israel*."


And From eagle2250:

^^Referring to post #29.
"Amen and amen! :wink2: "

This is likely and I have to agree.

So the two of you are saying that the entire world should let a hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu continue to make the lives of Palestinians a living hell.

Wouldashoulda has already stated that since the Israeli's have kicked butt on the battlefield that their will should prevail.

Mainstream worldwide public opinion is finally reaching the point where they realize that the Israeli's only want to ensure peace through supporting the status quo. i.e. we have the military to kick the Palestinian's butts and the U.S. will help us continue to be able to do so.

No creative solutions guys?

You can't be so daft as to suggest that the current situation is sustainable.
​


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> The attacks are hardly comparable: a Palestinian wipes out a family in an Israeli city while it celebrates a religious holiday. Zionist terrorists bomb a hotel in Jerusalem, killing visiting Brits. Are these really the same to you?
> 
> Yes, they did kill British civilians, although not in Britain. There was never any interest in killing British people because they were British or whiping out Britain. Britain itself was never, ever, threatened by the Jewish palestinian terrorists. You should also note that in the course of Israeli politics, the extremists associated with the terrorism were purged. Look up the so-called Atalena. That hasn't exactly happened among the Palestinians.


The operations carried out by Israeli intelligence services in the area may be called extreme as well, although they are acting in an extreme situation.

The problem is that this extreme situation has been going on for a very long time, paid for by people who don't live there.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> So the two of you are saying that the entire world should let a hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu continue to make the lives of Palestinians a living hell.
> 
> Wouldashoulda has already stated that since the Israeli's have kicked butt on the battlefield that their will should prevail.


1) A living Hell?? Really??

Asked whether they preferred to become a citizen of a future Palestinian state, "with all the rights and privileges of other citizens of Palestine," or a citizen of Israel, with the rights and privileges of Israelis, 30% said they would choose Palestinian citizenship; 35% Israeli citizenship; and 35% either declined to answer or said they didn't know.

East Jerusalem is home to 288,000 Arabs, and some Palestinian leaders, such as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, say it should be made the capital of an independent Palestinian state.

Israel captured the eastern part of the city from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War and says Jerusalem will always be its undivided capital.
"People are conflicted," said Nabil Kukali, director of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll for Pechter Middle East Polls and the Council on Foreign Affairs. The poll was conducted in all 19 East Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods.

According to the latest available statistics from 2008, of the roughly 460,000 people living in East Jerusalem, 57% are Muslim and 43% are Jewish.

Although the vast majority of Arabs in East Jerusalem have spurned Israeli citizenship, believing it would undermine Palestinian aspirations to have East Jerusalem as their capital, Israeli ID cards are highly prized, Kukali said.

As ID-card-carrying residents of Jerusalem, Kukali said, East Jerusalemites "receive a lot of services," including access to health care, social benefits such as disability insurance and pensions, higher wages, "and most importantly, the ability to move from place to place and to travel abroad."

https://content.usatoday.com/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=azcentral&sParam=50470736.story

2) That falls under the well known international doctrine of "Losers Weepers" and it used to mean something!!


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Great points. This extreem situation has brewed extreme hatred amongst two generations of Palestinians who've grown up in camps while most everyone of them has a family member who's been injured or killed by people acting on behalf of Israel.

The political hawks need to understand that unless this situation is changed it will end badly for everyone. (Including Israel and the United States)


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> For the record, I think a two-state solution is absolutely necessary,
> 
> Deferring Palestinian aspirations further will, as another poster commented, only increase the danger to all of us.


1) I agree

2) I do not agree.

Deferring Palestinian aspirations further may assure that a deal is struck with a real unifying peaceful leader of Palistine that can controll or kick out Hamas for the betterment of all "Palestinians."

I think that is what the veto crowd is looking forward to.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) A living Hell?? Really??
> 
> 2) That falls under the well known international doctrine of "Losers Weepers" and it used to mean something!!


Yes a living Hell.

Jimmy Carter Is Right on Palestine Statehood After 30 years of failed negotiations, maybe it's time to give the Palestinians equal footing
Posted on 9/22/2011 at 8:44AM
Text Size: A | A | A
RSS FEED


5 like







 10 don't like







 Email 
 *5* 

 
*0* 

 
*28* 



Pro-Israeli marchers confront Jewish peace activists during a parade on the Ben Franklin Parkway commemorating the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel. (May 2008) PHOTO: Christopher Moraff

In 2006, former president and Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter drew the scorn of the Israeli government and its supporters when he published a book outlining a plan for peace in Palestine that equated Israel's policies in the occupied territories with South African "apartheid." For context, the International Criminal Court classifies apartheid as one of 11 "crimes against humanity" and defines it as an act "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
In other words, it's not an accusation to be made lightly.
Defending his position on the MSNBC show _Hardball_, Carter pointed as evidence for his claims to: '[t]he [Israeli] occupation of Palestinian land, the confiscation of that land that doesn't belong to Israel, the building of settlements on it, the colonization of that land and then the connection of those isolated but multiple settlements &#8230; with each other by highways on which Palestinians can not travel and in many cases can not even cross." He went on to characterize the conditions of life in the Occupied Territories as "one of the worst examples of human rights abuses I know."
Regardless of how one feels about Carter's assertions, it's impossible to quibble with the man's authority on the subject. Since the 1990s he has traveled extensively in the Middle East and North Africa on missions of diplomacy and coalition building. In 1978, as president, Carter came closer than any leader before or since to establishing a roadmap for peace between Arabs and Israelis. The Camp David Accords led to the establishment of the first diplomatic ties between Israel and an Arab country (Egypt) and laid the foundation for the sporadic dialogue between the parties (Oslo 1993, for instance) that has continued―albeit tenuously―to this day.
Last Tuesday, Carter came out in support of the Palestinian Authority's planned move to gain official status in the United Nations, saying he "reluctantly" backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's bid for state membership as an "alternative to a deadlock." Carter stressed that his support was predicated on the failure of the Obama administration to further peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Since Obama took office, the two sides have only met once, briefly, a testament to the doggedness of conservative Likud Party Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu―who refused to pick up negotiations where his more progressive predecessor Ehud Olmert left off.
On Friday Abbas is expected to make a plea to the United Nations Security Council for full state membership in the international body; at last count he was close to having the necessary two-thirds vote to pass the measure. As of Monday, only the U.S. and Germany definitively opposed the bid and President Obama has pledged to use America's veto power to halt the move should that become necessary. Abbas's other option, and one that holds more promise, is to vie for the lesser classification of "state observer" status in the General Assembly, which will give the PA more authority to draft resolutions and make formal appeals.
By Wednesday the Obama administration was locked in backroom 11th hour negotiations aimed at avoiding the confrontation. In a speech before the UN General Assembly, the president stressed his belief that the proper venue for a resolution of Palestinian Statehood is not the United Nations.
"&#8230;[t]he deadlock will only be broken," the president said, "when each side learns to stand in the other's shoes [and] each side can see the world through the other's eyes."
That's a lovely sentiment, but unfortunately that's all it is. For more than 30 years, beginning at Camp David, what little negotiation has occurred between the Israelis and Palestinians has been on unequal footing. As occupiers, the Israelis have maintained strict control over the movements of an entire nation, using military force when necessary, while systematically colonizing Palestinian land. According to one Israeli human rights group, settlements now cover more than 40 percent of the West Bank, a fifth of them on private Palestinian land (as opposed to "state land" legally acquired by Israel.) Between October 2010 and July of this year alone, more than 2,500 building projects have commenced in the West Bank, double the number of those in Israel, while construction continues on a more than 400-mile long wall that will effectively isolate the entire West Bank. Today Palestinians need permits to travel from one town to the next in their own territory.
It doesn't take a strategist to know this is not an ideal position from which to negotiate. But that hasn't stopped the PA from making significant strides in nation building that have been recognized by the international community. Earlier this year both the World Bank and International Monetary Fund lauded the Palestinian state's "solid track record in reforms and institution-building in the public finance and financial areas," with the World Bank adding that the Authority is "well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future."
It seems the only thing standing in its way is the refusal of Israel to get back to the negotiating table and stop building settlements in land that is outside of the boundaries of the pre-1967 Green Line. Can anyone really blame Abbas for taking the issue international?
When considering an issue as charged as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is best to avoid qualitative assessments and focus instead on the facts. So here they are.
It's been nearly a full century since Britain first created the tinderbox that is now comprised of Israel and the Occupied Territories by simultaneously promising the land it took in 1917 from the Ottoman Empire (which had controlled it since the 1500s) to both the indigenous Arabs (with the help of Lawrence of Arabia) and a then small but growing community of Zionists (through the Balfour Agreement).
Things only got worse when, in 1947, the United Nations issued U.N. General Assembly Resolution No. 181, which formally partitioned Palestine between Jews (whose numbers swelled during and after the Second World War) and Arabs. According to the nonprofit Middle East Research and Information Project, the deal went something like this: the Palestinians, who owned cumulatively more than 92 percent of the land, were given less than half of it, while Jews were given 56 percent of the land even though they owned only 8 percent of it and they made up less than a third of the population. Not surprisingly, the Palestine Arabs rejected a plan that would dissect their nation and leave them short changed in the process and dug in for a fight. The State of Israel was declared a year later with little account given to the borders outlined in the UN declaration.
Three wars and two nationwide Intifadas later, we are right where this all started, in the United Nations. Which is why no one, least of all the Palestinian Authority, is under any illusion that membership in the UN will miraculously lead to an end to the conflict. To echo the president, in order to reach a lasting peace "it is the Israelis and the Palestinians &#8230; who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them."
But UN membership, or a compromise of "state observer" status, will go a long way toward that goal by giving the Palestinians the proper platform for negotiating on the world stage.
I can't imagine why that would be a problem.

What pathway do you advocate for creating a state with borders where the Palestinians can live?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

127.72 MHz said:


> And From eagle2250:
> 
> ^^Referring to post #29.
> "Amen and amen! :wink2: "
> ...


Whether the situation is sustainable or not is not really the issue. This conflict has been ongoing for almost 500 years, involving different adversaries perhaps, but with the same general basis for disagreement. Palestine and Isreal are simply the present tips of the iceberg. Give the Palestinian's a piece of sand to call their own...and the conflict will continue. Drive Israel completely from the region and the players might change, but the conflict will go on, perhaps with greatly expanded borders. Does it not seem unreasonable to any of us that we find ourselves re-fighting the Crusades? Do we have any doubt that if Iran were to develop a nuclear capability that they would employ such against Israel or any of the other western infidels who failed to cowtow to their extremist demands?

Prior to his being called to justice, Osama bin Rotting-Away established gaining a nuclear or WMD capability as major objectives for his 'band of merry men!' Those objectives have not changed with his death. Conflict/combat is central to the nature of man. Thirty-one years of (combined active and reserve ) military service afforded me the opportunity to contribute during three different conflicts. My one son-in-law, during his 11 years of active military duty, exclusive of the time he has spent in the Recruiting business, has done almost nothing other that combat deployments. Things are not getting more peaceful, but rather conflict is rapidly becoming the norm. If man is breathing, he is fighting for one thing or another! While I cannot offer any solutions, I sure as h*ll can predict how this is all going to end and trust me, it will not be pretty and virtually no one will be spared!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) I agree
> 
> 2) I do not agree.
> 
> ...


If Palestinians support Hamas, which judging from elections they do, why should they get kicked out?

Why shouldn't they get to choose their own leadership? We all felt you were putting it on a little thin when you chose George the younger for president, but we never excluded him from the merry goings on.

As for the Palestinians wishing for Israeli ids etc, might be because you sometimes aren't allowed to go to work for days on end if your Palestinian in Israel. The situation in Israel for Palestinians have really sucked. You can't debate that.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Whether the situation is sustainable or not is not really the issue. This conflict has been ongoing for almost 500 years, involving different adversaries perhaps, but with the same general basis for disagreement. Palestine and Isreal are simply the present tips of the iceberg. Give the Palestinian's a piece of sand to call their own...and the conflict will continue. Drive Israel completely from the region and the players might change, but the conflict will go on, perhaps with greatly expanded borders. Does it not seem unreasonable to any of us that we find ourselves re-fighting the Crusades? Do we have any doubt that if Iran were to develop a nuclear capability that they would employ such against Israel or any of the other western infidels who failed to cowtow to their extremist demands?
> 
> Prior to his being called to justice, Osama bin Rotting-Away established gaining a nuclear or WMD capability as major objectives for his 'band of merry men!' Those objectives have not changed with his death. Conflict/combat is central to the nature of man. Thirty-one years of (combined active and reserve ) military service afforded me the opportunity to contribute during three different conflicts. My one son-in-law, during his 11 years of active military duty, exclusive of the time he has spent in the Recruiting business, has done almost nothing other that combat deployments. Things are not getting more peaceful, but rather conflict is rapidly becoming the norm. If man is breathing, he is fighting for one thing or another! While I cannot offer any solutions, I sure as h*ll can predict how this is all going to end and trust me, it will not be pretty and virtually no one will be spared!


I don't feel that any fighting for Jewish interests in Israel is a historic continuation of the crusades. What's the basis of disagreement?

Also, Iran launching a nuclear strike against Israel would probably not happen. They would fear retaliation and they aren't complete madmen. I have serious doubts about Iran going to war with a country they have no borders to.

The're incidentally not Arabs either. Going back to the crusades again.

Perhaps if these conflicts were solved by diplomacy and improved relations they'd work out better. There was no military intervention that got the egyptian dictator kicked out. The Egyptians did that themselves.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Whether the situation is sustainable or not is not really the issue. This conflict has been ongoing for almost 500 years, involving different adversaries perhaps, but with the same general basis for disagreement. Palestine and Isreal are simply the present tips of the iceberg. Give the Palestinian's a piece of sand to call their own...and the conflict will continue. Drive Israel completely from the region and the players might change, but the conflict will go on, perhaps with greatly expanded borders. Does it not seem unreasonable to any of us that we find ourselves re-fighting the Crusades? Do we have any doubt that if Iran were to develop a nuclear capability that they would employ such against Israel or any of the other western infidels who failed to cowtow to their extremist demands?


It hasn't been going on for 500 years,. it has been going on since the 1920's when Zionism began to grow in importance. The Zionists moved into Palestine, buying plots of land from absentee landlords and gradually changing the demographic make up of Palestine. By the late 1930's the Palestinians were reacting with anger to their being evicted and dispossesed in their own country by non-natives from Europe, and reacted violently.
The 1940's saw a massive influx of Zionists from europe, which the UK, under the terms of the mandate given by the LoN and subsequently the UN, tried, unsuccessfully to control. Ultimately, the Zionists won, gained acceptance in the UN and gained their own country which they had carved out of Palestine, and used violence and terror to force the Palestinians out.
This is a recent phenomenon, of invaders, with foreign military and economic support displacing the original inhabitants.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

International conflict seems driven by one and/or a combination of three seminal issues of difference; misplaced and sometimes exagerated spirits of nationalism, religious extremism gone horribly wrong and conflicts over money/(strategic?) resources. All three come into play in the region of which we are speaking.

Bjorn, Chouan: I do not disagree that the confrontation between Israel and Palestine, specifically, has not been going on for almost 500 years. What I said and continue to maintain is that conflict has been almost a way of life in that region for centuries. Israel and Palestine and their minions are simply the present protagonists and antigonists. Remove either one or both from the equation and the fighting will continue, just with substitute champions in the arena.

Bjorn: You are (potentially) tragically wrong in your assessment of the intent and mental state of the Iranians, at least of some of their key players. The Iranian President is a madman and he would nuke Israel or the USA, if given the opportunity. Have you not heard, the Holocaust never happened and it was our own CIA behind the 9/11 attacks against my country. Sound crazy? It does to me. However, such must be true because Ahmadinejad says it is so! :crazy: If that isn't proof enough for you, consider this; at least four national leaders (three of which presently have access to nuclear weapons) have extolled that they will use the most extreme military assets at their disposal to defend against threats to their national interests, if they (unilaterally) perceive those interests to be threatened. Years ago, I along with many others, would descend well below the corn fields and cow pastures of Missouri and man an ICBM launch control center, waiting for orders to go to war and unleash the most unholy of mankinds dogs of war against out enemies. That experience does not make me special in any way other than it afforded an opportunity for me to observe fisthand the games of 'nuclear chicken' being played by the primary members of the nuclear powers club. Membership in that club has never been larger and the criteria more tenuious that it is today and the games of brinksmanship have never been so extreme and reckless as they are to day. Is is simply a matter of time, as we wait to see who it might be that pushes one of these games of nuclear chicken too far...and starts the dominos toppling over one another. Sir, Israel and Palestine are just present day pawns in an ongoing game!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

5oo years ago there was no conflict in Palestine. 1000 years ago there was serious conflict between the Crusaders and the Islamic, Jewish and Christian inhabitants, between which the Crusaders made no distinction; they killed all of them. By 1300 Islam had regained control of Palestine, and the only conflicts there were political ones between Islamic states, resulting, ultimately in the Ottoman Turks ruling the place. So, for the last 700 years the only conflicts were the same as most inter-european conflicts. Neither racial nor religious nor ethnic, just political. Indeed, conflict in Palestine has been significantly less common than it has been in most European countries. War between the Mamluks and the Ottomans in about 1500, then Bonaparte's invasion of Palestine in the 1790's, then Mohammed Ali's conquest in the 1830's, and, of course, the First World War. Four wars in over 600 years looks like a good record to me. It certainly doesn't look like your assertion that "conflict has been almost a way of life in that region for centuries."
How many wars has the US been involved in since it's founding? Revolutionary, 1812, how many Indian Wars, Civil War, Spanish War, First World War, Second World War, plus many "adventures" in Central America. All in 200 years. Is the US a place where ""conflict has been almost a way of life" for centuries? I wouldn't describe it as such, but by describing Palestine in those terms, an impression is created that violence is a norm, so violent repression is only to be expected.
It is Israel's interests to foster the idea of inherent conflict, as it helps to support their view that only Israel can offer stability.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Chouan said:


> It hasn't been going on for 500 years,. it has been going on since the 1920's when Zionism began to grow in importance. The Zionists moved into Palestine, buying plots of land from absentee landlords and gradually changing the demographic make up of Palestine. By the late 1930's the Palestinians were reacting with anger to their being evicted and dispossesed in their own country by non-natives from Europe, and reacted violently.
> The 1940's saw a massive influx of Zionists from europe, which the UK, under the terms of the mandate given by the LoN and subsequently the UN, tried, unsuccessfully to control. Ultimately, the Zionists won, gained acceptance in the UN and gained their own country which they had carved out of Palestine, and used violence and terror to force the Palestinians out.
> This is a recent phenomenon, of invaders, with foreign military and economic support displacing the original inhabitants.


But we do recognise Israel as a country and it is perfectly legitimate. After WWII some concessions had to be made, unfortunately at the expense of the Palestinians.

But I don't see it as a continuation of the crusades.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

There are active moderates in Iran as well, and I would not take state propaganda to be a sign of the Iranian government being completely insane. 

Iran is not North Korea. Not even North Korea is North Korea. 

Theres a point when you have initiated too many preemptive military actions on too many nations to have any credibility left. We're swiftly approaching that point. 

Israel needs to kiss and make up with the Palestinians. UN recognition would speed up that process.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Israel is of course a perfectly legitimate country. But if Israel is, so should Palestine be. If the people of Israel created a country for themselves in Palestine, by what right do we forbid the people of Palestine from creating a country for themselves in Palestine?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

You're trying to inject reason, common sense, and humanity into this issue.

Not only do the parties involved have distrust and and even hatred for one another but as has been illustrated here at AAAC even those who are not directly involved have lost sight of the fact that both the Palestinians and the Jews are human beings worthy of a degree of respect. (re-read some of the "Might makes right" posts in this thread.)

Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples.

We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their *basic needs met*, * and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions.* Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment.

Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

I wonder if some of the people who've posted in this thread even realize that their political opinions towards the Palestinians dehumanize them and set the stage for untold future atrocities against them,....

Do you believe that some of the people who've replied in this thread cognitively realize that they stigmatize the Palestinians in exactly the same manor that the Nazi's stigmatized the Jews?

A sick irony indeed,....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Well put, and depressingly true. 
As soon as nationalism arises, the despising of other nations begins, and the denial of nationhood to those cultures seen as inferior.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> If Palestinians support Hamas, which judging from elections they do, why should they get kicked out?
> 
> Why shouldn't they get to choose their own leadership?


Obviously they can and they have, to the detriment of the peace process.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> If the people of Israel created a country for themselves in Palestine, by what right do we forbid the people of Palestine from creating a country for themselves in Palestine?


Under the right conditions, no one objects. Your argument is false.

(Yet again)


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Wouldashoulda,

The tone and tenor of your posts clearly shows that you are a closet bigot. (I mean why continue to dance around it?)

I'll repeat two of the central points of my above post:

*I wonder if some of the people who've posted in this thread even realize that their political opinions towards the Palestinians dehumanize them and set the stage for untold future atrocities against them,....

Do you believe that some of the people who've replied in this thread cognitively realize that they stigmatize the Palestinians in exactly the same manor that the Nazi's stigmatized the Jews?*

You're so entrenched in a position that you simply can't be reasoned with.

Perhaps the first step, (we'll go with baby steps for you) is to ask you point blank if you are able to bring yourself to type the phrase: "Palestinians are human beings."

I fear this will be too much for you so you could just admit it silently and think of it as a personal breakthrough.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ Wouldashoulda,
> 
> The tone and tenor of your posts clearly shows that you are a closet bigot. (I mean why continue to dance around it?)
> 
> ...


1. The Personal Insult.

2. The introduction of Godwin's law.

3. The Straw Man.

What a tri-fecta!!

You shouldn't be proud.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ It's not a matter of pride. It's simply a matter of pointing out fact. If you were ignorant it could be excused but you're clearly not ignorant. You cannot even bring yourself to admit that Palestinians are human beings.

This is what you are:
A *bigot* is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender.

Although your opinions on Palestinian statehood are shared by the current hawk Benjamin Netanyahu the previous Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was much more moderate. Thankfully current polls in Israel show that a majority of Israeli citizens do not support Netanyahu's positions on Palestinian statehood.

Your posts have served as a learning moment for all to see that once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable.

As far as insults go look at your reply in post number 55. You're able to dish out insults but retreat to being a victim when you're called on your behavior.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> This is what you are:
> A *bigot* is a prejudiced person who is *intolerant of any opinions differing from their own *or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender.


Oh, the IRONY!!

Save it for captive undergrads.

My mistake was saying anything beyond post#2!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Obviously they can and they have, to the detriment of the peace process.


They aren't in control of the peace process. But that is beside the point.

The veto harms credibility, and the western hemisphere has little enough of that as it is in that region of the world. If someone could make a reasonable argument in favour of the veto, that would be more interesting.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> If someone could make a reasonable argument in favour of the veto, that would be more interesting.





WouldaShoulda said:


> My mistake was saying anything beyond post#2!!


Refute post #2


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

So you premise is that if the Palestinians have defied the U.N. charter then their entire cause is irrelevant?

There is no shortage of articles that clearly point out that the U.N. is a highly flawed organization. There were laws in the United States that said that black people had the same rights as white people. But Jim Crow laws circumvented the entire process of giving black people equal rights.

When some Americans finally came out and said that Jim Crow laws are wrong and unjust there were *bigots *at that time who said, "there are laws on the books to control "these people." And they said "Refute that!" (just as you are saying refute the fact that the Palestinians are defying the UN charter.)

So you want to discuss defying the UN Charter eh?

*UN Resolutions Targeting Israel and the Palestinians*

*Israel is the target of at least UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of .*












Aside from the core issues-refugees, Jerusalem, borders-the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
-​
*Source*: Paul Findley's (1998, pages 192-4). This number only covers resolutions passed from 1955 through 1992.
*UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992*


Resolution 106: "...'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
Resolution 248: "...'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
Resolution 250: "...'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
Resolution 251: "...'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
Resolution 256: "...'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation"
Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
Resolution 265: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians"
Resolution 471: "...'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 476: "...'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'
Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'
Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

Now you insisted that someone refute post number 2. By virtue of the fact that Israel has defied the UN Charter more times than any other nation on the planet your premise that the UN Charter is just or even correct is *completely refuted*.

Either Israel abides by the UN rules or they defy them. You simply can't have it both ways.

You haven't a rational point to stand on here and you have been exposed. This is not about trying to change your mind because as I've stated you cannot be reasoned with. This is about showing as many people as possible what your kind of thinking leads to.

Remember Mr. WouldaShoulda you will not even admit that Palestinians are human beings!

As I've stated my Grandfather was a German Jew and that makes me Jewish too. Your way of thinking towards the Palestinians, (systemic bigotry) will, in time, do more harm to the Jewish state than any war ever could. Fortunately polls show that most Israeli citizens understand this, you apparently do not.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> So you premise is that if the Palestinians have defied the U.N. charter then their entire cause is irrelevant?
> 
> *Israel is the target of at least UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of .*
> 
> ...


1. No, I have stated that their "cause" should be pursued within the bounderies of the UN's charter.

2. Can (or has) the UN routinely sanctioned non-member States or entities??

3. You have not refuted that the UN's charter prohibits the recent action of the Palastinian Authority to sidestep the peace process. You appear to have successfully argued that the UN is flawed. I will agree with you!!

4. This kind of Straw Man Meme has no place in a mature discussion.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

You talk incoherently and in circles. And given your remarks you do not have any place talking about a mature discussion. (It's a pot/kettle kind of thing)

The Israeli's have defied the UN Charter *more than any other nation on earth*.

If the Israeli's had pursued their policy based on what the UN wanted them to do you would have some ground to stand on... But they have not and therefore you do not.

You can't now, with any degree of creditability, claim that the Palestinian are wrong because they have done *one time* what the Israeli's have done more than any other nation on earth.

Do you wish to address this fact directly?

For what it's worth you espousing your highly bias bigotry does not make you a soldier for Israel. You harm the cause of the Jewish state by refusing to accept that the Palestinians should not rely on a highly flawed organization to condone their statehood.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Refute post #2


Refute post 2? 

Well, it's complete hogwash. It fakes a legalistic approach to international law, stating that the UN charter craves "respect" other existing treaties, namely the Oslo accord. It goes on to state that Palestine is perpetrating a war on Israel, and that accepting Palestine as a nation would open up for for example the Kurds to seek status as a state. Which I don't see a problem with. Let them make their case to the international community.

There: refuted

Not that it contained any actual statements of relevance, the legalese doesn't impress. Nothing says hack like "but under international law respect is required for xxxxx".

There's any number of conventions our countries are in noncompliance with at any given time. Does anything happen? No. International law is a flexible relative. The person who wrote that article obviously has no idea. Or, more likely, he's just piling up hogwash to make people believe there's a 'legal basis' for vetoing (actively vetoing) the process.

The US admin where just looking out for the finer points of legality under international law. That's why they 'vetoed', instead of letting the majority rule. Right...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Further refuted:

"- Co-authored with David Benjamin, a Jerusalem-based international law consultant and a former senior legal adviser to the Israel Defense Forces."

Comment: Ha. Ha. Ha.

As for the author, who seems a certified nutter, pictures of his other articles:

I especially enjoyed https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273998/christ-compassion-and-budgetary-reality-david-french

Or:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...ey-anthony-jury-terrorist-trials-david-french

You're gonna be lucky to get any kind of trial with this guy.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> You talk incoherently and in circles.
> 
> You can't now, with any degree of creditability, claim that the Palestinian are wrong because they have done *one time* what the Israeli's have done more than any other nation on earth.
> 
> You harm the cause of the Jewish state by refusing to accept that the Palestinians should not rely on a highly flawed organization to condone their statehood.


1) Actually I have enumerated my replies to make it easier to follow along.

2) Alleged violations by Israel is an entirely seperate matter. Regardless of their poor bahaviors, it does not make other's poor behaviors any less poor.

3) OK. Can you remind us why the Palistinian Authority is doing so??


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Voice of reason:
https://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/mohamed-elbaradei-interview-0110


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Actually I have enumerated my replies to make it easier to follow along.
> 
> 2) Alleged violations by Israel is an entirely seperate matter. Regardless of their poor bahaviors, it does not make other's poor behaviors any less poor.
> 
> 3) OK. Can you remind us why the Palistinian Authority is doing so??


So in other words you ignore or simply refuse to address issues that do not support your position.

You don't need reminding. You know full well that the Palestinians are human beings who should be afforded a degree of respect, autonomy, and self determination yet you do not wish to state so publicly. This makes you someone who is more interested in winning an argument or having the last word than in reason.

Fact is if the Israeli's were facing the same position the Palestinians currently face you would undoubtedly be one of the most violent to ensure that the Israeli's got their own state. Your positions are a living "learning moment" on what happens when right wing ideology is allowed to run rampant in an individual's mind.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Refute post 2?
> 
> Well, it's complete hogwash. It fakes a legalistic approach to international law, stating that the UN charter craves "respect" other existing treaties, namely the Oslo accord. It goes on to state that Palestine is perpetrating a war on Israel, and that accepting Palestine as a nation would open up for for example the Kurds to seek status as a state. Which I don't see a problem with. Let them make their case to the international community.
> 
> There: refuted


Let me help you out a little.

The premise is thus; *if the U.N. recognizes the Palestinian Authority, it will violate its own charter*, violate longstanding norms of international law, and further impair its credibility with vital (and powerful) members of the world community.

Now, you and others have denied, eschewed, ignored and obfuscated that premise.

But you have not refuted it.

Don't feel bad.

No one can.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> Your positions are a living "learning moment" on what happens when right wing ideology is allowed to run rampant in an individual's mind.


Logic wins over passion??


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^Your position defies logic. But I do believe the entire encounter has been positive because it's important to expose people like you. (narcissistic, highly prejudiced, and not interested in any other point of view) Although there is no doubt in my mind that you would not expose such embarrassing aspects of yourself if you were unable to speak anonymously.

I think it's safe to say that no one feels bad. (Including an obvious bigot such as yourself!):redface:

The whole United Nations argument is complete bologna but you use it because it is the only thing you can site. 

Yes indeed you are a living "learning moment" for all to see. And you remain anonymous!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^Your position defies logic. But I do believe the entire encounter has been positive because it's important to expose people like you. (narcissistic, highly prejudiced, *and not interested in any other point of view*)
> 
> The whole United Nations argument is complete bologna but you use it because it is the only thing you can site.
> 
> Yes indeed you are a living "learning moment" for all to see. And you remain anonymous!


1)

2) The whole United Nations argument is due primarily to the fact that the action referenced by this thread title occured in the UN.

3) Dude. Anonymous?? I'm right here.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/member.php?69469-WouldaShoulda


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ What the heck do you mean "Dude, Anonymous." You fool you're only name here is WouldaShoulda.

Thankfully your small mindless thinking is in an extreme minority.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The following is an example of how to refute a premise;



127.72 MHz said:


> Thankfully your small mindless thinking is in an extreme minority.


A new CNN poll shows Americans are divided on the question of creating of an independent Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, with 41 percent opposed, 40 percent in favor, and 19 percent with no opinion. When the question was asked in 2003, Americans supported the creation of a Palestinian state by a 36-point margin:

In its new poll, CNN also asks voters: "As you may know, the United Nations currently grants the Palestinians a status which allows them to speak in the U.N. but does not recognize them as an independent nation or allow them to cast votes. Do you think the United Nations should continue that policy, or should the United Nations formally recognize the Palestinians as an independent nation and admit them as full members of the U.N.?
Fifty-two percent of Americans say the policy should be continued, while 40 percent say the UN should recognize a Palestinian state. CNN notes there's a stark partisan divide on the issue: "Two-thirds of all Republicans oppose U.N. membership for the Palestinians compared to just 41 percent of Democrats."

THAT's how it's done.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Let me help you out a little.
> 
> The premise is thus; *if the U.N. recognizes the Palestinian Authority, it will violate its own charter*, violate longstanding norms of international law, and further impair its credibility with vital (and powerful) members of the world community.
> 
> ...


It won't violate the charter nor international law. There you have it.

Yes it would piss off some member states but that is par for the course. Perhaps those states need to be more open with their views and not hide behind veto rights.

When the UN recognises Palestine we can revisit the issue.

Until then, I'll just think that I did refute the rightwing nutter you quoted, and his Israel defence friend.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The following is an example of how to refute a premise;
> 
> A new CNN poll shows Americans are divided on the question of creating of an independent Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, with 41 percent opposed, 40 percent in favor, and 19 percent with no opinion. When the question was asked in 2003, Americans supported the creation of a Palestinian state by a 36-point margin:
> 
> ...


There are other states than the US. Thus: minority.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> There are other states than the US. Thus: minority.


You may be onto something.

Back it up with a link to some facts.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The following is an example of how to refute a premise;
> 
> THAT's how it's done.


The following is an example of how to refute a moron such as yourself. I was speaking of majority of *Israeli's* (Which of course has been reported in the worldwide press) But of course that doesn't fit your argument so you fail to address pointed questions and stick to your nationalist right wing dogma,....

You are not showing me or anyone else for that matter anything, save the fact that you're a bigot with a closed mind.

You've been pummeled over and over again with overwhelming facts and humanistic reason as to why keeping *any *group of people oppressed for generations is morally wrong. (It was even wrong when it has been done to Jews)

But because it's the Palestinians, and heaven only knows what your twisted moral angle is, you are quite willing to let them rot.

The posts in this thread which reply to what can only be described as "Sickness" on your end is an example of how to face off with a semi-intelligent bigot. (It is best done publicly)

And once again there is no doubt that you do not espouse these sick beliefs of yours where people know your name because you're just bright enough to understand that you would be ostracized.

That's how it's done.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> I was speaking of majority of *Israeli's*


How did I miss that??



127.72 MHz said:


> Thankfully your small mindless thinking is in an extreme minority.


Oh well.

I can not refute the fact that recent polls show Israeli's support the application of UN Statehood recognition for the PA.

But I wont resort to name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...eminder-of-the-original-premise-of-this-Forum.

A reminder of the original premise of this Forum.

This premise either means something or it does not.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> How did I miss that??
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> I can not refute the fact that recent polls show Israeli's support the application of UN Statehood recognition for the PA.


You apparently missed it because you did not read the posts. It was clearly stated.

As far as personal attacks, you're either a bigot or you're not. Your written real time actions and deeds speak much louder than anything I, or anyone else for that matter, could say about you.

And you *certainly* *have* resorted to insults and slurs. (not only to myself but to to others in this thread.) Not only have you lost any moral ground on the topic of what should happen to the Palestinians as a people but you've also lost the ability to claim that you've been treated unfairly. You're a big boy, you took off the gloves so to speak and your position has been revealed for what it is. You're in no position to make a play for the moral high ground by attempting to portray yourself as a mere debater stating your beliefs only to be shot down by those who took cheap shots at you.

No one, including myself, has sworn at you.

Furthermore this is the definition of *ad hominen*: (and before you come back and say, "Save it for the undergrads" as you've done previously, it's for the benefit of others and comparison purposes)

An _*ad hominem*_ (Latin: "to the man", "to the person"), short for _*argumentum ad hominem*_, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[SUP]
[/SUP]
There has been no attempt to negate the truth and the only thing anyone knows about you in this format is your written word. No one here at AAAC knows anything about you personally. It is however *completely fair* to draw cause and effect conclusions about where beliefs like yours, if put into practice, would lead the Palestinians. (thus the comment about you being a bigot)

A *bigot* is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or* intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class,* religion, profession, sexuality or gender. (highlighted aspects refer to your beliefs towards the Palestinians)

I would challenge anyone to read this thread without bias and come to the conclusion that your beliefs and opinions towards the Palestinians are anything other than bigotry.

So, in summary, in this thread *you* have resorted to insults and slurs. No one has sworn at you or made ad hominen attacks on you. (because by definition know one knows enough about you personally to make an ad hominem attack.)

It's like I finally said in an earlier post, why are we beating around the bush with you when it's clear from your written word that you cannot be reasoned with.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Palestine's attempt to gain Nation status was vetoed by the US this week. The Palestinian Head of State was told that he, and they, should wait until the time was right; that it was too soon and independent statehood could only be achieved by patience and negotiation with Israel, (who are using every minute that Palestine waits to encroacvh further and further onto Palestinian territory).
> If the Founding Fathers of US independence had followed that line, they would still have been attempting to negotiate their independence from an intransigent British government in 1839!
> Am I missing something here?


Let's suppose for the moment that the PA became a state. How would that help the palestinians exactly? We'd still have this impossible situation of Israel's existence in a sea of muslims who don't want a Jewish state there.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Regillus said:


> Let's suppose for the moment that the PA became a state. How would that help the palestinians exactly? We'd still have this impossible situation of Israel's existence in a sea of muslims who don't want a Jewish state there.


That problem can only be addressed by time.

Muslim right wing nutbags who feel that a state in which the majority of the inhabitants are Jewish is unacceptable need not be taken into consideration, any more than any of the other right wing nutbags out there.

A majority of Muslims are exactly like everybody else. As long as extremism is not given a good growing ground, moderate forces will prevail.

The international society need to make clear that aggression on any side will be dealt with forcefully if necessary.

But the Palestinians should be given the rights and responsibilities of a sovereign state. That way, they can't claim they're being mistreated. Right now, the Israelis are losing the moral high ground, quite rightly IMO.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Exactly Bjorn. Jimmy Carter outlines a very similar path post statehood for the Palestinians. (although he refrains from characterizing the extreme elements on the Palestinian side as Muslim right wing nutbags! :biggrin: )

It's taken many years of hardship from most everyone involved to bring the situation to what it is and there's bound to be many years of growing pains when Palestinian statehood moves forward.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Economically; is a Palestinian state viable? Know any brand-name palestinian manufacturers? What product or service is made/performed in the PA that anybody wants? Cars? Investment advice? Pharmaceutical plants? Economically the PA is a gigantic mess. They don't have any oil, uranium, molybdenum, chromium etc. What's anybody going to buy from the PA? Do you see GM, Ford, Toyota, Siemens, Novartis, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Anglo-American lining up business ventures in the PA? No; they're all in China. How is business going to succeed in a place as dangerous as the PA? IDF tanks could come rolling in at any moment and blow up your plant - accidentally of course. The PA would first have to have a very strong police force and court system to keep control of all the anti-Israeli militants running around - of which there seems to be quite a few. Most importantly; can a PA police force control Hamas and the other terrorist groups? It isn't happening so far.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Economically; is a Palestinian state viable? Know any brand-name palestinian manufacturers? What product or service is made/performed in the PA that anybody wants? Cars? Investment advice? Pharmaceutical plants? Economically the PA is a gigantic mess. They don't have any oil, uranium, molybdenum, chromium etc. What's anybody going to buy from the PA? Do you see GM, Ford, Toyota, Siemens, Novartis, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Anglo-American lining up business ventures in the PA? No; they're all in China. How is business going to succeed in a place as dangerous as the PA? IDF tanks could come rolling in at any moment and blow up your plant - accidentally of course. The PA would first have to have a very strong police force and court system to keep control of all the anti-Israeli militants running around - of which there seems to be quite a few. Most importantly; can a PA police force control Hamas and the other terrorist groups? It isn't happening so far.


What of these did Israel have when it's state was formed and accepted by the UN?


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Chouan said:


> What of these did Israel have when it's state was formed and accepted by the UN?



From the Library of Congress:

The years immediately following the state's creation in 1948 were difficult for the Israeli economy. The new state possessed no natural or financial resources, no monetary reserves, little economic infrastructure, and few public services. A sizable portion of the existing Arab population fled the new state, while impoverished and afflicted Jewish refugees poured in from the European displaced persons camps and, later, from the Arab countries. *In contrast to the 1930s, when Jewish immigrants to the Yishuv (or prestate Israel) had arrived with ample financial and human capital*, after 1948 most immigrants lacked the wealth and skills needed by the new state.
The new state had to supply food, clothing, shelter, and employment for its new citizens; set up civil and community services; and establish an independent foreign exchange, monetary, and fiscal system. Given the shortage of private capital, the burden of dealing with these problems naturally fell upon the public sector. The financial capital needed to deal with the influx of immigrants was drawn either from *the high level of domestic savings*, or from capital imports (such as foreign loans and grants), or foreign private sector investments (such as Israeli bonds). The government's solution to the capital shortage included an austerity program of stringent price controls and rationing. The government also decided to promote investment projects in agriculture and housing through the use of public funds rather than through private capital markets. The public sector thus gained control over a large part of Israel's investment resources and hence over the country's future economic activity.

---------

The 1930's immigrants brought in money, business managers and skilled workers, so when the state was formed Israel had resources available to it to begin constructing and organizing an economy. Know any rich Palestinians? Heard of any industrial-magnate Palestinians? Neither have I.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Regillus said:


> From the Library of Congress:
> 
> The years immediately following the state's creation in 1948 were difficult for the Israeli economy. The new state possessed no natural or financial resources, no monetary reserves, little economic infrastructure, and few public services. A sizable portion of the existing Arab population fled the new state, while impoverished and afflicted Jewish refugees poured in from the European displaced persons camps and, later, from the Arab countries. *In contrast to the 1930s, when Jewish immigrants to the Yishuv (or prestate Israel) had arrived with ample financial and human capital*, after 1948 most immigrants lacked the wealth and skills needed by the new state.
> The new state had to supply food, clothing, shelter, and employment for its new citizens; set up civil and community services; and establish an independent foreign exchange, monetary, and fiscal system. Given the shortage of private capital, the burden of dealing with these problems naturally fell upon the public sector. The financial capital needed to deal with the influx of immigrants was drawn either from *the high level of domestic savings*, or from capital imports (such as foreign loans and grants), or foreign private sector investments (such as Israeli bonds). The government's solution to the capital shortage included an austerity program of stringent price controls and rationing. The government also decided to promote investment projects in agriculture and housing through the use of public funds rather than through private capital markets. The public sector thus gained control over a large part of Israel's investment resources and hence over the country's future economic activity.
> ...


Statehood can't be the right only of the wealthy. In fact, there is no connection.

Noone said anything about creating a wealthy state. They will need to work hard to get there.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Statehood can't be the right only of the wealthy. In fact, there is no connection.
> 
> Noone said anything about creating a wealthy state. They will need to work hard to get there.


Oh I didn't mean that statehood should only be for the wealthy. I meant that Israel had, at its founding, wealthy and skilled individuals who were capable of forming a viable economy. Business creation leads to job creation leads to a rising economic tide lifting all boats. My point being that I can't recall hearing about prominent Palestinian businessmen who are capable of organizing and growing a well-functioning economy. Maybe it's just because I don't read Arabic, but who are the Palestinians who would form the core of a business that could grow into a regional economic powerhouse like: Sears, Roebuck and Co. in the U.S.; Selfridges in the U.K. being examples of what I mean.

Sure statehood would be nice to have for the the Palestinians. A clear path and plan to a viable economy would be nice too.

From ArabianBusiness.com:

Amid political and economic turmoil, the city of Ramallah has established itself as a rare example of 
stability and development in the West Bank. Yet as Gulf developers look to make the most of new 
opportunities in Palestine, such growth remains precarious in the extreme.

------

See what I mean? To have a successful state you need a successful economy. There are plenty of rich Arabs ready to put money into business development in Palestine, but who in Palestine would take this investment money and build a business in a place as dangerous as Palestine?

At the present time a Palestinian state would be a state in name only. There's too much shooting going on.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Thus far, any attempt at economic development by Palestinians has been stopped by Israeli restrictions on movement, import and export. Perhaps without those restrictions a Palestinian state could develop economically? It is hard to develop a business if clients can't buy from you, if you can't import raw materials, or export products, or even visit potential suppliers or markets. The only economic activity effectively open to Palestinians is agriculture, and even that is effected by Israeli controls, and the illegal building of new Israeli settlements on land owned by Palestinians. Even water is diverted away from Palestinian farmland to Israeli settlements.


----------



## mommatook1 (Apr 17, 2008)

Chouan said:


> I think that you'll find that it was French and Spanish military intervention that allowed the US to win. Your answer suggests that Palestine looks for military assistance from their friends, or from people opposed to Israel. Perhaps they will. How will that promote international peace?


I think you'll also find it was British arrogance that allowed the US to win.

As for the topic of this thread, I don't have time to read this entire thing, but agree it was probably foolish for US to use veto authority. Obama has pretty much thrown away any credibility he might have had regarding that issue, and recognizing PA, while not the ideal example of what constitutes 'statehood', would at the very least force a change from the status quo. Palestinian statehood is inevitable, no matter what optic you view the conflict from.

I've never fully understood the seeming blind-faith allegiance our country has to Israel wrt foreign policy. While think it is our duty to assist them in the face of a true, existential threat from their Muslim neighbors, they haven't faced that threat for decades. They are more than capable of handling their own low-level regional CT ops, which honestly the outcome of which does not affect us. The current status quo is not sustainable in the long term, and the 'police-state' relationship that has evolved between Israel and Palestine is nothing if not ironic, given the origins of Jewish migration that lead to the establishment of Israel in the first place.

My two cents...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Most importantly; can a PA police force control Hamas and the other terrorist groups? It isn't happening so far.


Careful.

Bigotry or slights of any kind against terror organizations is frowned upon.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Careful.
> 
> Bigotry or slights of any kind against terror organizations is frowned upon.


Except for Irish Republican terrorism, of course.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Careful.
> 
> Bigotry or slights of any kind against terror organizations is frowned upon.


No doubt that there are highly extreme elements on both sides of this issue. For what just one opinion is worth I believe the extreme elements on the Palestinian side are more dangerous than those on the Israeli side.

There's little doubt that the Palestinian authority is not strong enough to control it's extreme elements. It's a big issue. Recognizing that it will be difficult, if not impossible in the short term, to control Hamas is not frowned upon.

Bigotry on the other hand must be recognized, acknowledged, and dealt with.

The context of these extreme elements on the Palestinian side is understanding that it has been sixty three years since these people were kicked off the land they had been living on for a long time. As has been documented by the worldwide press over many years, most every Palestinian has had someone in their family beaten, imprisoned, or killed by the Israeli Defense Force. At times I believe the Israeli's had to move in to stop attacks on their country that were coming from the Palestinians.

None the less most anyone who's had a family member beaten, imprisoned, or killed would harbor at the very least mistrust, and possibly hatred, towards whoever harmed their family member(s).

The American civil rights movement saw extreme elements in what was then known as the ***** movement. These angry, mostly younger blacks, felt as though their race had waited long enough for some sort of equality with white Americans. Many of these groups espoused violence, "By any means necessary" attitudes against the U.S. government. (noticing any parallels?)

Most all of these ***** rights organizations were termed as "Terrorist Groups" by the United States government. (sound familiar?)

Then too, as in this case, there were dyed in the wool bigots who were opposed to any negotiations with the so called "black movement" until they unilaterally stopped all threats and violence. Of course these bigots knew full well that the movement was so large that it would be impossible for all of the splintered factions to come together and agree to these demands.

Their *real* aim was to muddy the waters in hopes that the whole issue would eventually die down. Of course it wouldn't and the Palestinian cause will not die down either.

Rather than argue a position point by point I'll go a step further and say that the state of Israel should never have been allowed to be created unless a viable solution, including land with borders, was found for the people who were kicked off the land that was used to create the Jewish state. The only reason it did happen is because the Jews had huge pocketbooks and the United States on their side

Bottom line for Wouldashoulda, the Palestinians have been harmed by the creation of the state of Israel. At this point the longer it takes the Israel government to move forward with a Palestinian state with borders, (not a map that looks like Swiss cheese) the worse they are going to look in worldwide public opinion.

It's time to do the right thing.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> No doubt that there are highly extreme elements on both sides of this issue. For what just one opinion is worth I believe the extreme elements on the Palestinian side are more dangerous than those on the Israeli side.
> 
> There's little doubt that the Palestinian authority is not strong enough to control it's extreme elements. It's a big issue. Recognizing that it will be difficult, if not impossible in the short term, to control Hamas is not frowned upon.


These are salient points.

It's a shame your emotions were allowed to get the better of you.

Some people, maybe even an International minority, beleive that until the Palestinian authority is strong enough to control it's extreme elements that negotiation is pointless.

They are not bigots for beleiving thus.

They are not morons.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> These are salient points.
> 
> It's a shame your emotions were allowed to get the better of you.
> 
> ...


The shame is that you have been unwilling to admit that the net result of your position where the Palestinians are concerned would never lead to them having their own state. (I think it's clear that this is your real aim)

Given the positions that you've taken it's not a bit surprising that you let your emotions get the best of you throughout this thread.

The Palestinian government is so weak that there is little chance in the near future, years if ever, that they will be able to control the extreme elements from within their ranks. The net result of insisting that until they have the strength to control everyone, every single last individual, from within their movement, is that they will never get statehood.

That position in and of itself does not make them bigots. The thing about a bigot, is that they rarely, if ever, admit to their feelings because they fear being ostracized. (can you site one example of anyone who has ever admitted to being a bigot?)

To make such an assertion requires taking into account several factors. Just as there were closet bigots during the American civil rights movement that used false yardsticks as preconditions as to when American blacks could have real equality there are individuals in this emotionally charged situation who are doing the same thing. (given the entirety of your posts I believe you qualify)

I think this is a good example, among many, where you have let your true colors shine:

Originally Posted by *tocqueville* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1241206#post1241206 
So when Palestinians claim in the halls of the UN the right to self-determination, rational observers have cause to hesitate.
* Your reply*: You could say that.

*I'd say rational observers have cause to laugh their collective asses off!! *

Your written word, as well as my own speaks much louder as to our collective motives than anything we could say about one another.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> The Palestinian government is so weak that there is little chance in the near future, years if ever, that they will be able to control the extreme elements from within their ranks.


Dispite all of these misgivings, you and many others beleive that the PA should circumvent the UN's own process of acheiving Statehood now, although they lack authority and power to even run and control their own State by what appears to be your own admission.

I have issues with that.

Or in more crude terms, beleive that rational observers have cause to laugh their collective asses off!!


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

The situation is anything but perfect. If the Palestinians hold off on a move for statehood greatest odds are that more extreme elements may move into positions of authority, mainstream, from within their ranks.

I think it's clear that most of the hard right in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu being chief among them, wants to push the line that we need to wait until the Palestinians get control of their own people before statehood proceeds is a pretext for delaying statehood for another decade or longer.

It's like a government saying to Obama we will not proceed with an agreement with you until you can guarantee that both houses of your congress will support it,..... No agreements would ever get done.

This will have to proceed with all parties having realistic expectations, and most importantly, open hearts. Once statehood is achieved then the Palestinians are going to need serious fiscal and police help to quell the extremism from within their own ranks.

This situation has taken 63 years to get this bad and it's not going to change overnight. Statehood is the beginning of the hard work.

It's time for the world, and more importantly the Israelis, to do the right thing by the Palestinian people.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> Rather than argue a position point by point I'll go a step further and say that the state of Israel should never have been allowed to be created unless a viable solution, including land with borders, was found for the people who were kicked off the land that was used to create the Jewish state. The only reason it did happen is because the Jews had huge pocketbooks and the United States on their side.


We must never lose sight of the fact that before and during WWII in Germany the Jews were systematically discriminated against (i.e. The "Night of Broken Glass"); then rounded up all across Europe and sent to gas chambers, and with few exceptions; i.e. Raoul Wallenberg; Oskar Schindler; the world stood by and did nothing. The Jews saw the founding of an Israeli state as vital to their very survival as a people. What some Palestinian Muslims; who were opposed to them anyway; thought about it didn't matter.
It's unrealistic to expect that all the associated problems pertinent to the founding of a Jewish state would be dealt with before Israel was created. The Muslims would have opposed a Jewish state in their midst. Indeed, there were muslim riots against the influx of jews in the 1920's:

From PalestineFacts.org:
*What happened during the Arab riots of 1920-1921?*

The first Arab riots of the Mandate period took place in Jerusalem in the intermediary days of Passover, in March 1920 ("Bloody Passover"). They were instigated by Arabs acting on unfounded rumors of Jewish actions against Arabs. The British military authorities did not intervene in the Arab attacks, while Vladimir Jabotinsky and other Jews were arrested for organizing a self-defense league. In April 1920, Joseph Trumpeldor and others were killed in the defense of Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee. These developments led to the founding of the Haganah on June 15, 1920.
Haj Amin al-Husseini emerged as one of the leaders of the 1920 Arab riots in Palestine and* incited the* *masses to murder Jews and loot their homes*. While only in his late twenties, he became the youngest ever Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921, supported by the British.
May 1921 brought new violence in Jaffa followed by large-scale attacks on Rehovot, Petah Tikva, and other Jewish areas. The death toll among the Jews was 47 with 140 wounded. Yosef Hayyim Brenner, the distinguished socialist pioneer and author, was among those murdered. Arab casualties of 48 killed and 73 wounded were almost entirely due to British military action. The main lesson was the power of the Arab masses and the relative ineffectiveness of the Jewish defense.
Sir Herbert Samuel, The High Commissioner, yielded to the demonstration of power: he ordered a temporary halt to Jewish immigration and began negotiations with the Arab Executive Committee. The outcome of these negotiations was the June 1922 White Paper issued by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill.
The riots were investigated by the Haycraft Commission, who said in their summary report:

The racial strife was begun by the Arabs, and rapidly developed into a conflict of great violence between Arabs and Jews, in which the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties.
But then the Commission rationalized the cause of the attack, in a pattern that is still seen in the 21st Century:

*The fundamental cause of the riots was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration*, and with their conception of Zionist policy as derived from Jewish exponents.
-----------------
The founding of Israel was the best thing that ever happened to the Jews. After what happened to them in WWII; the Jews will never agree to something that they think threatens their existence. A Palestinian state; under the present violent conditions with terrorist groups operating freely; is incompatible with the national security interests of Israel.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Regillus said:


> We must never lose sight of the fact that before and during WWII in Germany the Jews were systematically discriminated against (i.e. The "Night of Broken Glass"); then rounded up all across Europe and sent to gas chambers, and with few exceptions; i.e. Raoul Wallenberg; Oskar Schindler; the world stood by and did nothing. The Jews saw the founding of an Israeli state as vital to their very survival as a people. What some Palestinian Muslims; who were opposed to them anyway; thought about it didn't matter.
> It's unrealistic to expect that all the associated problems pertinent to the founding of a Jewish state would be dealt with before Israel was created. The Muslims would have opposed a Jewish state in their midst. Indeed, there were muslim riots against the influx of jews in the 1920's:
> 
> From PalestineFacts.org:
> ...


I would suggest that you check your sources before quoting from them. The website you've used is a Zionist propaganda site.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ It's quite possible that he didn't know that the site he quoted from is extremely pro-Israeli. I too have found Zionist propaganda web sites that go into great detail making accusations against the Prophet Mohammad. (not even worth repeating) 

If his angle is that the state of Israel should have been created because Jewish people have no place on earth to call home, perhaps he's got a point. But the answer can't be to create a home for the Jews by displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have lived on that land for a long time. Then expecting the Palestinians to fade into to woodwork or merge into surrounding countries with no hard feelings.

I know it's tough to imagine hearing someone like me, with Jewish blood flowing through my veins saying this, but the way the state of Israel was created, specifically what was to be done with the Palestinians living on land that was to be included in the new Jewish state, was the most racist decision by any governing body in my lifetime. There's no doubt in my mind that everyone involved knew full well that the displacement of the Palestinian people would cause generations of misery and hatred,......But human nature being what it is they just didn't care.

Well, the entire world has reaped the benefits of this half baked solution every since.

None the less Regillus has a point to make. Lots of people have experienced discrimination throughout history. But in modern times I know of no other people who have experienced the level of systematic discrimination, including attempts to exterminate their entire race, as the Jewish people.

There was never going to be a prefect time to create a Jewish state. If they had waited chances are the window of opportunity may have closed for ever. (or at least a long time.:rolleyes2

Now the situation is the same for the Palestinian state. It's time for the hard core Zionists to understand human nature, to put themselves in the shoes on the Palestinians, if a real Palestinian state is not created soon most of the world may end up turning on the Israelis. (Perhaps fulfilling Biblical prophecy)


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> I would suggest that you check your sources before quoting from them. The website you've used is a Zionist propaganda site.


There you go again!!

Shouldn't you be contesting how the Arab riots of 1920-1921 were unfairly portrayed??


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

I'm not delving into the Arab riots of 1921. But please do go to palestinefacts.org and make a determination for yourself as to if this site isn't highly biased.

Most every topic on the site is dedicated to the Israeli point of view beginning with the point that the name Palestine does not even refer to a people with any ethnic origin. (basically denying their right to be Palestinian)

Here's a quote:

Origin of the Name Palestine  Where did the name Palestine come from? 






The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

Although I didn't go so far as to find them saying that the Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, (which I have found on some Zionists web sites) but it's pretty out there,.......


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> I'm not delving into the Arab riots of 1921. But please do go to palestinefacts.org and make a determination for yourself as to if this site isn't highly biased.
> 
> Although I didn't go so far as to find them saying that the Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, (which I have found on some Zionists web sites) but it's pretty out there,.......


1) Can facts be biased?? Refute them.

2) "Pedofile??" I admit, that definition may be like splitting pubic hairs!!

Traditional sources dictate that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,[SUP][123][/SUP][SUP][168][/SUP][SUP][169][/SUP] but the marriage was not until she was nine or ten years old.[SUP][123][/SUP][SUP][168][/SUP][SUP][170][/SUP][SUP][171][/SUP][SUP][172][/SUP] While the majority of traditional sources indicate Aisha was 9 (and therefore a virgin) at the time of marriage, a small number of more recent writers have variously estimated her age at 15 to 24.[SUP][173][/SUP][SUP][174][/SUP][SUP][175][/SUP][SUP][176]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_Muhammad#Wives_and_children[/SUP]


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^You seem so into refuting, as if any statement whether factual, moral by premise or any other standard, should be refuted.

The way I was taught critical thought, and they really pounded it into us, was that one must decide if a statement is objective or subjective. If it's subjective there's no need to refute it because it's open to opinion.

Even if it's objective fact it may not be worth refuting. Let's take this case as I posted from palestinefacts.org in post #103. It may indeed be objective fact that the Palestinians are not an ethnic people.

The premise of this statement by Palestinefacts.org, when put into context with the content of the entire web site, is that the Palestinians are not an ethnic people and therefore do not have the right to a state of their own.

Like one of Michael Moore's films this web site is not interested in presenting a non-biased fair account of the facts. It's only interested in the Zionist point of view. (might be an insult to Zionists because if you read through this web site you will find some highly racists points of view)

The difference is that Michael Moore makes no bones about it when he says he's only interested in portraying his point of view. Even if there's some fact in Palestinefacts.org the vast majority is purely propaganda. (Refuting this is like rolling in the mud with pigs, meant literally not figuratively)

Rather than attempting to litigate this issue Wouldashoulda, *just plainly state yes or no, (without qualification)* if you believe the Palestinians should have their own state. (*and the answer can't be "Yes, But"* just state one way or the other if they have a right to their own state with borders)

You can't slant the tone and tenor of this issue where the end result is that the Palestinians are anything other than people just like the Jews and have the exact same rights as any Jewish person has without being reveled as a racist or a bigot. It's that simple.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

As I stated previously, you tend to be in posession of most the facts. I beleive the issue is one of logic.



127.72 MHz said:


> Rather than attempting to litigate this issue Wouldashoulda, *just plainly state yes or no, (without qualification)* if you believe the Palestinians should have their own state.
> 
> (*and the answer can't be "Yes, But"* just state one way or the other if they have a right to their own state with borders)


I reject the premise. No one has a right to their own state with borders.

If however, one beleives that all Mankind has the "right" to Statehood and that all men are equal, than it would be logical to presume that anyone refusing to recognize or grant Statehood to another party considers that party to be less equal.

I beleive that logic is false.



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their with certain unalienable Rights,[SUP][75][/SUP] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


That being said, I beleive the Palestinians may obtain their own State. I contend that now, through this UN contrivance, it is not the time.

I would have thought that an open minded thinker would appreciate the nuanced, instead of the black and white, approach you seem to want to box people into.

Can two people ever simply disagree without one of them being a hateful bigot??


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Yes, two people can disagree without one of them being a hateful bigot. And your point is made and I understand what you are saying.

I do believe that given what the Palestinian have been though as a people that they deserve their own state, now, actually about ten years ago. Furthermore I believe that at this point any informed intelligent person, of which I believe you qualify, that says that "Now is not the right time for a Palestinian state" is actually saying that they want to delay this whole thing for as long as possible. (never would also be fine!)

This is the true aim of people who think like Benjamin Netanyahu. (and it is clearly racist and bigotry!) Although I'm sure he prefers to think of it as "Nuanced."

Sizing up people who conduct themselves like this requires not only listening to what they say but more importantly *what they do*! People who disguise their true aims in a situation like this do not want to be labeled as prejudiced or as bigots. (I mean who wants to be labeled like that?) Actually I think most of them would have no problem being labeled this way as long as they have the money or the guns! But in this case they do not want to lose the war of public opinion,......

The synthesized version for me as a supporter of Israel is that if the Palestinians do not get their own state with borders very soon ultimately it will lead to the entire world turning against the Jewish state.

So not only is a state for the Palestinians the right thing to do but it is also in the best interests of Israel.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Thank you Chouan for pointing out that it was a propaganda site. I should have checked into it at greater length before citing it. However, the events described in Post #99 are broadly correct.


From the Haycraft Commission Report;
University of California Library:


PALESTINE.
DISTURBANCES IN MAY, 1921.
Reports of the Commission of Inquiry WITH
Correspondence Relating Thereto.
Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, October, 1921.
-----
Mr. Garnett was there in charge of telephone construction, and had already
sent away his Jewish workmen for safety only just in time, as it
transpired, since the crowd that came to the station made at once
for the tents of the Jewish workmen with intent to kill them.
-----
On Thursday, the 5th, Mr. Andrews was at another Jewish Colony
further north, arranging for its defence, and fully aware that an 
attack upon the Jews was likely to occur at any moment.
-----
At 10 a.m. Flying Officer Flynn, R.A.F., received orders from his
Commanding Officer to go to Khedera and reconnoitre raiding
Arabs in that district, "offensive action not to be taken unless necessary."
He left Ramleh at 10.20 a.m., and was over Khedera at 10.55 a.m.
He saw about 500 Arabs at a distance which he took to be 3
miles from the colony. They appeared to be in an attacking
formation on a front of about two miles. The aviator
dropped bombs clear of the Arabs, and fired his machine gun to
frighten them, and it had the effect of making them rush to a Bedouin Camp
to the south of the colony. Then he flew to Jenin for further orders. He could not
remain in the air until the Arabs actually attacked, and until his
petrol was exhausted. He hesitated to use force because an attack had not
actually begun. He proceeded to Jenin for more definite orders, and
from that station sent a message to Ramleh for a second aeroplane.
When the airman returned at 12.35 p.m. the attackers had already
entered the village from the south-east under the cover of a grove 
of eucalyptus trees. They had burned, ransacked, destroyed and looted
at will in that quarter of the village.
-----
The lives of the colonists were saved. They had been in great peril,
and we have no doubt that had the raid not been interrupted,
the colony would have been destroyed.
-----
The raid on Khedera on the 6th May may be regarded as a
sequel to the Jaffa riots on the 1st May, and belongs
to the same sequence of events as the attack
by Arabs on Petach-Tikvah on the 5th May.
------------------------------------------------
So the report does show that Muslims attacked Jews in that time period. My point being that Muslim hostility to the presence of Jews in Palestine goes back a long way, so the current hostilities are nothing new. The Israelis want a safe place to live, and Palestine, or Judea as the Jews call it, was the old homeland of the Jews up until the Roman occupation. After WWII; Palestine was not a state, and the Jews took advantage of that fact to found their own country there.
So there you have it; a Jewish state in a Muslim region. The Jews have achieved a measure of security; no one thinks that Jews will round up other Jews and put them on trains to death camps a la Hitler. However, the hostile Muslim population is a perpetual problem that must be managed somehow. As can be clearly seen in the media over the last few decades; opinions vary as to how fairly the Israelis are treating the Palestinians. This problem will almost certainly drag on for some decades to come a la Cyprus. There's a very difficult problem to be solved here: The Muslims want their land back, and the Israelis don't want to give it back because doing so would erase Israel from the map.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Regillus said:


> There's a very difficult problem to be solved here: The Muslims want their land back, and the Israelis don't want to give it back because doing so would erase Israel from the map.


But giving the Palestinians a state would not erase Israel from the map.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Can facts be biased?? Refute them.
> 
> 2) "Pedofile??" I admit, that definition may be like splitting pubic hairs!!
> 
> ...


This is a fairly ridiculous post.

You feel that Christianity is a better religion than Islam because of early marriages for Muhammed? Pedofilism? I give you: the catholic priest.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Chouan said:


> But giving the Palestinians a state would not erase Israel from the map.


It would give Palestine clearly defined borders which Israel should not cross. If terrorists launch an attack against Israel and then flee into Palestine the Palestinians could say that Israeli troops could not follow the terrorists into Palestine not even in hot pursuit. It would stop Israel from buying or taking Palestinian land and building Jewish settlements there - which the Israelis clearly want to do since they keep doing it regardless of all the protests and official pronouncements against it. In their view; right now; a Palestinian state doesn't help Israel. It creates obstacles that Israel doesn't want to deal with. The most salient obstacle being the creation of a possible refuge for terrorists to launch attacks against Israel. Gaza is already used as a refuge from which to launch attacks, and the Israelis send planes, helicopters, and tanks into Gaza with impunity since it isn't a state.

Re Post #101: "...if a real Palestinian state is not created soon most of the world may end up turning on the Israelis."

Actually, most of the governments in the world are happy that a Jewish state exists. If the Jews in their country don't like how they're treated; why they can just move to Israel. Thereby solving that particular countrys "jewish problem."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> This is a fairly ridiculous post.
> 
> You feel that Christianity is a better religion than Islam because of early marriages for Muhammed? Pedofilism? I give you: the catholic priest.


1) It was supposed to be

2) I didn't say it was "better" and I did not introduce the subject matter. But if you don't see the difference between the actions of a religious founder vs, the actions of criminal religious followers then there may be problems.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) It was supposed to be
> 
> 2) I didn't say it was "better" and I did not introduce the subject matter. But if you don't see the difference between the actions of a religious founder vs, the actions of criminal religious followers then there may be problems.


Is it valid to criticise the moral values of people 1500 years ago? Or apply our modern values to their culture? Was Jerry Lee Lewis a paedophile when he married his cousin, in accordance with State law? Was that State guilty of encouraging paedophilea when those laws were introduced?
Perhaps we should point out the barbaric practise of compulsory circumcision of infants on religious rather than medical grounds. Or the complete exclusion of women from society in early Israel and Judea as proof of the inherent unfairness of Jewish society today. Only it would be a redundant argument.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Is it valid to criticise the moral values of people 1500 years ago? Or apply our modern values to their culture?
> 
> Was Jerry Lee Lewis a paedophile when he married his cousin, in accordance with State law? Was that State guilty of encouraging paedophilea when those laws were introduced?


1) Among the things I find most appealing about Christianity is that it is very easy to apply our modern values and sensibilies to the life of Christ. For me, His messege and deeds translate very well into our modern times.

2) Most Americans were pleased when the age of consent was raised from 10 to 15 in most states and few look back and lament about those "good old days!!"


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Chouan:
What's your perspective on the Palestinian views on women's rights and human rights in general. They also seem to have a hell of a 'due process' approach in their dealings with "criminals" found to be in their midst! Pedophiles...maybe not, but brutalists...absolutely! These poor souls have been ever so wronged by the world? When they and their Egyptian henchmen and other contributing members of the Arab League attacked Israel in 1967, perhaps Israel should have nominated them for the Nobel Peace prize, rather than kicking their collective a**es and almost trippling the size of their land holdings, most of which they have already given back to the Arab communities..


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> When they and their Egyptian henchmen and other contributing members of the Arab League attacked Israel in 1967, perhaps Israel should have nominated them for the Nobel Peace prize, rather than kicking their collective a**es and almost trippling the size of their land holdings.


It seems as though they could have established a Palestinian Homeland there, instead of attacking Israel.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Regillus;
Re Post #101: "...if a real Palestinian state is not created soon most of the world may end up turning on the Israelis."
Actually said:


> Did post #101 say *anything,* *anything at all* about any country in the world not being happy that the Jewish state exists? It's a rhetorical question, of course *the statements in post #101 did not address anything about anyone not being happy that the Jewish state exists,....*.:icon_headagainstwal You might want to read over the post one more time.
> 
> Post #101 said if a Palestinian state with borders is not created soon most of the rest of the world may end up turning against the Jewish state. (A completely different context and meaning)


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Chouan:
> What's your perspective on the Palestinian views on women's rights and human rights in general. They also seem to have a hell of a 'due process' approach in their dealings with "criminals" found to be in their midst! Pedophiles...maybe not, but brutalists...absolutely! These poor souls have been ever so wronged by the world? When they and their Egyptian henchmen and other contributing members of the Arab League attacked Israel in 1967, perhaps Israel should have nominated them for the Nobel Peace prize, rather than kicking their collective a**es and almost trippling the size of their land holdings, most of which they have already given back to the Arab communities..


So Palestinians are brutalists? Are the application of law different there than in Saudi?

You still impose the death penalty. Your due process in regards to for example 'illegal combatants' can be questioned. As for women's right, how about women's right to choose abortion? Those who are without sin...

An antipalestinian approach to this problem seems pointless, about as pointless and equally unfair as anti-Americanism.

Celebrating Israels daring military maneuvers seem the to be a common denominator of some Americans. Seems to me it has little bearing on Palestine being granted statehood.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Among the things I find most appealing about Christianity is that it is very easy to apply our modern values and sensibilies to the life of Christ. For me, His messege and deeds translate very well into our modern times.
> 
> 2) Most Americans were pleased when the age of consent was raised from 10 to 15 in most states and few look back and lament about those "good old days!!"


Well to me the life of Christ as presented in the bible is historically unsound, bordering on pure myth.

I have met Christians who are racist bigots and felt that was completely rational, and I have met Muslims who have exactly the same values as I have. They just have different holidays, just like the Jews.

Are we vetoing for religion here? Because that is definitely not supported by the UN charter.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Well to me the life of Christ as presented in the bible is historically unsound, bordering on pure myth.
> 
> Are we vetoing for religion here?


1. Which historically unsound, bordering on pure myth religious figure is more easy to apply our modern values and sensibilies?? That is the question.

2. You've gone off the rails.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It seems as though could have established a Palestinian Homeland there, instead of attacking Israel.


In other words the Palestinians should establish a homeland anywhere else except near the land they were kicked off of right?

If you were kicked out of your home and off your land with the stroke of some legal pen would you fight back? (let's be serious):idea:

Most Israeli citizens don't share your hawkish right wing Benjamin Netanyahu school of thought. Most Israeli citizens clearly understand the realpolitik of Netanyahu's policy which is to stall for Palestinian statehood while accelerating settlement building on land that the new Palestinian state will undoubtedly occupy. (Most of the rest of the world clearly understands Netanyahu's true aim as well)

Again, you might see yourself as a champion for Israel but in the final analysis if this highly disingenuous and racist policy is continued the end result may well be Israel having even fewer friends than they have now. Even though they are in a minority in Israel hawks like Netanyahu arrogantly understand that as long as they have the economic and military support of the United States that they can thumb their collective noses at the rest of the world

Many well written articles in the Israeli press question this arrogance because they understand that beyond the obvious moral implications, (which in my opinion cannot be overstated given the Jew's own history) the hawks in the Netanyahu camp are leading Israeli into being worldwide pariahs.

Can't you see that the arguments you are using are some of the exact same racist bigotry that opponents of Jews used when arguing against the creation of Israeli in 1948? This wrong minded approach is morally malignant and portrays the Jews in the eyes of the rest of the world as hypocrites. Through interrogation and debriefing of captured terrorists we now know it's the exact kind of thing terrorist training camps use to indoctrinate prospective recruits as to the real aims of Israel and their chief supporter the United States.

The problem with claiming the moral high ground as Israel and the United States have done for decades is that then you have to walk the walk. Unfortunately we, (the United States and Israel) are now beginning to be judged by our real-time actions and deeds rather then our self serving rhetoric.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1. Which historically unsound, bordering on pure myth religious figure is more easy to apply our modern values and sensibilies?? That is the question.
> 
> 2. You've gone off the rails.


No, you can simply choose to be secular in dealing with Palestines statehood. Since it's a secular matter. So that is most definitely not the question.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> In other words the Palestinians should establish a homeland anywhere else except near the land they were kicked off of right?
> 
> If you were kicked out of your home and off your land with the stroke of some legal pen would you fight back? (let's be serious):idea:


1) That clearly is not what I said.

2) I could lament; "Why did my bothers choose the folly of invading Israel instead of securing us a Homeland. Why were we betrayed??"

Why do you think the establishment of a Palestinian Homeland wasn't feasable on the lands they occupied prior to 1967?? Why didn't Syria look out after them??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> No, you can simply choose to be secular in dealing with Palestines statehood. Since it's a secular matter. So that is most definitely not the question.


Sorry about the confusion, my reply was in response to the following;



Chouan said:


> Is it valid to criticise the moral values of people 1500 years ago? Or apply our modern values to their culture?


Not the original post.

But since YOU mentioned it.

Are you sure the Palestinians whish to establish a secular State and form of Governance for themselves??


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) That clearly is not what I said.
> 
> 2) I could lament; "Why did my bothers choose the folly of invading Israel instead of securing us a Homeland. Why were we betrayed??"
> 
> Why do you think the establishment of a Palestinian Homeland wasn't feasable on the lands they occupied prior to 1967?? Why didn't Syria look out after them??


These are great points and I would not challenge either one.

I believe it's clear in all of my posts that by no means do I wish to portray the Palestinians or any of the Arab neighbors of Israel as Lilly white.

But you cherry pick bits and pieces that you take issue with like a debater or an attorney that only wishes to highlight the strong points of their argument. This is not a debate or a court of law. I think the reason you do this is because the central point, that the Palestinians need a state of their own, is not defensible.

Know full well that going ahead with a state for the Palestinians cannot work if it's done begrudgingly. 
The new Palestinian state is going to need years of help from the international community. (just as Israel needed a lot of help to establish their state)


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> No, you can simply choose to be secular in dealing with Palestines statehood. Since it's a secular matter. So that is most definitely not the question.


If you think this is (or could be considered) a secular matter, you need to get a urinalysis test. If it was secular, we wouldn't have the issue. This isn't Israelis vs Palestinians, it's Jews vs Muslims. Neither side advocates religious equality, and a new state would not make it any better.

Simply put, dividing people into two states would result in the genocide of one of the peoples. It would be a war of a attrition, and there a hell of a lot more Muslims than Jews. Superior firepower only helps if you have focused targets, and the unwillingness of the other side to used a scorched earth policy.

It's advantageous for the Muslim world for the country to be divided. It is not advantageous for Israel. It would be a death sentence.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

There is no such thing as a "p_lestinian". There is no such nation as "p_lestine".

The romans renamed The Land of Israel (previously split into two Kingdoms: Judea and Israel) 'p_lestine' after the philistines (who were enemies of the Jews) as a final insult to the Jewish people whom they booted out of THEIR land.

There was NEVER a 'p_lestinian' state, nation, kingdom etc. There has NEVER been a 'p_lestinian' king, president or prime minister. There is NO distinct 'p_lestinian' language, culture or ethnicity. Those people are simply arabs.


If there is really some 'p_lestinian' people yearning for freedom & statehood, why were there NEVER any such attempts at this when the Land of Israel was occupied by Turkey? Why were there no such claims when Judea & Samaria (called the 'west bank' by Jew-haters) was occupied by Jordan? Why were there no demands for statehood when Gaza was occupied by Egypt?

The whole concept of a 'p_lestinian' people is a bogus construct for the purpose of deconstructing the State of Israel.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> If you think this is (or could be considered) a secular matter, you need to get a urinalysis test. If it was secular, we wouldn't have the issue. This isn't Israelis vs Palestinians, it's Jews vs Muslims. Neither side advocates religious equality, and a new state would not make it any better.
> 
> Simply put, dividing people into two states would result in the genocide of one of the peoples. It would be a war of a attrition, and there a hell of a lot more Muslims than Jews. Superior firepower only helps if you have focused targets, and the unwillingness of the other side to used a scorched earth policy.
> 
> It's advantageous for the Muslim world for the country to be divided. It is not advantageous for Israel. It would be a death sentence.


I would like to point out that Israel is located dead smack center in an area full of Muslims. If they can't establish good relations with their neighbours they can't survive.

Putting this into extremes only serves to conserve a situation that is not working.

The international community cannot abide with a state imposing massive hr violations on a part of it's citizens based on ethnicity, which is basically what Israel has been doing. It is effectively apartheid, even though the security reasons for it may by many be found to be sound.

Separating them into two states seems the wiser move.

I think also that you underestimate the way that hatred between nations just slips away after a period of peace. You have excellent relations with the British. We have excellent relations with the Danes. We all feel well disposed towards the Germans, and drive their cars. I'm guessing americans don't hate Koreans or vietnamese. Catholics and Protestants?

Israel and Palestine need to go that way, peacefully, or quite possibly Israel will end as a nation.

The rest of the world can impose a certain level of security to these nations, from overt military threat. They'll have to deal with internal security themselves.

Antisemitism is a problem but the people nowadays usually known as 'palestinians' do have legitimate concerns.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Ash Newman said:


> There is no such thing as a "p_lestinian". There is no such nation as "p_lestine".
> 
> The romans renamed The Land of Israel (previously split into two Kingdoms: Judea and Israel) 'p_lestine' after the philistines (who were enemies of the Jews) as a final insult to the Jewish people whom they booted out of THEIR land.
> 
> ...


These are all valid historical facts (except for the last bit) from what I can gather, but I really don't see your point.

Most of the world don't want to deconstruct Israel.

And is there something wrong with an Arab state? Is there something wrong with Arab people?

I don't see you going 'oh well this statehood idea had a good run but since we're basically mostly anglosaxons I really don't see a basis for a separate united states of america apart from Britain'. There's no American people either by the criteria you've stated. Apart from the Indians.

Also your point is somewhat refuted by the existence of the current Palestinian leadership, who mainly argue in favour of a Palestinian state.

I like the way you write 'p_lestinian'. Gives it that proper touch of balanced opinion...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Thank you Chouan for pointing out that it was a propaganda site. I should have checked into it at greater length before citing it. However, the events described in Post #99 are broadly correct.
> 
> From the Haycraft Commission Report;
> University of California Library:
> ...


Don't "Propaganda Machines" usually take factual data then juice it up a bit??

Or promote made up facts??

Or lie??

Single issue sources, a source that presents only one "point of view" is not necessarily "propoganda".

It may simply be "biased" toward facts that promote their cause. Provided they are facts, or a reasonable representation of the facts, I have no problem with it.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Ash Newman said:


> There is no such thing as a "p_lestinian". There is no such nation as "p_lestine".
> 
> The romans renamed The Land of Israel (previously split into two Kingdoms: Judea and Israel) 'p_lestine' after the philistines (who were enemies of the Jews) as a final insult to the Jewish people whom they booted out of THEIR land.
> 
> ...


Most of what you've pointed out is historical fact. But the problem with the points you make is that you don't follow up with stating plainly what should be done with hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom who are completely innocent, who have been living in camps and complete squalor.

Please state plainly what should be done with these people and specifically where they should go.

By doing so your true, (where the rubber hits the road) motives will be reveled.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> Most of what you've pointed out is historical fact. But the problem with the points you make is that you don't follow up with stating plainly what should be done with hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom who are completely innocent, who have been living in camps and complete squalor.
> 
> Please state plainly what should be done with these people and specifically where they should go.


Be it a Palestinian, an American Appalachian or urban ghetto dweller I do not hold all the answers for their mobility. I do know that the poverty they suffer will not get better by simply hoping for change.

Their betterment lies within them and their community, not us.

What path did our Jewish ancesters take from Russian or Polish poverty and ghetto dwelling??

No one told then what they had to do.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ I understand the point you're making.  But the situation with the Palestinians is unique in that *their real misery began with the creation of the state of Israel.

*World opinion has brought us to the point that it simply cannot be denied that the Palestinians have been through hell mostly because the Jewish people had enough money, and thus, power and influence to see to it that their homeland was restored* in 1948. 
*(and that's only because I believe that God's covenant with Abraham is real)

Just think about how non-believers, any non-believers, see the 1948 creation of the state of Israel. Ah we're going to throw you off your land because God promised Abraham that this land you've been living on and hold a deed to is supposed to belong to the Jewish people for all time and we have a legal body called the United Nations that will back us up. Oh, and if you don't like it and learn to live like second class citizens on land that you own, we'll get the military might of the United States to kick your asses!

*Why, why do people who feel like you do always fail to mention this? *(are you listening Ash Newman?)

Before you post a reply, and that goes for anyone weighing in on this issue, *please say specifically* how you would react if you were thrown off the land you and your family, perhaps even your father and grandfather had legally owned, and effectively told to find another place to live? And then your children and grandchildren had stories that had been passed down about aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, than had been beaten during "Questioning, " imprisoned, or even killed by the Israeli Defense Force, intelligence, or police? *Please answer and address these questions head on.*

I can tell you if that had happened to me I would have died in an Israeli prison because no one, and I mean no one, is going to do that to my family without some kind of payback! (*now go on and talk about extremism on the part of the Palestinians!*)

Your point would be completely valid* if *the stroke of a pen by the U.N. did not effectively throw all these people off the land that many of them had legal deeds to.

The Palestinian cause is just and the right wing hawks that argue against them after what the world has witnessed them being put through for the past 63 years only hurts the Jewish cause.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I don't know Ash Newman.

How about some classic Sam Kinison...

You want to help world hunger? Stop sending them food. Don't send them another bite, send them U-Hauls. Send them a guy that says, "You know, we've been coming here giving you food for about 35 years now and we were driving through the desert, and we realized there wouldn't BE world hunger if you people would live where the FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT!! UNDERSTAND THAT? YOU LIVE IN A ******* DESERT!! NOTHING GROWS HERE! NOTHING'S GONNA GROW HERE! Come here, you see this? This is sand. You know what it's gonna be 100 years from now? IT'S GONNA BE SAND!! YOU LIVE IN A ******* DESERT!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I don't know Ash Newman.
> 
> How about some classic Sam Kinison...
> 
> You want to help world hunger? Stop sending them food. Don't send them another bite, send them U-Hauls. Send them a guy that says, "You know, we've been coming here giving you food for about 35 years now and we were driving through the desert, and we realized there wouldn't BE world hunger if you people would live where the FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT!! UNDERSTAND THAT? YOU LIVE IN A ******* DESERT!! NOTHING GROWS HERE! NOTHING'S GONNA GROW HERE! Come here, you see this? This is sand. You know what it's gonna be 100 years from now? IT'S GONNA BE SAND!! YOU LIVE IN A ******* DESERT!


Great stuff. Truly. That's Jesus talking right there.

With that sort of attitude, I guess you're agains rebuilding new orleans?

You do know that most starving people don't live in deserts right?

If people should be self sufficient, why not just back off the entire Israel/Palestine issue and let them fend for themselves?

I guess there's people and then there's people. The white people get the full backing and the rest... should move... to where exactly? Midwest? Where the food is?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

If you have a warped sense of humor and don't know who Sam Kinison is, you should check him out for a few laughs. This one and his appearence in Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield are LOL hysterical. (to me)



Bjorn said:


> I guess you're agains rebuilding new orleans?


There are areas in the US, flood plains near rivers, beach resort communities and others that seeming get flooded EVERY YEAR!!

And each time the local news goes down there and interviews the residents who vow to rebuild. With the help of flood insurance and Federal assistance they do. And each time they do I think of Sam K.

What Would Sam K Do?? (WWSKD) A former sideshow preacher BTW.

"Oh, OH OHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

It's a FLOOD ZONE, It floods here idiot, you rebuild, it floods again. It will ALWAYS flood again. It's the water stupid!! OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!"


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If you have a warped sense of humor and don't know who Sam Kinison is, you should check him out for a few laughs. This one and his appearence in Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield are LOL hysterical. (to me)
> 
> There are areas in the US, flood plains near rivers, beach resort communities and others that seeming get flooded EVERY YEAR!!
> 
> ...


Will do. Did not get it the first time


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

127.72 MHz said:


> The Palestinian cause is just and* the right wing hawks that argue against them* after what the world has witnessed them being put through for the past 63 years only hurts the Jewish cause.


'Warmongers from The Hamptons and warmongers from Martha's Vineyard' ? according to one commentator


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)




----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I don't know Ash Newman.


Post #127. A fellow who replied.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Kingstonian said:


> 'Warmongers from The Hamptons and warmongers from Martha's Vineyard' ? according to one commentator


From across the pond you hit the nail on the head! The state of Israel could not have been created in 1948 without the United States and "Our" money. The modern state of Israel could not survive day to day without our continued support both militarily and monetarily.

And since the United States government's legislative process is owned by wealthy corporate influence the deep pockets and influence from the Hamptons and Martha's Vineyard can't hurt either.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Kingstonian said:


>


^^Full disclosure, since I'm the grandson of a German Jew that makes me Jewish as well. That being said there's no doubt that the U.S. government is corrupt and awash with money. It's legislation to the highest bidder.

It's so patiently obvious that decisions in the U.S. are made by those who have the money to buy influence.

This film is a very sad 40 some odd minute commentary on how things get done in the good old U.S.A.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> Most of what you've pointed out is historical fact. But the problem with the points you make is that you don't follow up with stating plainly what should be done with hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom who are completely innocent, who have been living in camps and complete squalor.
> 
> Please state plainly what should be done with these people and specifically where they should go.
> 
> By doing so your true, (where the rubber hits the road) motives will be reveled.


Population transfer.

They did it in India/Pak-rape-istan
They did it in Cyprus
They can do it in the middle east.

There were some 900,000 Jews booted out of or had to flee from the arab-muSSlim countries. Let the arabs in the Land Of Israel be resettled in on of the 20 arab states in that part of the world.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ I understand the point you're making. But the situation with the Palestinians is unique in that *their real misery began with the creation of the state of Israel.
> 
> *World opinion has brought us to the point that it simply cannot be denied that the Palestinians have been through hell mostly because the Jewish people had enough money, and thus, power and influence to see to it that their homeland was restored* in 1948.
> *(and that's only because I believe that God's covenant with Abraham is real)
> ...


Jews lived in the Land Of Israel since C 2000BCE. The arab-muSSlim-nazis (native ONLY to the arab peninsular) never set one fot there until C 700CE. And even then they invaded by force. So I think the Jews can lay claim to "being there first" (I'd say a 2500+ year head start is reasonably compelling).

And remember:

They were kicked out by the Romans in 70CE. They didn't 'leave'. If thugs throw you out of your home and some bums move in while you're away, do you cease to own it?

Sure a handful of arabs had lived there for a few generations. Big deal. The same goes for Indian Hindus in what is now pak-rape-istan. Same goes for Jews who lived in the arab states, BTW. Let the arabs of Israel be settled in any of the 20 arab states in that region................................ALL with the same language & culture as the so-called p_lestinians.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> From across the pond you hit the nail on the head! The state of Israel could not have been created in 1948 without the United States and "Our" money. The modern state of Israel could not survive day to day without our continued support both militarily and monetarily.
> 
> And since the United States government's legislative process is owned by wealthy corporate influence the deep pockets and influence from the Hamptons and Martha's Vineyard can't hurt either.


What baloney!

The US gives $3 billion in military aid to Israel. That's not cash. It's credits to buy US made weapons & material.

The US gives the same $3bill each to saudi arabia & egypt. Plus there's whatever Jordan gets. So arab-muSSlim-nazis are getting much more than little Israel. The other big difference is that the US gets something for it's $ from Israel. Such as first rate intel' and access to to captured soviet tanks & MIGs over the decades. It gets ZILCH from the arabs.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> These are all valid historical facts (except for the last bit) from what I can gather, but I really don't see your point.
> 
> Most of the world don't want to deconstruct Israel.
> 
> ...


"arab states" ?

There's about 20 of them! According to you however, that's not enough and there needs to be another.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Ash Newman said:


> Jews lived in the Land Of Israel since C 2000BCE. The arab-muSSlim-nazis (native ONLY to the arab peninsular) never set one fot there until C 700CE. And even then they invaded by force. So I think the Jews can lay claim to "being there first" (I'd say a 2500+ year head start is reasonably compelling).
> 
> And remember:
> 
> ...


I'm gonna have to go with a clear and concise 'no' to that.

Arabs are not nazis. And better right to the land is not whom was there first. Native Americans and native Scandinavian populations, as well as those of several other nations, are a case in point.

Contracts with god are inadmissible in these times. And subject to religious debate.

Also, of you get thrown out of your home, leave, and someone else moves in while it us unoccupied, and lives there for sufficient time (a very long time), then yes, legally you've most probably lost it. Under any legal system I know of, including the roman (I think).

I understand this is an emotional issue for many, but you're right at the limit of what can be posted legally on the Internet in your jurisdiction. Perhaps we should let this discussion drop.

You should really socialise with some Arabs. I think you would be surprised.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> I'm gonna have to go with a clear and concise 'no' to that.
> 
> Arabs are not nazis. And better right to the land is not whom was there first. Native Americans and native Scandinavian populations, as well as those of several other nations, are a case in point.
> 
> ...


I'm nowhere near the limit in this duristiction. Unlike bolshevik, perverted europe we Aussies have free speach.

Arab-muSSlims are nazis. They follow an ideology that offers non-adherents death or slavery and is violently anti-semitic.

x-tian arabs are another thing entirely. I should have made that clear.

BTW, Jews didn't "leave" they were forced out by Roman invaders.

arab-muSSlims didn't "move in" they invaded with a army.

You're also forgetting:

Jordan was created (illegally by Britain) out of what was British mandate p_lestine. It's population is over 75% so-called p_lestinian. So ther's already one 'p_lestinian"state there.

In 1947 the arabs had the chance for (another) arab state in the Land of israel. They rejected it and attacked the Jews. They lost the war that THEY started. So guess what? THEY LOSE!


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Palestine's attempt to gain Nation status was vetoed by the US this week. The Palestinian Head of State was told that he, and they, should wait until the time was right; that it was too soon and independent statehood could only be achieved by patience and negotiation with Israel, (who are using every minute that Palestine waits to encroacvh further and further onto Palestinian territory).
> If the Founding Fathers of US independence had followed that line, they would still have been attempting to negotiate their independence from an intransigent British government in 1839!
> Am I missing something here?


You are making an unfair and odious comparison.

The 13 colonies engaged in civil (well, uncivil really) rebellion against an unjust form of government. They did not (at the time) have a policy of genocide, they weren't hell bent on killing most or all Canadians (which was the only country they shared a border with) and while there was a war between the two eventually, it was a matter of stupidity and politics not race and religion.

Since the Camp David Accords the Israelis have repeatedly offered various concilatory measures to the nominal leaders of Palestine, which have either been completely ignored, or have been signed and ignored as the ink dried.

Israel has been REPEATEDLY attacked by Arab states, and currently Hamas is being funded out of Iran (as is the "Militant" Hezbollah in Lebanon). They have repeated stated both in English and Arab media that their goal is the total destruction of Israel.

Back in the 70s a bunch of Moslem Terrorists took over an airplane. On the 200th birthday of the US declaration of Independence (to tie this in with your post) a team of Israeli Commandos flew into hostile territory and took the plane, killing all the terrorists. In this raid--the "Raid on Entebe", several passengers were killed, and a one of the Israeli Commandos died.

Here is the brother of that Commando addressing the UN General Assembly:


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> I think that you'll find that it was French and Spanish military intervention that allowed the US to win. Your answer suggests that Palestine looks for military assistance from their friends, or from people opposed to Israel. Perhaps they will. How will that promote international peace?


You're either completely ignorant of history in this area, or being a deliberate provocateur.

Either way you are being very dishonest.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Ash Newman said:


> I'm nowhere near the limit in this duristiction. Unlike bolshevik, perverted europe we Aussies have free speach.
> 
> Arab-muSSlims are nazis. They follow an ideology that offers non-adherents death or slavery and is violently anti-semitic.
> 
> ...


Even though they where forced out the legality is still there.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

petro said:


> You're either completely ignorant of history in this area, or being a deliberate provocateur.
> 
> Either way you are being very dishonest.


Dishonest? So he's lying?

Kinda moot point in an Internet forum.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

STOP REPORTING POSTS IN THE INTERCHANGE!


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Even though they where forced out the legality is still there.


Then by YOUR own reasoning, all Israel needs to do is force the arabs out and then the arabs cease to have any claim. Problem solved.

Works for me.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> STOP REPORTING POSTS IN THE INTERCHANGE!


I can only imagine who reporting posts to Alex.:idea:

In other words the crybabies want to spew half truth, innuendo, and slander without addressing any of the moral questions.

Then when they are exposed for the prejudiced fools and bigots that they are they cry,.....ic12337:


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Ash Newman said:


> Then by YOUR own reasoning, all Israel needs to do is force the arabs out and then the arabs cease to have any claim. Problem solved.
> 
> Works for me.:icon_smile_big:


Yeah that's the way Ash, poke the Palestinians with sticks, point and laugh, see the spectacle!

Yes indeed it does work for you because you are a bigot plain and simple.:biggrin2:

What would the Jewish nation do collectively if they were attacked, (again) and their existence was threatened? (it's a rhetorical question) They would fight, again, to the death if necessary.

What would you do if you were kicked off your land that you and your family has held the deed to for many years?
(again rhetorical) You would fight to keep what is yours.

Are the Palestinians any different? (not rhetorical but there's no need to answer because your words have spoken for you)

Why does someone who thinks like you have to be asked rhetorical questions? Because you're a bigot who isn't interested in the long term implications of what this kind of scorched earth policy towards the Palestinians is beginning to mean to the Jewish state. (And that's not to mention any sense of morality)

People who think like you are like the masses Winston Churchill was speaking of when he said: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Your thinking shouts of being average and unremarkable.

Just as former klu klux klan members never admit to what they've been part of you will only espouse your hatred in an anonymous internet chat room..

See if the shoe fit's:

A *racist* is someone who believes in the superiority of one race over another, or who acts differently (usually negatively) towards a person or a group of people because of their race. An example would be a member of the Ku Klux Klan, who espouse the superiority of the white race.

A *bigot* is a blinkered, narrow-minded person, usually also very intolerant and unable to see anyone else's point of view. People can be bigoted about things that have nothing to do with race, for example, religion or sexual orientation.

All racists are bigots, but by no means are all bigots racist. That is, a racist is a bigot against a particular race or every race except for his/hers.

I know full well that your mind can never be changed as seldom does your level of ignorance yield to being informed. The best one can do when dealing with someone who thinks like you is to expose them.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Ash Newman said:


> The romans renamed The Land of Israel (previously split into two Kingdoms: Judea and Israel) 'p_lestine' after the philistines (who were enemies of the Jews) as a final insult to the Jewish people whom they booted out of THEIR land.


The Romans? Now you're talking:-


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Gotta love the Romans. Even if you got f***d by them. Those where some civilised people. Mean, but civilised. 

Since this thread is pretty much lost already. 

Quite honestly, anyone with recent registration and less than 100 posts on legitimate menswear issues: have more sex. It would do you good. Do less religion. Hate less. 

Let everybody have their own state. UN charters be damned. 

B Netanyahu. Learn to breakdance.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> Yeah that's the way Ash, poke the Palestinians with sticks, point and laugh, see the spectacle!
> 
> Yes indeed it does work for you because you are a bigot plain and simple.:biggrin2:
> 
> ...


Despite all your hysterical bleating, you keep ignoring the facts:

 The so-called p_lestinians were offered a contiguous state in 1947. It more than half of (pre-67) Israel whilst the Jews were offered a tiny, cut-in-half deal. The Jews accepted it, the arabs rejected it.

The arabs started the war of 47/48 declaring they would exterminate the Jews. They lost.

They started the war of 56 declaring they would exterminate the Jews. They lost.

( ditto) 67

(ditto) 73

International law states that land gained in a defensive war from an aggressor is the defenders to keep.

As for your charges of apartheid; you've just shown what a nazi Jew-hater you are. Arabs have more rights in Israel than they do in any arab state! Arab judges on the supreme court pass judgement on Jews! Arabs are in Israel's parliament. Find ONE arab state where the same can be said for Jews.

The p_lestinians' "mysery" is purely self-inflicted. They are no different to the public housing losers we saw rioting in the Uk recently. Like all losers, they have done nothing but sit on their execrable backsides blaming everyone else for their problems. Unlike productive folk (Indians, Japs, Chinamen and most Europeans) that have worthwhile cultures & religions which value education, hard work, thrift & enterprise; these savages have an inferior culture & religion that stands for only sloth, envy, hate, theft, pack-rape, mysery & mass-murder.

I find it strange that people like you seem so-concerned that these arabs in Israel (who have no ethnicity, culture or language that is in any way distinct from the arabs in ALL the other arab states in that region) get yet another independent arab state in addition to the 20 already in existance. Yet not a peep out of you people re: the Kurds. They ARE a distinct ethnicity with a distinct language & culture but they are Stateless and there's not a sound from "concerned" folk like you.

Could it be that Kurd statehood doesn't involve destroying the Jewish State so it's not really any fun for you?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Ash Newman said:


> Could it be that Kurd statehood doesn't involve destroying the Jewish State so it's not really any fun for you?


It did involved full scale genocide vice a perceived apartheid though.

Oh wait... killing people is worse than treating them like second hand citizens....


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

Apatheticviews said:


> It did involved full scale genocide vice a perceived apartheid though.
> 
> Oh wait... killing people is worse than treating them like second hand citizens....


I just put paid to the apartheid "blood libel" If you read the entire post above.

As for 'genocide':

As you're obviously semi-literate, *Genocide* is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial or religious group" .

The arab poulations in the Land of Israel have multiplied nearly TEN FOLD since 1948. Now not everbody is a genius but I think the Jews (who brought us the cell' phone, the flash drive , raise ocean fish in the desert and produce more $ in biotechnology & IT than the saudis get from oil) are smart enough to be able to genocide a bunch of arab primatives if they so desired. The fact that they've allowed their poulation to multiply ten fold makes me suspect otherwise (sarcasm off).

Why don't you try the old "Jews put x-tian children's blood in the Passover cakes" line. Seems about your speed.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Ash Newman said:


> The so-called p_lestinians were offered a contiguous state in 1947.


I like the use of an underscore when spelling 'Palestinians'.

I thought traditionally only 'G_d' was spelt with an underscore.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Gentlemen and ladies:

Please discontinue the immature name calling. All it shows is that you do not know how to effectively present your argument.

Reminder: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...eminder-of-the-original-premise-of-this-Forum

This is especially important since I believe that you are on the right path to completely solving this issue within three to four more posts!


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Ash Newman said:


> Despite all your hysterical bleating, you keep ignoring the facts:
> 
> The so-called p_lestinians were offered a contiguous state in 1947. It more than half of (pre-67) Israel whilst the Jews were offered a tiny, cut-in-half deal. The Jews accepted it, the arabs rejected it.
> 
> ...


There's been nothing whatsoever "hysterical" at all about what I've written. It's just that you have no moral ground to stand on so the only avenue left is for you to take a lame stab at portraying anyone who attempts to reason with you are being extreme.

I've not ignored any fact in the Palestinian situation. While it's in fact *you* ignoring questions like what specifically would you do if someone took the land you land you and your family had been living on and held a deed to?

The reason you ignore these kinds of questions is because to answer them would show that the actions most of the Palestinians have taken are the kinds of things any reasonable human being would take.

You're extreme in your views and the positions you have taken.

Why haven't people in this thread spoken about the Kurds? A ridiculous question. Not because their cause isn't just but because it is not the topic of the thread.

It could be said that the world took up the Jewish cause in 1948 when the state of Israeli was created?

When the United Nations created the modern state of Israel in 1948 without a reasonable solution as to how the people who had been living on land that was to become the state of Israel was the most unjust and racist acts of law in our lifetimes.

The time has now come to address a human solution and to make whole these people who were kicked off the land they had been living on. (otherwise known as the Palestinians.

Since you've shown historical precedent that the Palestinians do not exist as a people I'll refer to them as *"The people who were kicked of the land they had been living on for many years."

As an individual with Jewish blood flowing through my veins I have put my support for the Jewish state into action in my life and have never supported any policy that would destroy Israel.*


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Ash Newman said:


> I just put paid to the apartheid "blood libel" If you read the entire post above.
> 
> As for 'genocide':
> 
> ...


So you're saying the *Kurd* peoples (ethnic & racial group) were not the victims of Genocidal attacks by the Iraqi nation in the 80's?

You brought up the Kurds, not I. I merely expanded on your point, and presented that the *KURDS* were victimized more severely than the Palestinians (who you point out are merely Arabs living in a region, vice a distinct Ethnic, religious, or racial group).

However it is extremely hard to quantify what the Arab/Persian nations would do to Jewish settlers in the Muslim nations (excluding the Kurds who do have a large Hebrew sect). With the population of middle eastern Jews being so limited outside of Israel.

If we included the Kurds, it is very easy to quantify. They would conduct GENOCIDE, if Iraq is any example.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> When the United Nations created the modern state of Israel in 1948 without a reasonable solution as to how the people who had been living on land that was to become the state of Israel was the most unjust and racist acts of law in our lifetimes.


I say again:

".......... you keep ignoring the facts:

The so-called p_lestinians were offered a contiguous state in 1947. It was more than half of (pre-67) Israel whilst the Jews were offered a tiny, cut-in-half deal. The Jews accepted it, the arabs rejected it.

The arabs started the war of 47/48 declaring they would exterminate the Jews. They lost."

BTW, The Jewish cause was NOT taken up by the UN in 1948. It was taken up (weakly) by the League of Nations in 1919.

A brief history:

When turkish occupied 'p_lestine' fell to Britain in 1917, The brits made the Balfour declaration promising to create a Jewish homeland in THEIR ancestral and sparsely populated* homelanland.

The league of nations concurred and referred to the area as 'British Mandate P_lestine' because the league of nations officially confurred on Britain a mandate to create a Jewish State.

Instead, Britain ILLEGALLY created afalse state called Trans-Jordan out of about 80% the land it was supposed to create a Jewish State out of.. What's more, it brought in heshemite chieftans (from Iraq) to be it's royal family. Britain had NO MANDATE to do this. However it's worth noting that a p_lestinian arab state was created in 1921 . This left about 20% of British mandate p_lestine to create a Jewish State.

This still wasn't good enough for the arab world, so a vote on partitioning that remaining 20% was held and carried by the UN. It effectively cut that 20% in half creating ANOTHER contiguous arab state and a cut-in-half Jewish state on less than 10% of the Land that was supposed to be theirs!

As unjust as all this was, the Jews accepted the terms, the arabs did not.

In short they already have a p_lestinian arab state, it's now called Jordan. PLUS they had their chance at a SECOND p_lestinian arab state in 1947/48 and they blew it.

Move Israel's arabs to the p_lestinian-arab state of Jordan and let the heshemite foreign rulers go back to Iraq. Two states with a natural border (being the River Jordan).

*As far as "where they'd lived for generations" :

"The vast majority of Arabs came to the area after these early Zionist pioneers began  the malaria-infested swamps (above photo) and  the land! In doing so, these Jews created the economic opportunities and medical availabilities which attracted Arabs from both surrounding territories and far-away lands! In fact, over 90% of the Arabs migrated there within the last one hundred years. Most of the Arabs in "Palestine" were interlopers and squatters originating from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and other lands who simply took possession of pieces of land. So much for their unfounded claims that they have been there since "time immemorial!" 
.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

petro said:


> You're either completely ignorant of history in this area, or being a deliberate provocateur.
> 
> Either way you are being very dishonest.


I'll restate my case. The US was losing against Britain in it's war of independence until the French and Spanish stepped in. The French Navy's control of the Atlantic meant that Britain could neither re-supply nor reinforce, that plus French military assistance, soldiers, leaders and weapons, allowed the Continentals to win. What is dishonest about that?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Could I point out, he said wearily, that the Romans didn't evict the Jews from Israel, they removed the intransigent zealots who had rebelled against Roman rule, a common Roman policy. Many Jews were not removed. Also, much, indeed possibly most, of the population wasn't Jewish. Many were Greek, or Syrian, or descendants of the people who lived there before Exodus, also the descendents of the people the Romans called the Poeni (Phonicians) the same word as the Egyptian Peleset, who are referred to in the Bible as Philistines, the descendants of the original inhabitants of what is now Israel. Then, of course, you've got the descendents of Hittites, Canaanites, those that the Jews didn't exterminate (see the book of Joshua). These people, apart from the christians and the Jews assimilated to Islam at the time of the Islamic conquest of the region. It doesn't mean that they were arabs who arrived with that invasion. In any case, there were arabs living in the area at the time of Exodus, Edomites and Aramaic peoples.
Yes, arabs moved into the region in the 19th and 20th centuries, but there again, most Hasidic Jews are descended from the turkic Khazars of Central Asia, who adopted Judaism as a deliberate policy to show their difference from their Christian and Islamic enemies, but who had no actual connection with Israel. Their forms of dress and hair styles all derive from central asia, not from the middle east. Is Israel their homeland?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Ash Newman said:


> "The vast majority of Arabs came to the area after these early Zionist pioneers began  the malaria-infested swamps (above photo) and  the land! In doing so, these Jews created the economic opportunities and medical availabilities which attracted Arabs from both surrounding territories and far-away lands! In fact, over 90% of the Arabs migrated there within the last one hundred years. Most of the Arabs in "Palestine" were interlopers and squatters originating from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and other lands who simply took possession of pieces of land. So much for their unfounded claims that they have been there since "time immemorial!"
> .


I'm curious as to where this has come from. Any chance of a reference?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Ash Newman said:


> The p_lestinians' "mysery" is purely self-inflicted. They are no different to the public housing losers we saw rioting in the Uk recently. Like all losers, they have done nothing but sit on their execrable backsides blaming everyone else for their problems. Unlike productive folk (Indians, Japs, Chinamen and most Europeans) that have worthwhile cultures & religions which value education, hard work, thrift & enterprise; *these savages have an inferior culture & religion that stands for only sloth, envy, hate, theft, pack-rape, mysery & mass-murder.
> *
> I find it strange that people like you seem so-concerned that these arabs in Israel (who have no ethnicity, culture or language that is in any way distinct from the arabs in ALL the other arab states in that region) get yet another independent arab state in addition to the 20 already in existance. Yet not a peep out of you people re: the Kurds. They ARE a distinct ethnicity with a distinct language & culture but they are Stateless and there's not a sound from "concerned" folk like you.
> 
> Could it be that Kurd statehood doesn't involve destroying the Jewish State so it's not really any fun for you?


If Kurds were currently being treated as second class in their "own" country, and were actively seeking nationhood, then I would indeed support them. On the other hand, the states in the Mid East of which Kurds form a part are not, as far as I'm aware, states of both an ethnic and religious base. I suppose Iran is an Islamic Republic, but isn't a nation-state. Turkey isn't an Islamic State, although it is a Nation State, Syria and Iraq are mostly Islamic, but are Secular States. Neither Syria nor Iraq are Nation states. 
The Kurds could be seen as being rather like Catalans, or Basques,with their own ethnicity and culture, but as long as they aren't persecuted, and as long as they are content with how things are, then why should we demand a nation state for them? On the other hand, the Kurds have a History of persecution of other ethnic groups. Does or should that disqualify them from nationhood?

I'm more than little concerned that you've chosen to use the language that I've highlighted above. I'd rather hoped that that kind of racist discourse had died out.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Ash Newman said:


> I say again:
> 
> ".......... you keep ignoring the facts:.


No *YOU *keep ignoring the facts. You haven't addressed one question that's been posed to you.

(Like the broken record)

Why don't *you *answer what you would do if you were kicked off you and your family had been living on for many years? * Why don't you answer?*


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Chouan said:


> If Kurds were currently being treated as second class in their "own" country, and were actively seeking nationhood, then I would indeed support them. On the other hand, the states in the Mid East of which Kurds form a part are not, as far as I'm aware, states of both an ethnic and religious base. I suppose Iran is an Islamic Republic, but isn't a nation-state. Turkey isn't an Islamic State, although it is a Nation State, Syria and Iraq are mostly Islamic, but are Secular States. Neither Syria nor Iraq are Nation states.
> The Kurds could be seen as being rather like Catalans, or Basques,with their own ethnicity and culture, but as long as they aren't persecuted, and as long as they are content with how things are, then why should we demand a nation state for them? On the other hand, the Kurds have a History of persecution of other ethnic groups. Does or should that disqualify them from nationhood?
> 
> I'm more than little concerned that you've chosen to use the language that I've highlighted above. I'd rather hoped that that kind of racist discourse had died out.


+1 on posts

Isn't Iran made up almost exclusively of Persians? Thus a nation state?


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Could I point out, he said wearily, that the Romans didn't evict the Jews from Israel, they removed the intransigent zealots who had rebelled against Roman rule, a common Roman policy. Many Jews were not removed. Also, much, indeed possibly most, of the population wasn't Jewish. Many were Greek, or Syrian, or descendants of the people who lived there before Exodus, also the descendents of the people the Romans called the Poeni (Phonicians) the same word as the Egyptian Peleset, who are referred to in the Bible as Philistines, the descendants of the original inhabitants of what is now Israel. Then, of course, you've got the descendents of Hittites, Canaanites, those that the Jews didn't exterminate (see the book of Joshua). These people, apart from the christians and the Jews assimilated to Islam at the time of the Islamic conquest of the region. It doesn't mean that they were arabs who arrived with that invasion. In any case, there were arabs living in the area at the time of Exodus, Edomites and Aramaic peoples.
> Yes, arabs moved into the region in the 19th and 20th centuries, but there again, most Hasidic Jews are descended from the turkic Khazars of Central Asia, who adopted Judaism as a deliberate policy to show their difference from their Christian and Islamic enemies, but who had no actual connection with Israel. Their forms of dress and hair styles all derive from central asia, not from the middle east. Is Israel their homeland?


The whole Khazar thing is mostly myth beaten up by anti-semites. It was only the khazar aristocracy who converted to Judais. And on that :
1) One who undergoes a genuine conversion is as Jewish as Moses and just as much an ethnic Jew as anyone else (google conversion to Judaism).
2) The 7 million + Ashkenazi Jews of the 20th century could not be the descendants of a tiny handful of khazars. It's not mathematically possible.

*"*At some point in the last decades of the 8th century or the early 9th century, the Khazar and converted to , and part of the general population may have followed.[SUP][28][/SUP] The extent of the conversion is debated. The 10th century reported that "all the Khazars are Jews." Notwithstanding this statement, some scholars[SUP][29][/SUP] believe that only the upper classes converted to Judaism; there is some support for this in contemporary Muslim texts"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Conversion_of_the_royalty_and_aristocracy_to_Judaism

What about DNA?

"A check on Google News for "Abraham's Children in the Genome Era" shows a mere six citations. If the study proved that Jews are really Khazars, don't you think Reuters and AP would splash that all over the world?"

https://www.redstate.com/barrypopik...rom-700-1000-ad-who-never-lived-in-palestine/


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> No *YOU *keep ignoring the facts. You haven't addressed one question that's been posed to you.
> 
> (Like the broken record)
> 
> Why don't *you *answer what you would do if you were kicked off you and your family had been living on for many years? *Why don't you answer?*


OK, I WILL answer you.

My family WAS kicked out the place it had lived for "generations".We were kicked out of our properties in Vanuatu with NO compensation. But we had to cop it. To date we've not blown anybody up. And before you say "well that's not the same" I 'll show you that is is.

The Pacific Islands of Vanuatu were invaded & occupied by Britain & France who ruled over them in what was called a çondominion'...........................Just as the Islamic empire invaded & occupied Israel.

My great grandfather was encouraged to resttle there as many boer war veterans were.............................Just as the caliphate used to move it's subjects (either by force or coersion) around it's territories.

Three generations of us had a very nice life there. Then one day the original, legitimate , native owners said "get out". That's it. All over, Red Rover!

Of coarse maybe I should learn form the p_lestinians and claim that WE are the real natives of the lslands. Heck, if so many can believe that arabs are the legitimate inhabitants of land that was once called Israel & Judea, they'd just have to believe I was a legitimate owner of Vanuatu.

Now your turn:

Do you concede that Jews had sovereignty in the Land of Israel 2,000 years BEFORE there was ever an arab presence there?

Yes or No


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Ash Newman said:


> Now your turn:
> 
> Do you concede that Jews had sovereignty in the Land of Israel 2,000 years BEFORE there was ever an arab presence there?
> 
> Yes or No


No. I've already pointed out that there was a semitic presence in Canaan before the Jews of Exodus (the book) arrived. The Phoenicians controlled the coastal cities and there were Edomite (Arab) settlements in Canaan also. The Hyksos, who ruled the area that is now Palestine were also a semitic people who could just as easily be called arabs, as could the Aramaeans, another semitic/arab people whose language was dominant in the area we are discussing, indeed, the New Testament was written in Greek and Aramaic.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Ash Newman said:


> The whole Khazar thing is mostly myth beaten up by anti-semites. It was only the khazar aristocracy who converted to Judais. And on that :
> 1) One who undergoes a genuine conversion is as Jewish as Moses and just as much an ethnic Jew as anyone else (google conversion to Judaism).
> 2) The 7 million + Ashkenazi Jews of the 20th century could not be the descendants of a tiny handful of khazars. It's not mathematically possible.
> 
> ...


Even the contemporary evidence that you site states that "all the Khazars are Jews." If the Khazars and their subject peoples converted to Judaism, it makes them Jews in a religious sense, not an ethnic sense. Is Judaism a religion or an ethnicity? You can't have it both ways!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> +1 on posts
> 
> Isn't Iran made up almost exclusively of Persians? Thus a nation state?


No, there are Turkmen, Afghans, Arabs, Kazhaks, Armenians, Kurds, Baluchis, Azeri, and many other smaller tribal groups.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

"The so-called p_lestinians were offered a contiguous state in 1947. It was more than half of (pre-67) Israel whilst the Jews were offered a tiny, cut-in-half deal. The Jews accepted it, the arabs rejected it. "

This map shows the *UN's partition plan of 1947*.

As you can see, it isn't as quite straightforward as Ash suggests, and Israel doesn't get a tiny "cut-in-half" deal, they would have got as much of the Palestinian's land as the Palestinians would have got. No wonder the Palestinians rejected it!

"The so-called p_lestinians were offered a contiguous state in 1947. It was more than half of (pre-67) Israel whilst the Jews were offered a tiny, cut-in-half deal. The Jews accepted it, the arabs rejected it. "


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Ash Newman said:


> OK, I WILL answer you.
> 
> My family WAS kicked out the place it had lived for "generations".We were kicked out of our properties in Vanuatu with NO compensation. But we had to cop it. To date we've not blown anybody up. And before you say "well that's not the same" I 'll show you that is is.
> 
> ...


Yes, I do concede that the Jewish people had sovereignty over much of the land that is now Israel.

I have Jewish blood flowing through my veins okay. *I *concede that the Jews have sovereignty based on by belief in the word of the God of Abraham. *BUT*, and that is a very big but, it would be *extreme religious prejudice* for me, or *anyone* to claim that the covenant between God and Abraham is binding law for people who do not believe the same way we do.

This entire line is akin to asking Christians or Jews to believe that the word of the Muhammad is binding law. *It's the exact same issue!* Now given the hard line statements you've made there's no doubt in my mind that I'm not going to change your mind but people need to know where your brand of extremism has it's roots. And they have to ask themselves if your rational is sound.

The vast majority of Palestinians have not ever blown anyone up. Again, most any reasonable individual knows that you making statements that imply that a sizable percentage of Palestinians "Blow people up" is *fanaticism on your part.* *You conducting yourself that way shows that your extremism is no different, just the polar opposite, than that of the fanatic Palestinians who do blow people up! *


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> The vast majority of Palestinians have not ever blown anyone up. Again, most any reasonable individual knows that you making statements that imply that a sizable percentage of Palestinians "Blow people up" is *fanaticism on your part.* *You conducting yourself that way shows that your extremism is no different, just the polar opposite, of the fanatic Palestinians who do blow people up! *


Are you sure that a fanatic that doesn't blow people up is the same as a fanatic that is indifferent to a section of their population that does blow people up??

Are you really very certain of that??


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The covenant between God and Abraham is central not only to Judaism, but also to Christianity and to Islam. In all three religions he is the "father" of the people, so a Muslim could just as effectively argue that Abraham's covenant with God is "their" covenant. So, if sovereignty of the Jews over Israel is based on Abraham's covenant, then Islam's claim on Palestine is equally valid.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Even the contemporary evidence that you site states that "all the Khazars are Jews." If the Khazars and their subject peoples converted to Judaism, it makes them Jews in a religious sense, not an ethnic sense. Is Judaism a religion or an ethnicity? You can't have it both ways!


No legitimate source claim "all khazars are Jews". Read the source material again.

Whilst Jews are not a race they ARE an ethnicity bonded by a religion. That's why I told you to google the subject. When a gentile converts to Judaism, it's not just a declaration of faith as in other religions. They move to Jewish neighborhoods, adopt Jewish ways & customs etc. They BECOME Jews not only religiously, but culturally. They change their ethnicity even though they don't change their race.

Ruth is one of the most important female figures in Judaism. She was the mother of their greatest King, David. The Messiah will come from David's seed. Ruth was a convert.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

Chouan said:


> No. I've already pointed out that there was a semitic presence in Canaan before the Jews of Exodus (the book) arrived. The Phoenicians controlled the coastal cities and there were Edomite (Arab) settlements in Canaan also. The Hyksos, who ruled the area that is now Palestine were also a semitic people who could just as easily be called arabs, as could the Aramaeans, another semitic/arab people whose language was dominant in the area we are discussing, indeed, the New Testament was written in Greek and Aramaic.


Edomites are the descendants of Esau. Arabs are descendants of Ishmael! Phoenicians (and Assyrians for that matter) are neither! You can't just call all semitic people arabs. Arabs are arabs and weren't any in the Land of Israel before 7th Century CE.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

Chouan said:


> "The so-called p_lestinians were offered a contiguous state in 1947. It was more than half of (pre-67) Israel whilst the Jews were offered a tiny, cut-in-half deal. The Jews accepted it, the arabs rejected it. "
> 
> This map shows the *UN's partition plan of 1947*.
> 
> ...


You're omiting the fact that the arabs already got 'Trans-Jordan" in 1921!

So if the arabs were right to reject the UN partition, would you please state for the record just what the Jews should have got in 1947?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Are you sure that a fanatic that doesn't blow people up is the same as a fanatic that is indifferent to a section of their population that does blow people up??
> 
> Are you really very certain of that??


It's with utmost respect that I can say I know from reading your mind's thoughts that you are too intelligent to make this statement.

You've got to see that the main problem with such an extrapolation is that once this kind of thinking begins it's insidious. Where the hell does it stop? I truly feel that you're bright enough to see that once you begin with the premise you've written above that *very soon* the world ends up with illiterate fools saying "Let's go kill us some ********!"

It's far too in depth to discuss in this venue but the vast majority of the extremists Muslims are coming from experiences that have much more to do with their lack of education, (i.e. they're illiterate) the past political follies of the U.S. and other western governments, and the fact that they get so much of their information from extremists clerics who are pushing political points of view that have nothing to with Islam.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Ash Newman said:


> Edomites are the descendants of Esau. Arabs are descendants of Ishmael! Phoenicians (and Assyrians for that matter) are neither! You can't just call all semitic people arabs. Arabs are arabs and weren't any in the Land of Israel before 7th Century CE.


Arent you mixing religioun here with history?

Noone believes in the bible as historical fact anymore.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> I truly feel that you're bright enough to see that once you begin with the premise you've written above that *very soon* the world ends up with illiterate fools saying "Let's go kill us some ********!"


...and instead of celebrating them, I am prepared to renounce them.

While I appreciate your sentiment, I think the comparison as equals is as silly as recent examples equating Occupy Wall Street with the Tea Party!!


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

A point of view is one thing but it's all rather abstract unless one puts their point of view "on the road" so to speak. (specifically where the rubber hits the road)

And when the rubber of your point of view hit's the road of real life it leads to people with questionable intelligence committing hate crimes against the people you renounce.

I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I "celebrate" about the Palestinians, period. It's just that I take into account what they have been through as a people, factor in human nature, and understand that their time as a people has come. While from everything I can gather from your comments you would have them, all of them, end up living in squalor for heaven only knows how much longer.

See, it's not that you just feel that the time for the Palestinians isn't now it's that you would be content if their time was *never.*

And since you brought the whole occupy Wall Street thing up, and taking into account the tone and tenor of your remarks, perhaps you need to open your eyes.

Both the Tea party and the entire Occupy Wall Street are/were grass roots movements. The fact that the Tea Party's message has* finally* coalesced into a central message does not mean that the Occupy Wall Street crowd is an example of poor education in that they are dummies. (as Newton Leroy Gingrich suggested on this past Sunday)

Remember the Tea Party is/was known to have some white supremacists within their midst,....

The Occupy Wall Street is indeed a rag tag bunch, many of whom are obvious malcontents, but if they manage to come together with a central message they may well prove to be a force for some badly needed change in the United States.

The fact that the Tea Party came primarily from the right wing politically and the Occupy Wall Street group comes from the left does not mean they're silly as you suggest.

Where do I sit politically? I consider myself a progressive, right leaning on fiscal issues and slightly left on social issues. (primarily education) And as I recently told my very right wing Father, the only thing I hate worse than a Democrat is a Republican! This country we live in has a political system that has been corrupted by the influence of big, very big, money into the political process. The net effect of which is "legislation to the highest bidder." (And in that regard I am one of the 99% and I will be an interested observer, possibly a supporter with my time and money, of the Occupy Wall Steel movement.) And I'm not one bit ashamed to say it.

Not to entirely change the direction of the thread but since you brought it up I believe this article is worth posting.

*Panic of the Plutocrats*
*By **PAUL KRUGMAN*
*Published: October 9, 2011*
It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America's direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent. ​And this reaction tells you something important - namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called *"economic royalists,"* not the people camping in Zuccotti Park. ​ Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police - confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction - but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009. 
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced "mobs" and "the pitting of Americans against Americans." The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging "class warfare," while Herman Cain calls them "anti-American." My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don't deserve to have them. 
Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to "take the jobs away from people working in this city," a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement's actual goals. 
And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters "let their freak flags fly," and are "aligned with Lenin." 
*The way to understand all of this is to realize that it's part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is. *
Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes - well, *Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler's invasion of Poland. *
And then there's the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical - it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous dictum that "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." 
But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you'd think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. *George Will declared that she has a "collectivist agenda," *that she believes that "individualism is a chimera." And Rush Limbaugh called her "a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it." 
*What's going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street's Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is.* They're not John Galt; they're not even Steve Jobs. *They're people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens*. 
Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees - basically, they're still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families. 
This special treatment can't bear close scrutiny - and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. *Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage.* In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren. 
*So who's really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America's oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.*


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> (And in that regard I am one of the 99% and I will be an interested observer, possibly a supporter with my time and money, of the Occupy Wall Steel movement.) And I'm not one bit ashamed to say it.
> 
> Not to entirely change the direction of the thread but since you brought it up I believe this article is worth posting.
> 
> ...


1) Even 99% vs. 1% is divisive politicking that Obama promised us he'd abandon.

2) Your source is biased!!  
​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I "celebrate" about the Palestinians, period.


It's the Palestinians themselves I was speaking of, not you. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Even 99% vs. 1% is divisive politicking that Obama promised us he'd abandon.
> 
> 2) Your source is biased!!
> ​


Anyone who authors an article advocating a position can be called biased. Although I will admit Paul Krugman is quite left politically.

Woulda, you seem like a well informed fellow and if you read that article, and also take into account what our political process has turned into in the U.S., I find it difficult to believe that you will not agree that our republic based democracy is under serious threat of being completely undermined by the influence, (bribery) of faceless special interest money.

Politicians from the extreme right and left agree on that.

Lastly, I support Obama as the least evil of the legions of self centered hypocrites that seek the office. That being said Obama is not responsible for the Occupy Wall Street movement and such an assertion is void of fact.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Arent you mixing religioun here with history?
> 
> Noone believes in the bible as historical fact anymore.


Maybe not, but that was in fact the LEAST of the differences between edomites & arabs. Apart from them having a completely different culture to the arabs, I should mention is that the edomites were Judaised by the Jews and effectively destroyed along with them in the first century. In any case, they are NOT arabs. Arabs are a collection of nomadic tribes native to the arabian peninsular. You can't just call every non-Jewish ethnicity of the ancient middle east 'arab' . It would be less incorrect to call edomites 'Jews'.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> The Occupy Wall Street is indeed a rag tag bunch, many of whom are obvious malcontents, but if they manage to come together with a central message they may well prove to be a force for some badly needed change in the United States.


This explains why you're so evil, insane, irrational and blind to historical reality. You're a leftard! :biggrin:

For the record: Are you hetro-sexual?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Ash Newman said:


> This explains why you're so evil, insane, irrational and blind to historical reality. You're a leftard! :biggrin:
> 
> For the record: Are you hetro-sexual?


For the record, are you retarded?

I think you will find that most people are to the left of you. Including, quite possibly, most American republicans and European conservatives. And stay out of people's sexual orientation.

How old are you, twelve? If you want to participate, argue on point not on person.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> For the record, are you retarded?
> 
> I think you will find that most people are to the left of you. Including, quite possibly, most American republicans and European conservatives. And stay out of people's sexual orientation.
> 
> How old are you, twelve? If you want to participate, argue on point not on person.


Essentially the argument has concluded.


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> For the record, are you retarded?
> 
> I think you will find that most people are to the left of you. Including, quite possibly, most American republicans and European conservatives. And stay out of people's sexual orientation.
> 
> How old are you, twelve? If you want to participate, argue on point not on person.


Coming from a swede, I'm not surprised by the reaction.

"european conservative" is an oxymoron, BTW. Europeans of this generation are simply varying degrees of leftist, nazi, communist, gay & pervert. Not happy with 6 million Jews going into the ovens they now conspire with islamo-fascists to destroy Israel whilst they surrender their own countries & cultures to muSSlim immigrants.

Let me assure you that in about 20-30 years when muSSlims take over most of europe and there are scenes of europeans being dragged out into the street, gang-raped and beheaded, I'm going to shout for joy!:biggrin:


----------



## Ash Newman (Oct 3, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> ..................................., and the fact that they get so much of their information from extremists clerics who are pushing political points of view that have nothing to with Islam.


You really are smoking something strange! 

If you'll look at the muSSlim-nazi-koran sometime you'll see that it is on par with mein kampf. According to it, iSSlam and sharia law MUST rule over ALL mankind. non-muSSlim-nazis are to be either 1/ killed 2/ enslaved 3/ forcibly converted or 4/ made into 'dhimmis' (second class citizens with less rights than blacks had in Old south Africa). A quick look at iSSlam's history or the nazi-koran will prove it.

And before you dribble-on about x-tianity's various crimes, I'd point out a stark difference:

x-tianity is horrible when it's adherents DO NOT follow it's teachings. iSSlam is horrible when it's adherents DO follow it's teachings.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Ash Newman said:


> x-tianity is horrible when it's adherents DO NOT follow it's teachings. iSSlam is horrible when it's adherents DO follow it's teachings.


Your position would be better served if you stuck to more salient points such as this and left the other strange stuff alone.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> Woulda, you seem like a well informed fellow and if you read that article, and also take into account what our political process has turned into in the U.S., I find it difficult to believe that you will not agree that our republic based democracy is under serious threat of being completely undermined by the influence, (bribery) of faceless special interest money.


So called special interests are the interests of the American people and they are not faceless.

"Big Oil's" face is that of tens of thousands of employees and local businesspeople. It is billions of private money and investment and revenue for government.

The face of trial lawyers and public unions are on display on late nite TV, in the Wisconsin State House, and in the streets of NY Boston and DC disrupting traffic and the pursuits of productive citizens.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Ash Newman said:


> This explains why you're so evil, insane, irrational and blind to historical reality. You're a leftard! :biggrin:
> 
> For the record: Are you hetro-sexual?


I fall you got got from the in depth statement I made about my political leanings is that I'm a leftard you're unable to comprehend our language. I said the only thing I hate worse than a Democrat is a Republican.

And you're rocket scientist extrapolation is that I'm a "leftard."ic12337:

You don't have much factual to say,...You're position is morally bankrupt.

And my sexuality? Although I like to tink I'd have no problem stating so if I were gay your question reminds me of the alkward stage pre-pubesent boys go though when anything that makes them unconfortable is "Gay." I'd say grow up but I don't think you ever will.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So called special interests are the interests of the American people and they are not faceless.
> 
> "Big Oil's" face is that of tens of thousands of employees and local businesspeople. It is billions of private money and investment and revenue for government.
> 
> The face of trial lawyers and public unions are on display on late nite TV, in the Wisconsin State House, and in the streets of NY Boston and DC disrupting traffic and the pursuits of productive citizens.


The world wide media has documented hundreds of specific instances where large multi-national corporations have received preferential treatment by way of legislation that has been passed that is favorable to no one other then themselves. If you have missed this over the past twenty years your head is buried in the sand.

Right wing and left wing U.S. Senators and Congresspersons wholeheartedly agree with the fact that money being injected into the political process has had a net result of laws being passed that hurt the majority of Americans and the democratic process as a whole.

John McCain, (highly conservative) Bernie Sanders, (highly liberal) and Joe Lieberman, (middle of the road) gave an interview within the past year where they said that special interest money is the biggest threat to our political process that they have seen in all their time as national lawmakers.

No one, save possibly Exxon and general Electric agree with your assessment. You can't be that thick you're just interested in arguing for the sake of it now,....


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> The world wide media has documented hundreds of specific instances where large multi-national corporations have received preferential treatment by way of legislation that has been passed that is favorable to no one other then themselves. If you have missed this over the past twenty years your head is buried in the sand.


I'm not denying that.

I just don't see an inherent problem with it though I do see individual cases of abuses.

Legislation that has been passed that is favorable to no one other then themselves may actually be favorable to tens of thousands of employees and investors as well.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm not denying that.
> 
> I just don't see an inherent problem with it though I do see individual cases of abuses.
> 
> Legislation that has been passed that is favorable to no one other then themselves may actually be favorable to tens of thousands of employees and investors as well.


Just keep repeating that to yourself as the American middle class fades into oblivion.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> Just keep repeating that to yourself as the American middle class fades into oblivion.


The American middle class used to work for US Steel and GM.

They had better hope Exxon/Mobile lasts as long as it can!!


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The American middle class used to work for US Steel and GM.
> 
> They had better hope Exxon/Mobile lasts as long as it can!!


On that much you and I can agree,....

Although it's a sad day in my opinion when we're the only democracy in the world left that does not force huge multinational corporations contribute to keeping our society's standard of living from falling for the vast majority.

Why should the multinationals leave the relative sanctuary of having their headquarters in the U.S.? I mean they can buy all the legislation they need. (this goes especially for big banks)


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> On that much you and I can agree,....
> 
> Although it's a sad day in my opinion when we're the only democracy in the world left that does not force huge multinational corporations contribute to keeping our society's standard of living from falling for the vast majority.
> 
> Why should the multinationals leave the relative sanctuary of having their headquarters in the U.S.? I mean they can buy all the legislation they need. (this goes especially for big banks)


For the same reason they incorporate in Delaware if they decide to stay!!

I'd like you to consider for a moment that our society's standard of living, falling for the vast majority, may be attributed to single parenthood, failed marriages and drug/alcohol dependency as much if not moreso than the hording of assets and cash by the wealthiest Americans.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

127.72 MHz said:


> You don't have much factual to say,...


Took you long enough to figure that out.

Meanwhile you waste time trying to rationalise with a zealot - a religious nutcase who puts 'SS' into 'muslim' and cannot even bring himself to write the word 'Christian' either.

He is probably only on here for his special subject. Not much previous; but plenty of weird posts on this thread.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'd like you to consider for a moment that our society's standard of living, falling for the vast majority, may be attributed to single parenthood, failed marriages and drug/alcohol dependency as much if not moreso than the hording of assets and cash by the wealthiest Americans.


This is not true. There have been innumerable studies done since the 1970s onward by reputable people that show that the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation is the main cause of the falling standard of living.

From "Monthly Labor Review, 1987":

The purchasing power of the minimum wage-that is, its value after taking account of inflation, here measured with the Consumer Price Index-has fluctuated considerably over time, but today is less than at any time since the mid-1950's. In 1985 dollars, the minimum wage was worth just under $2 per hour when the legislation was enacted in 1938. ...By 1968, the real value of the wage had reached a high of nearly $5 per hour, but by 1985, it had declined to $3.35. In the 5-year period between January 1981 -when the minimum wage was set at $3.35- January 1986, average prices increased by about 26 percent. To have the same purchasing power it had had at the start of 1981, the minimum wage would have had to have been about $4.22 per hour in January 1986.
--------------
In re to single parenthood. A big part of the reason for the increase in single parents is that the father can't earn enough to support his family due to the steadily decreasing value of the minimum wage.

Post #206 is not a reasoned argument supported by well-researched evidence; it's just propaganda.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> This is not true. There have been innumerable studies done since the 1970s onward by reputable people that show that the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation is the main cause of the falling standard of living.
> 
> Post #206 is not a reasoned argument supported by well-researched evidence; it's just propaganda.


Increasing the Minimum Wage Would Not Help the Poor

Just 1.9 percent, or 404,000, of the 20.8 million poor Americans over the age of 15 would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage to $6.65 per hour.
Studies show that raising the minimum wage does not significantly reduce poverty. In fact, for some subgroups, minimum wage increases appeared to raise the level of poverty.4
Unprecedented IncreaseSenator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) is proposing an unparalleled increase in the minimum wage. His bill (S. 964) would increase the hourly minimum wage by $1.50 over the next 18 months to $5.74 thirty days after enactment; $6.25 on January 1, 2002; and $6.65 on January 1, 2003. It would amount to a 29.1 percent increase in the minimum wage-over five times the rate of Inflation that is forecast by the Congressional Budget Office over the next two years. Never before has Congress raised the minimum wage by more than $.90 per hour over a two-year period.
Large Unfunded Mandate on State and Local GovernmentsThe Congressional Budget Office estimates that increasing the minimum wage to $6.65 would impose a $2.1 billion unfunded mandate on state and local governments from fiscal year (FY) 2002 to FY 2006. This exceeds the statutory threshold in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and may require a point-of-order vote in Congress to waive the Act. Much of the higher cost for local governments will be borne by taxpayers in small towns and rural communities.
The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that increasing the minimum wage to $6.65 would impose an additional $1.5 billion cost to federal taxpayers in the form of in higher federal spending for welfare-to-work programs from FY 2002 to FY 2006.
Large Private Sector CostThe Congressional Budget Office estimates that increasing the minimum wage to $6.65 would cost private sector employers $30.2 billion from FY 2002 to FY 2006. Someone would have to pay for this cost. Economic research indicates that those who pay the most are unskilled youth through fewer job opportunities and consumers through higher prices.
The last time the minimum wage was increased, restaurant menu prices increased 2.6 percent in 1997 compared with a 1.7 percent increase in the consumer price index. Inflation in the service sector, in which most minimum wage workers are employed, rose 2.8 percent in 1997-1.1 percent higher than the overall Inflation rate.
Reduces Job Opportunities for Unskilled AmericansProponents often point to the increase in employment after the 1996_97 hikes in the minimum wage as proof that mandating an increase does not destroy jobs. This argument, however, is misleading and deceptive. Focusing only on total employment hides significant negative effects for groups like teenagers (see chart). Although the last increase in the minimum wage did not reduce total employment, it did reduce employment rates, particularly for unskilled teenagers. Only the red-hot economy in 1998 and 1999 was able to mitigate the impact of the last minimum wage increase on teenagers.

A 1999 survey of small businesses by the Jerome Levy Economics Institute shows that raising the minimum wage to $6.00 per hour would cause more than 20 percent of small-business owners to reconsider their employment decisions.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the potential job losses associated with an increase in the minimum wage to $6.65 at roughly 200,000 to 600,000 jobs.
https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/06/who-is-paid-the-minimum-wage

I just don't appreciate anyone saying MY propaganda is poory researched!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The 1960s War on poverty was intended to eliminate child poverty nationwide through a variety of income transfers and human development programs. However, during the first three decades of the War on poverty, there was little net decline in the child poverty rate. In 1965 (the year when the first War on poverty programs were initiated), the child poverty rate was 20.7 percent.[1] Thirty years later, in 1996 (the last year before the implementation of welfare reform), the child poverty rate was only slightly lower at 19.8 percent.[2]
The lack of progress in reducing child poverty since 1965 can be explained in part by the erosion of marriage and the growth of poverty-prone single-parent families. Two sets of facts make this point clear:

The poverty rate for all children in married-couple families is 8.2 percent. By contrast, the poverty rate for all children in single-parent families is four times higher at 35.2 percent.[3] 
The number of single-parent families has grown considerably since the onset of the War on Poverty. In 1960, less than 12 percent of children lived in single-parent families. By 2000, that figure had more than doubled, rising to 27.6 percent.
https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2002/04/the-effect-of-marriage-on-child-poverty

Perhaps another time, another thread...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Increasing the Minimum Wage Would Not Help the Poor
> 
> Just 1.9 percent, or 404,000, of the 20.8 million poor Americans over the age of 15 would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage to $6.65 per hour.
> Studies show that raising the minimum wage does not significantly reduce poverty. In fact, for some subgroups, minimum wage increases appeared to raise the level of poverty.4
> ...


Come on

If people actually work, shouldn't they get at least 7$ an hour?

Most often, it will just cut slightly into the entrepreneurs earnings.

And just little bit of equality of income isn't that bad.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Come on
> 
> If people actually work, shouldn't they get at least 7$ an hour?
> 
> ...


You mean the Entrepreneur's paycheck. You're advocating taking from one person and giving it to another.

Investors receive their paycheck from their investments.

A 30%~ increase in base pay is massive. All it means is that the cost will be passed onto the consumer, which is also the worker who is most likely to use the service.

But to answer your base question, the US minimum wage was increased 2009 to $7.25.

Equality of income implies Equality of service. I'm sorry but fast food servers (minimum wage workers) do not rate the same income as their managers, their managers' managers, or those above them. They're not doing the same level of work.

Payroll is an incentive for services rendered. Would you perform additional work if you didn't receive additional pay?


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/06/who-is-paid-the-minimum-wage
> 
> I just don't appreciate anyone saying MY propaganda is poory researched!!


The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing propaganda mill masquerading as a think-tank. Its founders were Joseph Coors and Paul Weyrich.

From U.S. News and World Report, December 18, 2008:

*How Paul Weyrich Founded the Christian Right*

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

Who's the person most responsible for

bringing evangelicals-who had

retreated from public life in America

after the public relations disaster of

1925's Scopes Monkey Trial-back into politics? Here's a hint:

he cofounded the Moral Majority.
No, it isn't Jerry Falwell.
It's Paul Weyrich, the powerful but low-profile conservative

activist who . Weyrich was the behind-the-

scenes architect of Falwell's very public organization, which

began a legacy of evangelical political activism that has since

been taken up by the likes of the Christian Coalition and

Focus on the Family.
--------------------------------------------------------
*From The Yurica Report:

How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power*

By Katherine Yurica
September 14, 2004

*Paul Weyrich's Secret Manual on How to Win Politically*
Since the writing and posting of my essay, _The Despoiling of America _in February 2004, there is more and more evidence that not only has a cultural war been launched, but that the plotters are winning it. "Dominionism" now looks more like a term that is applicable to both right-wing-religious believers and to the neo-cons who were created and born in an astonishing resurgence of an immoral Machiavellianism: both groups believe in domination and control. While religious adherents adopted a decidedly heretical Christian doctrine,[1] the neo-cons continue to use the American churches to help execute their cabal. It was expressed this way by a _Yurica Report_ talk board participant:"One of the more sinister aspects of the current crisis is the influence of Leo Strauss on the pro-war, "neo-cons" who are determining so much of our foreign policy. While the Christian right thinks it is running the show, Leo Strauss' irreligious philosophy is actually in control. Strauss believed that the rulers should not be religious, but should use religion to manage the people - which he evidently regarded as a stupid herd. He also believed that a state of war was great for controlling and directing the masses. So it's all come together: the weirdest book of the bible [Revelations], with its mysterious disasters; the scheming behind the scenes warmongers and an incident of terrorism that has served admirably as the Project for a New American Century's hoped-for 'new Pearl Harbor.'" Adrien Rain
​Americans and the main-stream media have been very slow in catching on to the fact that we are in a war-a war that is cultural, religious and political. One document not mentioned in _The Despoiling of America_ is the closeted manual that reveals how the right wing in American politics can get and keep power. It was created under the tutelage of Paul Weyrich, the man who founded the Free Congress Foundation. Conservative leaders consider Weyrich to be the "most powerful man in American politics today." There is no question of his immense influence in conservative circles. He is also considered the founder of the , a conservative think tank made possible with funding from Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon-Scaife. Weyrich served as the Founding President from 1973-1974.

To get a sense of how revolutionary the political fight for power in the U.S. is, we need to look at a few quotes from what has been dubbed, "Paul Weyrich's Teaching Manual," the Free Congress Foundation's strategic plan on how to gain control of the government of the U.S. Written by Eric Heubeck, and titled, "The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement," the document is no longer available at the Free Congress Foundation's website for obvious reasons. But excerpts are published at the _Yurica Report_. The excerpts explain why the Dominionists are winning; the tactics they endorse are sheer Machiavellian:

I have paraphrased the four immoral principles of the Dominionist movement as the following:

1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication.
2) It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of "goodness" whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as "evil."
3) Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.
4) The creation of the _appearance_ of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the _will_ of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.
------------------------------------------------------------
So Woulda, you're using the Heritage Foundation; a right-wing propaganda mill and by extension; Paul Weyrich; a right-wing zealot to support your arguments. What you cite isn't well-researched refereed academic journal published research; it's just propaganda.

To excerpt the report you cited:

*Reduces Job Opportunities for Unskilled Americans*

Proponents often point to the increase in employment after the 1996_97 hikes in the minimum wage as proof that mandating an increase does not destroy jobs. This argument, however, is misleading and deceptive. Focusing only on total employment hides significant negative effects for groups like teenagers (see chart). Although the last increase in the minimum wage did not reduce total employment, it did reduce employment rates, particularly for unskilled teenagers. Only the red-hot economy in 1998 and 1999 was able to mitigate the impact of the last minimum wage increase on teenagers.
---------------------------------------------------------
The problem with the above citation is that, and I know this from my own life experience, "unskilled teenagers" are unskilled because of poor educational opportunities and poor vocational guidance. For example, a friend of mine went to vocational school and took the electrician course and landed a job right out high school and never lacked for work, and this was in the stagflation mid-70s. I went to the same vocational school and took auto mechanics and then went to the Nashville Auto-Diesel College and took auto and diesel mechanics, arc and acetylene welding and got hired as a welder and worked for years as a welder before going to college. My friend and I both noticed and discussed how we had done relatively well after high school with respect to getting jobs compared to our other high school friends who had just attended high school and didn't get any vocational training. They had more trouble finding jobs and were paid at or close to minimum wage and were struggling to make ends meet. I would have much preferred to go to machinist school (better pay) but there wasn't such a school nearby and no one I asked even knew where such a school was - so I didn't go that route, and looking back on it I wish I had. The "Unskilled Americans" cited above would have been much better able to get a good-paying job if they had a good education *and* good job training a la Kettering University (i.e. the former General Motors Institute) or Machine Tool Technology (machinist) at Calhoun Community College. You'll note my emphasis on manufacturing. It's well known that manufacturing jobs pay better for people who aren't interested in getting a four-year degree. People with certificates from the above-named schools and fields don't need to bother with minimum wage. The unskilled teenagers mentioned in the above excerpt shouldn't be sitting around being unskilled. They should be in school learning a trade - with public funds supporting them if they don't have the money. A trade that will pay them well above minimum wage.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> You mean the Entrepreneur's paycheck. You're advocating taking from one person and giving it to another.
> 
> Investors receive their paycheck from their investments.
> 
> ...


All costs are passed to the consumer.

I guess you're not suggesting that the managers manager earns 7.50$?

I don't have a problem with taking from one person and giving it to another. As minimum wages are increased slightly (perhaps even do much as to meet inflation (!)) the bankruptcy of the small businesses, the complete lack of new companies, the entrepreneurs not going into business anymore, well, it doesn't seem to happen.

You can't cry class war when it's about letting people get just a little bit less poor, for the betterment of all society. It's not like I'm advocating something truly radical, like equal income taxation.

In Sweden, we've had unequal income taxation for quite some time. We tax people with higher incomes progressively. I've always thought that's pretty damn unfair.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
A progressive tax structure...why is that so unfair? What is that old adage, "from those to whom much is given, much is expected," and IMHO, so it should be! Contrary to the popular myth, even here in our beloved US of A, "the land of the free and home of the brave," and allegedly 'of equal opportunity, ' all that BS just is not so!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> A progressive tax structure...why is that so unfair? What is that old adage, "from those to whom much is given, much is expected," and IMHO, so it should be! Contrary to the popular myth, even here in our beloved US of A, "the land of the free and home of the brave," and allegedly 'of equal opportunity, ' all that BS just is not so!


It kinds hits the people who've spent 4-6 years at the university while everyone else were making money. Takes a bit of the incentive out. Especially when the income tax starts at 30% and there has been a 32% social security charge on the top.

Flat taxes are better, with a good basic deduction at the bottom.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> All costs are passed to the consumer.
> 
> I guess you're not suggesting that the managers manager earns 7.50$?
> 
> ...


No, what YOU suggested was that managers make $7.50. That's what equality in pay means.

Increase the base wage, and increase the higher end taxes, and the manager starts making what the base employee makes.

It results in do more work for less incentive. That is counter to logic.

I do have a problem with taking money from one person and giving it to another. That's called theft. It's stealing, and it was wrong in kindergarten, and it's still wrong now.

If you want to increase taxation, to reduce overall inflation, that makes sense. If you want to alter taxation to affect government (local) revenue, that makes sense. But creating a forced charity system is idiotic. Why should I pay the wages of my fellow man?

I'm not talking about repaying (or prepaying) for the opportunities granted to me. I'm talking wealth re-distribution. It's a bad concept, and it's been proven ineffective and unsustainable through our Social Security system.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> A progressive tax structure...why is that so unfair? What is that old adage, "from those to whom much is given, much is expected," and IMHO, so it should be! Contrary to the popular myth, even here in our beloved US of A, "the land of the free and home of the brave," and allegedly 'of equal opportunity, ' all that BS just is not so!


A progressive structure is not unfair, assuming you don't have systems in-place which reduce the overall tax burden.

I would be happy to pay my 14-20% But... When someone who makes more than me (annually) is able to reduce their tax burden to 12% (read, less % than mine), the system is flawed.

That's what Warren Buffet was talking about. He was still paying more overall $, just less %. This in turn becomes a case of system rewarding you for having more annual income.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, because the system creates inflation.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with the above citation is that, and I know this from my own life experience, "unskilled teenagers" are unskilled because of poor educational opportunities and poor vocational guidance.
> 
> For example, a friend of mine went to vocational school and took the electrician course and landed a job right out high school and never lacked for work, and this was in the stagflation mid-70s. I went to the same vocational school and took auto mechanics and then went to the Nashville Auto-Diesel College and took auto and diesel mechanics, arc and acetylene welding and got hired as a welder and worked for years as a welder before going to college. My friend and I both noticed and discussed how we had done relatively well after high school with respect to getting jobs compared to our other high school friends who had just attended high school and didn't get any vocational training. They had more trouble finding jobs and were paid at or close to minimum wage and were struggling to make ends meet.


1) In some areas the educational opportunities are present, but up to 1/2 of the teens drop out of High School anyway. It is not for lack of opportunity. As far a poor vocational guidance, you are close to the mark there for sure!!

2) Your anecdotal response supports my propoganda spewing research. If a minimum wage earner is actually a head of household, they do not need a .30 increase in the minimum wage; they need to prepare themselves for a better job!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> No, what YOU suggested was that managers make $7.50. That's what equality in pay means.
> 
> Increase the base wage, and increase the higher end taxes, and the manager starts making what the base employee makes.
> 
> ...


Equality is not an absolute.

I suggested a minimum wage to increase income equality. Which is not counter to logic. The manager still makes more.

Wealth redistribution is present in all taxation. Otherwise, your paying exactly for what you are getting, in which case it is a fee, not a tax.

If you read my post, I'm against progressive taxation and in favor of flat tax rates.

Oh, and taxes that we agree on democratically is not stealing.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Your anecdotal response supports my propoganda spewing research. If a minimum wage earner is actually a head of household, they do not need a .30 increase in the minimum wage; they need to prepare themselves for a better job!!


Problem: Inflation raises prices, but not wages. The increases in wages don't keep up with the increases in prices. So over time the purchasing power of the minimum wage is eroded. The minimum wage paycheck doesn't buy what it did, say, five years prior. This wouldn't be a problem if the minimum wage were indexed to inflation (i.e. an annual COLA) but it isn't. So for the minimum wage to buy what it did in 1968 it would have to go up to about $9 to $9.50 an hour.

In re to "they need to prepare themselves for a better job." When I attended the N.A.D.C. I worked six nights a week. It was hard going to school from 8am-3:45pm Mon-Fri and then working from 6pm-12midnight Sun-Fri. So it's no wonder that young heads-of-households don't go back to vocational school once they leave high school. It's just too difficult for most of them.

Moreover; let's not forget the effect of the 1973 Oil Embargo. The price of a gallon of gasoline soon more than doubled, and did an increase in the minimum wage offset that? No. The minimum-wage earners just spent more on gasoline and less on other things - like education and job training.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

^^^^

Regillus, you seem like a nice fellow. 

If your point is that it's easier to make excuses and accept the status quo than to improve one's self, your analysis is spot on!!


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ^^^^
> 
> Regillus, you seem like a nice fellow.
> 
> If your point is that it's easier to make excuses and accept the status quo than to improve one's self, your analysis is spot on!!


This has nothing to do with excuses or accepting the status quo. Are you blaming the kids for not trying harder or something? The fault lies not with the kids but with the adults who are in control of their lives; in particular the legislators who control the education system.

From the Washington Post:

Veteran teacher on what 'highly qualified' really means
By Valerie Strauss
This was written by educator Anthony Cody, who taught science for 18 years in inner-city Oakland and now works with a team of science teacher-coaches that supports novice teachers. He is a National Board-certified teacher and an active member of the Teacher Leaders Network. This post appeared on his Education Week Teacher blog, Living in Dialogue .

By Anthony Cody

As Congress wrestles with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), they have a chance to address the issue of teacher quality once again. The Coalition for Teaching Quality -- 82 organizations representing civil rights, parent, community, disability, and education advocates -- have come together to demand that Congress re-commit to the objective that all children should have a well-prepared teacher.

No Child Left Behind, the current version of ESEA, brought us a federal mandate for "highly qualified teachers" for all students. But after that law was passed, groups like Teach For America pushed for exceptions to be made, so that their recruits, with five or six weeks of summer training, could be considered "highly qualified." Now, Congress has a chance to revisit this issue. Will they choose a definition that has some meaning this time? A letter released yesterday from the Coalition for Teaching Quality yesterday states:

Although the proposal appears to retain NCLB's "highly qualified teacher" requirements, the new definition of "highly qualified" weakens the standard so much as to make the phrase virtually meaningless and its protections for at-risk students nearly nonexistent. In this proposal, teachers are defined as "highly qualified" if they have just enrolled in an alternative certification program, even if they have completed little or no training and have met no standard of competence.
This is an area where I have direct experience. In Oakland, where I worked for the past 24 years, our student population is diverse and challenging, and deserves the attention of the most experienced and expert teachers possible. However, due to sometimes difficult conditions and low pay, we have a very high turnover rate for our teachers. Although turnover greatly diminished when teacher pay was increased a decade ago, the high costs of an urban district did not allow that pay level to persist. Pay was cut, and the shortages and high turnover returned. At that time the district turned to Teach For America and other organizations that recruit and prepare new teachers. The district enters contracts with these groups, setting aside positions that will be filled by them, and paying them in the neighborhood of $4,000 per teacher, to offset the cost of recruitment and training. In exchange, these groups guarantee there will be teachers for these classrooms, which might otherwise be empty.

This solution solves a major headache for the district. Classrooms lacking a teacher are a nightmare in the fall. They must be taught by substitutes, and are often out of control. Students and parents are very unhappy, and the district gets a lot of flak. These interns are also at the bottom of the pay scale, so the district can save money.

Unfortunately, although Congress has declared such teachers "highly qualified," common sense tells us they are not. A six week summer training does not a teacher make. These novices are hardworking and well-intentioned, but they are not very effective their first year. By the end of their second year they are getting their feet on the ground. But this brings us to the second major flaw with this approach. After their second year, half of these teachers have left Oakland. Three years after they begin, 75% of them are gone. That means many of our students, year after year, are served by teachers who lack the depth of experience needed to be fully effective.

And I have to add in one key issue that is related to this. In 2005, Linda Darling-Hammond released a study that found that student achievement was better for teachers with more formal preparation. Teachers who were in alternative certification programs, who had not gone through teacher training, had poorer student performance, on average. The problem with this study, from my point of view, was that it used test scores as its means of measuring the differences between teachers. Test scores are subject to gaming, meaning intense focus on test preparation, which robs the scores of real value as an indicator of good teaching.

There was a quick and decisive reaction to this research from Teach For America and other alternative certification programs. Enter the classroom of a TFA intern teacher, and you are likely to find a large poster that says "Our Big Goal, 80% mastery." You are likely to find student test scores posted on the wall. TFA coaches began focusing almost entirely on data with the teachers they were supporting. This translated into an intense focus on test preparation. I had a TFA director ask me if I could provide her with all the questions to the District's science benchmark exams, so their teachers could focus their instruction on the right concepts (a request I declined). Clearly, Teach For America had decided that their interns would have the best test scores possible, so they could no longer be faulted for being "ineffective" by that all-important set of indicators.

I had one mentee who was teaching Biology a couple of years ago. Her students were not doing very well on her weekly tests, and she was worried they would likewise do poorly on the state exams in the Spring. Her TFA coach advised her to shift her instruction so that every classroom assignment would resemble a test. Every day for a while, her students got worksheets with multiple choice and short answer questions. Their test scores went up, but they were bored, and after a few months of this, she shifted to a more project-based approach. 
So when I say these interns are "ineffective," I am not simply speaking of test scores. I am speaking of a broader range of teaching abilities, many of which take several years of training and experience to develop. The most disturbing thing to me about the dependence of many of our high-poverty schools on poorly trained interns is the level of turnover, which means students may get novice teachers year after year, and there may not be that critically valuable reservoir of experienced teachers available at the school to nurture, support and serve as role models for these beginners.

This is most certainly an issue of equity. The schools of Berkeley and Piedmont, more affluent communities bordering Oakland, do not find it necessary to hire interns like this. Parents there would not tolerate it. Oakland is largely poor, with high numbers of African American, Latino and Asian immigrants and special education students. We should have the most highly qualified teachers to respond to the needs of these students. Instead, we have had Congress creating strange definitions of "highly qualified" teachers, so as to allow us to continue to use poorly trained high-turnover interns, almost entirely in schools of high poverty.

Top Comments (1)

UrbanDweller
I was one of those teachers who came through and alternative certification program--not TFA but another program. I was fortunate in that I had a prior career, was mature (not out of college but in my 30's and had done some teaching/training in my former career. I would say that my first 2 years I was still a disaster even though I believe I was a bit more prepared than brand new TFA teachers. Thank goodness for veteran teachers. I watched them, learned from them, asked questions and took their advice. I was humble enough to admit I didn't know everything. Those veteran teachers were kind, patient and nurturing to me--the way they are with their students. Nine years later, I'm still teaching and still learning. One never stops learning the craft of teaching. Unfortunately, veteran teachers are hard to come by these days in DCPS and that's a shame for both new teachers and students.
-------------------------------------------
So there you have it. Low-paid poorly trained teachers doing a poor job of educating kids. So who are you saying is making excuses here? The kids; who have no control over the setting of teacher standards? Who are you saying is accepting the status quo? The kids certainly don't; they want better, but the adults in charge aren't delivering it. A poor educational environment as described above only serves to discourage kids from trying to do better. You can't blame the kids for that; the fault lies squarely with the legislators.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> This has nothing to do with excuses or accepting the status quo. Are you blaming the kids for not trying harder or something? The fault lies not with the kids but with the adults who are in control of their lives; in particular the legislators who control the education system.
> 
> From the Washington Post:
> 
> ...


It makes no sense to me for anyone to rely on a central authority to solve the problems of a local school district.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It makes no sense to me for anyone to rely on a central authority to solve the problems of a local school district.


I didn't say rely on a central authority. You're missing the point. The kids are getting a poor education, and who's responsibility is it to ensure that they do? The local school district?, the state?, the federal gov't? All these adults are doing is passing the buck; sitting on their butts doing nothing about the problem, and collecting a paycheck for doing nothing! The kids are bearing the brunt and being unfairly blamed for the problems that the adults have created through their poor decision-making. If you're not going to rely on a central authority then who do you rely on? Anybody in charge here? The situation I describe in Post #223 is going on all over the country. The adults in charge; everyone from the legislators on down; are doing a poor job of educating the kids, and then they blame the kids. So Woulda, if you're not going to rely on a central authority who would you rely on? - and whatever your solution; can you cite one example anywhere in the country where your solution is working?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> The adults in charge; everyone from the legislators on down; are doing a poor job of educating the kids, and then they blame the kids.
> 
> So Woulda, if you're not going to rely on a central authority who would you rely on? - and whatever your solution; can you cite one example anywhere in the country where your solution is working?


1) Who blamed the kids?? It's their parents fault they don't show up and drop out.

2) Where ever parents and their local authority demand.

On any given morning, the halls of the School of Science and Engineering in Dallas look like most public high schools-nondescript classrooms packed with bleary-eyed students bent over ponderous textbooks. The difference is the time: this scene plays out each school day at 7:30 a.m., 90 minutes before class officially starts, and it will repeat for a solid hour after the day's final bell, as students at this magnet school cram in as much daily, organized study as possible.

The discipline is systemic-teachers sit shoulder to shoulder with the students during this extra study time-and it's nurtured before matriculation. Incoming freshmen spend the last weeks of summer in "boot camp" to learn math and Java programming. Last year, all 86 seniors graduated, had an average SAT score of 1786, and went to college, even though most of them qualify for a subsidized school lunch. Science and Engineering's system works so well, in fact, that it landed the No. 1 spot on .

Rather than focus, as in the past, on one metric (AP tests taken per graduate), we consulted a group of experts-Wendy Kopp, founder and CEO of Teach For America; Tom Vander Ark, CEO of Open Education Solutions and the former executive director for education at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; and Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford professor of education and founder of the School Redesign Network-to develop a yardstick that fully reflects a school's success turning out college-ready (and life-ready) students.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Who blamed the kids?? It's their parents fault they don't show up and drop out.
> 
> 2) Where ever parents and their local authority demand.
> 
> ...


Ah but your citation serves more to support my point than it does yours. To quote from the article you cited:

"and the Texas legislature seems poised to subtract $164 million from the district's budget in the next two years.

'Our major goal is to continue with the standard of service we've provided for years and years,' says Principal Jovan Wells. That means offsetting larger student-teacher ratios-27 percent of its faculty face elimination-with more one-on-one tutoring, and a more intimate overall environment (the entire school population: less than 400)."
-------------------------------------------------
So the legislators are considering cutting the budget, laying off 27% of the teachers; at a school that's working! If the kids don't do as well with fewer teachers and resources; do the legislators care? They certainly don't. I can recall from my own early years - I started out in private school, and we had maybe 10 kids in the class. Then my parents decided they couldn't afford private school anymore and at 4th grade put me in public school. The first thing I noticed was that the class size was about 25 kids. The second thing I noticed was that it was harder to focus the group on the subject under study because there were disruptive students and one teacher simply couldn't control 25 kids. So the learning environment was noticeably worse and this was reflected in the poor grades. Too many kids and too much goofing off going on. In my own experience; smaller class sizes of about 8 to 12 kids works much better than large classes.

From USA Today (3/24/2008):

"...researchers closely watched students' behaviors in 10-second intervals throughout class periods and found that in smaller classes in both elementary and high school, students stayed more focused and misbehaved less. They also had more direct interactions with teachers and worked more in small groups rather than by themselves."

That means hiring more teachers which means a bigger school budget - but the idiot legislators are cutting the budget.

Also from your citation:

"...we consulted a group of experts-Wendy Kopp, founder and CEO of Teach For America;...."

This is the very group that I cited back in Post #223 for providing poorly-trained teachers to the Oakland school district. Did you think that would slip by me? Such perfidious audacity. What is their area of expertise?; poorly trained teachers?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Ah but your citation serves more to support my point than it does yours. To quote from the article you cited:
> 
> "and the Texas legislature seems poised to subtract $164 million from the district's budget in the next two years.
> 
> ...


Your conclusions are mystifying. Faced with a budget reduction, Principal Jovan Wells has devised a plan, without interference from a Federal Authority, to continue to provide educational services to the community.

If the community does not demand performance from the student body and the school, the school will fail. That is not in conflict with my premise.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...Faced with a budget reduction, Principal Jovan Wells has devised a plan, without interference from a Federal Authority, to continue to provide educational services to the community.
> 
> If the community does not demand performance from the student body and the school, the school will fail.


Principal Wells plan will fail. You can't provide a quality education without sufficient money, and the legislators are cutting the budget. Re "...community...demand performance...." It doesn't matter how much you demand performance if the necessary resources aren't there. Insufficient resources means a poor quality education.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Quite. Despite all evidence that proves that smaller class sizes means better results, in every sense, education authorities refuse to fund more teachers. In Britain the two reasons why private, i.e. fee paying, schools achieve better results than state schools, are parental aspirations, and small class sizes. Nothing to do with quality of teachers, nothing to do with quality of lessons, nothing to do with aspirations of teachers. Teachers in the state sector are at least as good, at least as well qualified, at least as well trained and at least as well motivated as those in the private sector.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Principal Wells plan will fail. You can't provide a quality education without *sufficient *money, and the legislators are cutting the budget. Re "...community...demand performance...." It doesn't matter how much you demand performance if the necessary resources aren't there. *Insufficient* resources means a poor quality education.


If we defined "sufficient" we may find areas of agreement. It's still a local issue. And if more money meant better performance, DC would be the best public school disctrict in the USA!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Quite. Despite all evidence that proves that smaller class sizes means better results, in every sense, education authorities refuse to fund more teachers.


Again, it is a local issue here.

Imagine my suprise when I went from High School prep classes of 30+ students to University and found a classroom of 150 people!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Again, it is a local issue here.
> 
> Imagine my suprise when I went from High School prep classes of 30+ students to University and found a classroom of 150 people!!


In a tutorial, or in a lecture?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Many Freshman and requisite courses were all lecture all the time!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
At Penn State, back in the 1960's we had a few of the more popular, core curriculum classes that enrolled 800 to more than 1000 students. We sat in auditorium style classrooms, with large movie screen images of the provessor talking to us during the class and a host of graduate assistants available after class to answer questions we might have regarding the material presented. Certainly not an ideal situation, but it seemed to have worked!  ...or maybe it didn't? :crazy:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> At Penn State, back in the 1960's we had a few of the more popular, core curriculum classes that enrolled 800 to more than 1000 students. We sat in auditorium style classrooms, with large movie screen images of the provessor talking to us during the class and a host of graduate assistants available after class to answer questions we might have regarding the material presented. Certainly not an ideal situation, but it seemed to have worked!  ...or maybe it didn't? :crazy:


Where Education is a Business?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL...and arguably, a BIG business! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

My experience of university, from both sides, was, for undergraduates, a combination of lectures, of which the audience could be in the hundreds, and tutorials, in which the teaching groups varied from five to twenty. For my post-graduate study, I had weekly 1-1 tutorials with my tutor/supervisor.
Perhaps American higher education is different.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Chouan said:


> My experience of university, from both sides, was, for undergraduates, a combination of lectures, of which the audience could be in the hundreds, and tutorials, in which the teaching groups varied from five to twenty. For my post-graduate study, I had weekly 1-1 tutorials with my tutor/supervisor.
> Perhaps American higher education is different.


Much the same at many US universities. The introductory level classes usually have large lecture/small seminar combo. Higher level classes get smaller


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

From the Washington Post (E.J. Dionne Jr; 30OCT2011):

The most telling was Ryan’s address at the Heritage Foundation. House Republicans regard Ryan as their prophet, their intellectual and their resident wonk. Usually, he carefully lays out the numbers and issues visionary promises of how cutting government (and taxes on the wealthy) will lead us down a blissful path to prosperity. He’s sunny when everyone else is grumpy.
So it was jarring to see Ryan used as the principal counterattacker against the president, who has been making the injuries of class inequality clear and pointing to the costs of the Republicans’ just-say-no strategy in Congress.
Ryan spoke of his “disappointment” that “the politics of division are making a big comeback.” He accused Obama of using “divisive rhetoric” and of “going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments.”
“Instead of working with us on .?.?. common-sense reforms,” Ryan declared, “the president is barnstorming swing states, pushing a divisive message that pits one group of Americans against another on the basis of class.”
Now it takes some temerity for a Republican to charge Obama with divisiveness, given the GOP’s willingness to promote or countenance assaults on the president as “a socialist,” as someone not even born in the United States, as a supporter of “death panels,” and on and on. Republicans calling Obama divisive is the equivalent of those of us who are Red Sox fans criticizing another team for folding under pressure.
But what’s most instructive is that Ryan would not have given this speech if the Republican Party were not so worried that it is losing control of the political narrative. In particular, growing inequalities of wealth and income — which should have been a central issue in American politics for at least a decade — are now finally at the heart of our discourse. We are, at last, discussing the social and economic costs of concentrating ever more resources in the hands of the top sliver of our society.
Ryan offered the classic defense of inequality, arguing that what really matters is upward mobility, and that the United States has more of it than those horrible welfare states in Europe. “Class is not a fixed designation in this country,” he declared. “We are an upwardly mobile society with a lot of movement between income groups.”
The only problem is that upward mobility has declined as inequality has grown, and social mobility is now higher in Europe than it is in the United States. That’s shameful. And don’t believe me on this: Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum brought this up at a recent debate, backed by a study from the Economic Mobility Project.
It’s hard to justify more tax cuts for the wealthy in a country that is becoming more rigidly stratified by class. And if it is class warfare simply to acknowledge the facts, does this make Santorum a class warrior?
All of this explains why efforts to taint Occupy Wall Street as nothing more than a bunch of latter-day hippie radicals haven’t worked. It’s also why Obama, by sharpening his arguments about what’s fair and what’s unfair, has finally stopped his slide in the polls.
A recent survey by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center showed Occupy Wall Street to be more popular now than the Tea Party, which keeps losing ground. The poll also showed that these two movements are quite distinct — they are not part of some generalized protest. Only 10 percent of those surveyed supported both Occupy Wall Street and the tea party. And, as my colleague Greg Sargent has documented tirelessly, on many of Occupy’s core issues (favoring higher taxes on millionaires and believing in a more even distribution of income and wealth), public opinion strongly supports the anti-Wall Streeters.
----------------------------------------------
So it looks like the Repubs are beginning to lose control of the political conversation; losing the ability to frame and define the issues, and losing the ability to make cutting gov't the favored response to our current economic problems. I would point out that more people are showing up at Occupy Wall Street rallies than ever showed up at Tea Party events. America has rule by the majority, right? Looks like the majority doesn't support the Repub effort to cut everything and make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

PS.: Also; looks like the Germans aren't going to get stuck with the bill for the greek fiasco. They negotiated a 50% haircut for the bond-holders. So it's a partial default after all. A deal which I like. Everyone else in Europe shouldn't have to bear the burden for the Greeks bad decisions. Let the Greeks sweat it out.


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

Interesting read... The article doesn't do much do sway an opinion either way though. To those who agree with it. All they will do is nod their head. But for those who do not agree with the writer's viewpoint, it offers a poor argument to sway opinion. First, it accuses Republicans of being divisive. From my perspective, division is inherent in two party politics. One side will always try to put down the other for refusing to work together and put the best needs of the country at the front. Second, it says that "growing inequalities" of wealth and income should have been at the forefront of national discussion for a decade, but does not offer evidence of how wealth has become unequal or how it has affected our economy. Finally, it provides fleeting references to a Pew study then uses that very nebulous reference to come to a wholly fabricated conclusion. For example, lets look at Occupy Wall Street vs the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street has grabbed national attention over the last few months. Its initial protest began on September 17, 2011. That is barely 6 weeks ago. The Tea Party protests began in early 2009, almost 3 years ago. The fact that the Tea Party is still on the tongue of the nation is alone an accomplishment, and to conclude that the Occupy Wall Street is more popular is could be a function of its recent publicity. Rational conclusions about how it has shaped the political discourse in America can not be gained from such a study.

Reading between the lines on this article, it seems to be lumping all the economic issues we've faced in this country on economic inequality. What exactly is economic inequality? Is it simply that some people make more than others. If the problem is economic inequality, is the answer economic equality, in which we are all compensated equally regardless of job or occupation or hours worked?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Regillus said:


> The only problem is that upward mobility has declined as inequality has grown, and social mobility is now higher in Europe than it is in the United States. That's shameful. And don't believe me on this: Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum brought this up at a recent debate, backed by a study from the Economic Mobility Project.
> It's hard to justify more tax cuts for the wealthy in a country that is becoming more rigidly stratified by class. And if it is class warfare simply to acknowledge the facts, does this make Santorum a class warrior?
> QUOTE]
> 
> I would suggest that social mobility has been more flexible in Europe than the US for quite a long time. The rigid divisions between commissioned and non-commissioned ranks in the US forces, for example, have been absent in European armed forces for decades.


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

Chouan said:


> [
> I would suggest that social mobility has been more flexible in Europe than the US for quite a long time. The rigid divisions between commissioned and non-commissioned ranks in the US forces, for example, have been absent in European armed forces for decades.


How so?
From my own experiences the "rigid divisions" between commissioned and non commissioned ranks in the US Navy are most apparent in the wardroom/enlisted mess. In conversations with officers of the Royal Navy, those traditional divisions are more entrenched in their service then ours. Is that not the case?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

helo-flyer said:


> How so?
> From my own experiences the "rigid divisions" between commissioned and non commissioned officers in the US Navy are most apparent in the wardroom/enlisted mess. In conversations with officers of the Royal Navy, those traditional divisions are more entrenched in their service then ours. Is that not the case?


In the US, that's not really a Social mobility issue though, anymore. Your base private (E1) makes about $1500 a month before benefits ($18K/yr) which is misleading, as no one stays there for long, and the benefits do add up when for the comparative analysis. Your O6 Colonel (ready for retirement) is pushing $120K.

The trick however is adding the spouses, taxation, and the rules of diminishing returns. Adding another $18 for a junior enlisted man adds a huge boon. Adding it for the Colonel, not so much, especially at that higher tax rate.

So from a PERSONAL (and possibly combined household) standpoint both are technically middle class.

*At work*, we have our _discrimination _(if you can call it that). But that is a matter of training, and doctrine, not a matter of social climbing. After we get out of the service, the old in service habits tend to disappear and we just become Tom, Dick, & Harry.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

helo-flyer said:


> ...it says that "growing inequalities" of wealth and income should have been at the forefront of national discussion for a decade, but does not offer evidence of how wealth has become unequal or how it has affected our economy.


--------------------------------------------
Here's your evidence:

CBO: Top 1% Almost Tripled Incomes, Fueling Wealth Inequality

*Wednesday, 26 Oct 2011 08:31 AM*


*Share:*
https://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/CBO-incomes-Inequality-wealth/2011/10/26/id/415744#
https://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/CBO-incomes-Inequality-wealth/2011/10/26/id/415744#

More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article​​







in*Share*
Incomes for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans nearly tripled from 1979 to 2007, far outpacing income growth for all other groups, said a new report that underscored sharply increased U.S. income disparity.​
As demonstrators nationwide protest the power of Wall Street and the wealthy, the Congressional Budget Office gave further evidence that, in the last three decades, the United States has become a far more unequal nation.

"For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007," said the report from the CBO, a nonpartisan budget and tax analysis arm of Congress.
​


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

helo-flyer said:


> How so?
> From my own experiences the "rigid divisions" between commissioned and non commissioned ranks in the US Navy are most apparent in the wardroom/enlisted mess. In conversations with officers of the Royal Navy, those traditional divisions are more entrenched in their service then ours. Is that not the case?


When I was at BRNC Dartmouth I was told by the USN Liason Officer that the RN's "Special Service" Commissions, those offered to suitable "other ranks" was an institution that was unknown in the USN, that, effectively, as an "enlisted man" there was virtually no chance of gaining commissioned rank. Senior WO rank, often with more responsibility than a commissioned officer, was possible, but not commissioned rank.
I've mentioned elsewhere in this forum that the boundaries between senior commissioned and junior commissioned ranks are also more established. As I described elsewhere, I have been excluded from a US "Officer's Club", not because I wasn't an Officer, as I was, but because I wasn't a senior enough Officer. That social rigidity, and it was social, not operational, simply wouldn't exist in the British establishment. In other European forces, apart from the French, the demarkation between commissioned and non-commissioned is even less rigid and established, and promotion to commissioned rank is even easier.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I have to ask a question here, and I honestly don't think I have heard the answer.

What does it hurt if the wealthy get wealthier? I realize that in theory it "can" create massive inflation for staple goods (or any goods), and we should attempt to limit that repercussion. 

But speaking as an individual my personal goal is to increase my standard of living. I can't imagine that anyone elses' goal is much different (or their children's/heirs). So how can I fault them. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should be able to abuse wealth to purchase political power (directly). But the accumulation of wealth is not inherently evil. 

If I focused my will to it, I could trim my expenses significantly to increase my net worth in a similar manner. I would have to give up a few of the luxuries I currently enjoy in the meantime, like internet, TV, 2 cars, etc. But do I needs them? No. They are conveniences which I have lived without, and could do so again.

America is one of the few countries which has "disposable income" (and $7 coffee) and we complain about the 1% who make their money off those of us waste "disposable income" on those services. Very few of us clip coupons any more. Very few of us bargain shop. A great many of us complain though.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Everyone in the US has plenty of opportunity for education. With education comes cold hard cash (assuming you plan right). Failure to plan on your part does not make it an emergency on my part.


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

What I get from the CBO study is that income after inflation from all tiers of society rose in the period from 1979-2007. But since we're focused on economic "inequality," how has this affected our economy?


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

Chouan said:


> When I was at BRNC Dartmouth I was told by the USN Liason Officer that the RN's "Special Service" Commissions, those offered to suitable "other ranks" was an institution that was unknown in the USN, that, effectively, as an "enlisted man" there was virtually no chance of gaining commissioned rank. Senior WO rank, often with more responsibility than a commissioned officer, was possible, but not commissioned rank.
> I've mentioned elsewhere in this forum that the boundaries between senior commissioned and junior commissioned ranks are also more established. As I described elsewhere, I have been excluded from a US "Officer's Club", not because I wasn't an Officer, as I was, but because I wasn't a senior enough Officer. That social rigidity, and it was social, not operational, simply wouldn't exist in the British establishment. In other European forces, apart from the French, the demarkation between commissioned and non-commissioned is even less rigid and established, and promotion to commissioned rank is even easier.


I will provide a more appropriate response when able (have to leave for work), but I don't see any basis in fact with what you were told. Prior enlisted officers are quite common in the USN (probably more common than graduates of the Academy), and as far as I know, junior officers were never barred from the Officers Club. In fact, at the O club in my first command, in front of all the spots for captains and admirals there was a single spot that was marked "Ensign."


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The Officer's Club was in Paranam in Surinam and was the club established by Alcoa for the officers on vessels loading bauxite.
I've never had the good fortune to visit a USN wardroom ashore. I was once a guest of the USS Elmer Montgomery, in Port Louis, but that was in my far distant youth......


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Sounds like a private sector/merchant marine facility, rather than a facility run for the convenience of members of the military services. Big difference there! On many of the US military installations, the operation of "all-ranks" clubs seems to be a growing trend these days. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Sounds like a private sector/merchant mariune facility, rather than a facility run for the convenience of members of the military services. Big difference there! On many of the US military installations, the operation of "all-ranks" clubs seems to be a growing trend these days. :icon_scratch:


All Ranks clubs are cheaper to build and easier to justify, with rank specific "areas" cordoned off serving the old purposes.

The Old clubs just don't serve the same purposes they used to. The base isn't an "outpost" in the middle of nowhere. It's surrounded by a town (if not a major city), so it doesn't need a club/bar/restaurant for the young troop to get away with his peers like he used to. Even when I was in, there was only 1 NCO (not SNCO, or Senior Enlisted) club left on base, and the Officers / SNCO clubs were dinosaurs from 50's & 60's.

For the 8 years I was in, I was in the club (various) maybe a dozen times, for a beer or a sandwich, and maybe an equal number for unit functions.

That said, I remember going to the SnrNCO club with my dad all the time for lunch while he was in. I don't remember it being overly crowded, but also not empty. I really don't remember a whole lot of fast food on the bases back then though.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Sounds like a private sector/merchant mariune facility, rather than a facility run for the convenience of members of the military services. Big difference there! On many of the US military installations, the operation of "all-ranks" clubs seems to be a growing trend these days. :icon_scratch:


It was indeed, however, it is still evidence of a rigid social divide that one wouldn't find anywhere in Europe.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
...but wouldn't you agree that while the example you cite may be an example of social stratification in the civilian/merchant marine facility you referrence, it is certainly not supportive of your assertions of social stratification within the US military services (other than that required to properly conduct operations), that exceed that exhibited in the military services of Great Britian or of various European nations. Indeed, the growing presence of "all-ranks clubs" on US military installations would seem to argue against the extreme social stratification that is referrenced in your post quoted below!



Chouan said:


> When I was at BRNC Dartmouth I was told by the USN Liason Officer that the RN's "Special Service" Commissions, those offered to suitable "other ranks" was an institution that was unknown in the USN, that, effectively, as an "enlisted man" there was virtually no chance of gaining commissioned rank. Senior WO rank, often with more responsibility than a commissioned officer, was possible, but not commissioned rank.
> I've mentioned elsewhere in this forum that the boundaries between senior commissioned and junior commissioned ranks are also more established. As I described elsewhere, I have been excluded from a US "Officer's Club", not because I wasn't an Officer, as I was, but because I wasn't a senior enough Officer. That social rigidity, and it was social, not operational, simply wouldn't exist in the British establishment. In other European forces, apart from the French, the demarkation between commissioned and non-commissioned is even less rigid and established, and promotion to commissioned rank is even easier.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Depending on the timeframe, Sailor to Admiral (or almost any Commissioned rank )was indeed "impossible" especially when compared to the other US services. For the most part the USN had abandoned the WO rank system, relying more on the rigid structure of the sailor, CPO, Officer tiers.

In more modern times, with the availability of shipboard college courses (both online, and instructor taught), the ability to actually gain a degree before attaining CPO (or near enough) opened the Sailor to Officer path.

Depending on Military specialty, deployment schedule, family obligations, etc, era could have played a major role on whether a progression path was feasible. I know when I entered the Corps, the Officer path was definitely feasible for those enlisted willing to pursue it, with little more than a 2 year detour in career progression.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Indeed, during an assignment as an FTO (Flight Training Officer), with the USAF's OTS (Officer Training School) process, a fairly large percentage of our officer candidates were prior enlisted personnel. The rest were college graduates who had not elected to persue their commissions through the ROTC or Academy routes. As an AFROTC Instructor (at Mississippi State Univ), I found perhaps 10% (this is a WAG!) of our commissioning candidates to be prior service, enlisted personnel. It seemed "Mustangs" in the USAF preferred the OTS route!


----------

