Middle East Meltdown and US Foreign Policy.

.

Dddooo: You whine and bitch and complain every time the US interferes in an international conflict, now when the US does not interfere you're accusing it of doing nothing. You are not worried about Israel because they have powerful weapons and the best army but every time Israel uses 1/100 of its military power you bitch, whine, scream bloody murder and run to the UN. Your views are intellectually dishonest.

Oh but that part is easy, tell them to release the hostages and stop shelling Israeli towns and they can have their Lebanon and Gaza back, no one wants those shitholes populated by those assholes anyway.


******************


July 14, 2006

SouthAmerica: You said: “you bitch and complain every time the US interferes in an international conflict”

Yes, the US had no business attacking Iraq!!!!!!!!!!

If that is what you mean.

Regarding the Israel problem in the Middle East – I have been sick and tired of that mess since the 1970’s – as a matter of fact every time when they discuss that subject on television – which has been very frequently over the years – I just change the channel and I watch something else.

I have no suggestions and I have “no idea” how they are going to resolve that problem.

You also said: “when Israel uses 1/100 of its military power you bitch, whine, scream bloody murder and run to the UN.”

That is not true. I avoid discussing the Israel problem like the plague and very rarely I make comments about what is happening between Israel and their neighbors – because the entire mess it does not make sense to me.

There are too many things I don’t understand and a lot of stuff that goes on related to Israel and that mess it doesn’t make sense to me.

From the starting gate, I don’t understand the concept of any group of people being God’s chosen people. I also don’t understand how any modern state can claim land ownership from events that happened over 2,000 years ago. The reality is that the world has changed quite a lot in the last 500 years – never mind when you start making claims from over 2,000 years ago. (In my opinion, that’s La-La-Land territory.)


.
 
Quote from southamerica:
More...

Yes, the US had no business attacking Iraq!!!!!!!!!!If that is what you mean.
No that's not what I meant, I've heard thousands accusations that the US is a big bully, that it keeps intefering in the Middle-east, Europe, Russia, South and Latin America, North Korea, Africa etc and that it should mind its own business. If I did not hear it from you personally I heard it from hundreds of people sharing your political views. Now same people all of a sudden want the US to interfere in the i/p conflict.

From the starting gate, I don’t understand the concept of any group of people being God’s chosen people.
And I don't understand people who think they are God's chosen soccer players, so what, does it mean Brazile does not have a right to exist? :) Seriously though it's a religious concept which very few jews take seriously, if you think that a majority of jews (israelis) while being proud of their history and achievements consider themselves "god's chosen people" or a superior race you have been brainwashed. It's not their fault that the bible says so.

I also don’t understand how any modern state can claim land ownership from events that happened over 2,000 years ago.
The claim is based on the UN resolution that created the state of Israel in 1948, not on events that happened over 2000 years ago. At that time the land already belonged to jews who had legally bought it from arabs. I can assure you that jews paid the market price and all paperwork was in order.
 
Quote from southamerica:

.

July 13, 2006

SouthAmerica: The cover story on the current issue of Time magazine “The End of Cowboy Diplomacy” – it does not tell the real story regarding what is wrong with American diplomacy around the world.

A better cover story for Time magazine would be: “The End of Affirmative Action at the State Department Concluded With a Meltdown in US Foreign Policy Around The World” – After the latest fiascos, this time around, George W. Bush should hire a real Secretary of State. The time to play “Affirmative Action” with US diplomacy it is over.
More...

Maybe I'm a little confused, or your English is worse than I think. Are you saying that a black person should not be involved in U.S. diplomacy, or just a woman?
 
.

Dddooo: The claim is based on the UN resolution that created the state of Israel in 1948, not on events that happened over 2000 years ago. At that time the land already belonged to jews who had legally bought it from arabs. I can assure you that jews paid the market price and all paperwork was in order.


***********


SouthAmerica: You are saying that the Jews would not mind then if the UN resolution gave them instead some piece of land in Africa such as the Sudan? Since did not have anything to do with the history from over 2,000 years ago.

You are also implying that if I buy some land here in the USA at market price that gives me the right to establish my new country – the paperwork would be in order.


*************


drmarkan: Maybe I'm a little confused, or your English is worse than I think. Are you saying that a black person should not be involved in U.S. diplomacy, or just a woman?


*************


SouthAmerica: It’s not what I am saying. Colin Powell is a black man and for a long time he was one of the few voices of common sense in the Bush administration – until he made a fool of himself in front the UN and the world when he was told to make a case to invade Iraq. (General Colin Powell knew that it was a major mistake for the US to start the war against Iraq.)

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (conservative) did a decent job as US ambassador to the UN during the Reagan years. Madeleine Albright (liberal) also did a decent job as Secretary of State during the Clinton years.

The problem is not because someone is black or a woman – the problem is that we have today the most incompetent people in the world running US foreign policy – Condi Rice (stupid) did a lousy job as National Security Advisor then she got promoted to Secretary of State. The US foreign policy fiascos - one after another - since 2001 will serve as a case study for future generations on what not to do in foreign policy – basically it will serve as a benchmark for incompetence and arrogance.


.
 
Bush is an idiot that is in Waaaaay over his head and needs to step aside. Hell his whole administration and top congressional leaders need to step aside til you get to a democrat in the line of succession. This bunch has screwed EVERYTHING up.
 
.

July 15, 2006

SouthAmerica: In another message board where I posted this thread the discussion turned to: which words best describe George W. Bush for the purpose of further clarification – and below are the descriptions of what each word means.

By the way, “Jackass and Moron” are excellent choice of words to describe president George W. Bush – but other people thought that he is also a buffoon.


***********


Jackass:

A foolish or stupid person; a blockhead.


****


Moron:

A stupid person; a dolt.

A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education.


****


Buffoon:

A clown; a jester: a court buffoon.

A person given to clowning and joking.

A ludicrous or bumbling person; a fool.


.
 
Quote from southamerica:

SouthAmerica: You are saying that the Jews would not mind then if the UN resolution gave them instead some piece of land in Africa such as the Sudan? Since did not have anything to do with the history from over 2,000 years ago.

You are also implying that if I buy some land here in the USA at market price that gives me the right to establish my new country – the paperwork would be in order.
More...
No you can't buy land in the US and based on that fact establish your own country and you know why - because the US is already a country. Palestine was not a country when jews were buying land, it was first turkish and later british colony. Moreover Palestine had never been a sovereign country before either, it was always part of an empire.

At the time of the partition half of the land was owned by jews and half of the land was owned by arabs, it was only reasonable and logical to create a jewish state and an arab state (the only jewish and 23rd arab state for that matter). Why is it that you suggest to send palestinian jews to sudan, why aren't you suggesting to send palestinian arabs over there? Sudan is by and large a muslim country after all.

The brits split their other colony into India and Pakistan and it's fine with you but splitting Palestine populated by jews and arabs into a jewish and arab states upsets the hell out of you.
 
.

Dddooo: Palestine was not a country when jews were buying land, it was first turkish and later british colony. Moreover Palestine had never been a sovereign country before either, it was always part of an empire.

Why is it that you suggest to send palestinian jews to sudan, why aren't you suggesting to send palestinian arabs over there? Sudan is by and large a muslim country after all.

The brits split their other colony into India and Pakistan and it's fine with you but splitting Palestine populated by jews and arabs into a jewish and arab states upsets the hell out of you.



*******************


July 15, 2006

SouthAmerica: Reply to dddooo

You said: “The brits split their other colony into India and Pakistan and it's fine with you but splitting Palestine populated by jews and arabs into a jewish and arab states upsets the hell out of you.”

I don’t have any prejudice against Jews. I believe on freedom of religion and everybody has the right to follow his or hers religious beliefs.

I don’t discriminate on people because of their religion. If there were more people like me around the world then we would not have wars and conflicts because of religion.

What I recent regarding Israel as a country (nothing to do with Israel's main religion) is the amount of attention Israel brings to itself all the time for such a small country with such a small population. In the last 30 years Israel has been hogging the news year after year at least around here in the New York Metropolitan area.

Israel expects to be always on the spotlight. Israel receives disproportionate amount of news coverage all the time from the international mainstream media at the expense of the rest of the world.

There are more important things happening around the world that the mainstream media should cover than covering the problems in Israel and its neighbors all the time. I have been saturated for a long time of Israel political and constant crisis coverage since the 1970’s – That’s why I lost interest and I don’t pay much attention to the Israeli/Arab problem.

I understand Israel’s position from an economic point of view and why they have an incentive to keep the crisis going and they have no reason to settle the dispute with the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab world – there is too much money involved on this deal and it is worth keeping the crisis alive and well as long as possible.

If a peace settlement is reached between Israel and its neighbors including the Palestinians – then Israel has so much to lose including the annual cash flow from the United States and also Israel would become just a little country with a small population and would not be able to make the international headlines that has been making for the last 40 years on a regular basis.

In case of peace in that area Israel would lose a lot of moneys coming from the United States and other parts of the world to the tune of maybe as high as 20 percent of the annual GDP of Israel. When you consider the amount of money that would be lost by peace over the long term – we are talking about too many billions of US dollars – When you do a cost/benefit analysis of the problem there is enough money involved on this deal to create an incentive to keep the crisis going as far as possible.

You are going to say that few hundred people die every year because of this ongoing conflict in Israel – the same type of calculation it is done in the US all the time by the major automobile companies – a cost/benefit analysis study is done regarding their product when there is a problem with a car that requires a recall – the question is how many people will die because of the problem? How many will sue the company? And finally, the decision is made after they find out what the net financial gain or loss will be based on the various alternatives.

It is a sad situation, but that is how the real world works.


You also asked me: “Why is it that you suggest to send palestinian jews to sudan?”

I am not suggesting that at all – I am just bringing to your attention the historical events that transpired regarding that mess in Palestine and the part that the British played on all of this..

You mentioned that the Jews were allowed to move to the area where Israel is located today because that land was under British occupation at that time.

The Sudan also was under British occupation in 1947 and when the fiasco regarding the ship Exodus was going on in 1947 – one of the alternatives that the British government was considering at that time was the creation of a Jewish state in a portion of land where the Sudan is located in Africa.

If the British had actually created that Jewish state in the Sudan instead of the Palestinian lands – 1) Today, we probably would have a much peaceful Middle East, 2) most likely 9/11 would not have happened, 3) the US would not be wasting hundreds of billions of US dollars on lost causes such the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, 3) And today, the new Jewish state on the Sudan would be rolling on oil money.

I will post – right after this posting - a few historic facts to refresh your memory regarding Israel, the European Jews impact on the formation of a new Jewish state, and some British forces occupational history .


.
 
.

July 15, 2006

SouthAmerica: Here are some historical facts to complement the above posting. As you can see the British Empire after its decline left a lot problems behind to the world to sort it out.


***


Sudan


Sudan was a colony of Great Britain, and from 1924, until independence in 1956, the British had a policy of running Sudan as two essentially separate colonies, the south and the north. Sudan became independent in 1956.

Britain agreed to Sudanese independence after the 1952 revolution in Egypt; the government that came to power in Egypt in 1952 supported a plebiscite on independence. Sudan did not join the British Commonwealth.

Sudan is one of the world's most bitterly divided countries. Most people in the richer northern region of the country are Muslims, and the rest living in the poorer southern region are mostly non-Muslims. These cultural differences together with other social, economic, and political factors have plunged Sudan into one of the most violent civil wars in modern history.



Palestine


After Muslim control over Palestine was reestablished in the 12th and 13th centuries, the division into districts was reinstated, with boundaries that were frequently redrawn. 1263/Jul 1291 the country was part of the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt.

Around the end of the 13th century, Palestine comprised several of nine emirates of Syria, namely the "Kingdoms" of Gaza (including Ascalon and Hebron), Karak (including Jaffa and Legio), Safad (including Safad, Acre, Sidon and Tyre) and parts of the Kingdom of Damascus (sometimes extending as far south as Jerusalem).

By the middle of the 14th century, Syria had again been divided into five districts, of which Filastin included Jerusalem (its capital), Ramla, Ascalon, Hebron and Nablus, while Hauran included Tiberias (its capital).



Ottoman period


After the Ottoman conquest, the name disappeared as the official name of an administrative unit, as the Turks often called their (sub)provinces after the capital. Since its 1516 incorporation in the Ottoman Empire, it was part of the vilayet (province) of Damascus-Syria until 1660, next of the vilayet of Saida (seat in Lebanon), shortly interrupted by the 7 March 1799 - July 1799 French occupation of Jaffa, Haifa, and Caesarea. On 10 May 1832 it was one of the Turkish provinces annexed by Muhammad Ali's shortly imperialistic, khedival Egypt (remained nominally Ottoman), but in November 1840 direct Ottoman rule was restored.

Still the old name remained in popular and semi-official use. Many examples of its usage in the 16th and 17th centuries have survived. During the 19th century, the "Ottoman Government employed the term Arz-i Filistin (the 'Land of Palestine') in official correspondence, meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became 'Palestine' under the British in 1922".

The Ottoman Sultan discouraged all large-scale immigration to Palestine, replying to a request by Rabbi Joseph Nantonek for permission to settle Jews in 1876 that "almost all lands in Palestine were occupied, and that the autonomy sought by Nantonek was incompatible with the administrative principles of the state" and decrees against mass settlement were issued by the Ottoman government in 1884, 1887 and 1888. Significant numbers of Jews began making Aliyah to the Holy Land in 1882 to build collective farms and eventually established the new city of Tel Aviv in 1909. However, during 1891-1900 the total number of Jews in Palestine was never more than 60,000 people out of a total population of 500,000, which demonstrated that "the Ottoman policy of allowing individuals to immigrate and to settle, but prohibiting large groups from doing the same, was successful". When Ottoman control came to an end, following World War I, the number of Jews in Palestine had declined to 55,000.

In European usage up to World War I, "Palestine" was used informally for a region that extended in the north-south direction typically from Raphia (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly-defined place where the Syrian desert began. In various European sources, the eastern boundary was placed anywhere from the Jordan River to slightly east of Amman.



British Mandate (1920-1948)


Formal use of the English word "Palestine" returned with the British Mandate. In the years following World War II, Britain's position in Palestine gradually worsened. This was caused by a combination of factors, including:

The situation in Palestine itself rapidly deteriorated, due to the incessant attacks by Irgun and Lehi on British officials, armed forces, and strategic installations. This caused severe damage to British morale and prestige, as well as increasing opposition to the mandate in Britain itself, public opinion demanding to "bring the boys home".

The costs of maintaining an army of over 100,000 men in Palestine weighed heavily on a British economy suffering from post-war depression, and was another cause for British public opinion to demand an end to the Mandate.

Finally in early 1947 the British Government announced their desire to terminate the Mandate, and passed the responsibility over Palestine to the United Nations.



Exodus in 1947


Exodus 1947 was a ship carrying Jewish emigrants, that left France on July 11, 1947 with the intent of taking its passengers to Palestine, then controlled by the British. Most of the emigrants were Holocaust survivor refugees, who had no legal immigration certificates to Palestine. Following wide media coverage, the British Royal Navy seized the ship, and deported all its passengers back to Europe.

The ship was purchased by Hamossad Le'aliyah Bet — the underground Jewish organization in Palestine intent on helping illegal Jewish immigrants enter Palestine. Its original name was President Warfield, and it served the US Navy in World War II. It was renamed Exodus 1947 after the biblical Jewish exodus from Egypt to Palestine.

The ship sailed with 4,554 passengers from a small port outside Marseille on July 11, 1947 and arrived at Palestine shores on July 18. The British Royal Navy trailed the ship from very early in its voyage, and finally boarded it some 20 nautical miles (40 kilometers) from shore. The boarding was challenged by the passengers (the ship was in international waters where the Royal Navy had no juristriction), and so the British soldiers used force. Three emigrants died as a result of bludgeoning and several dozen others were injured before the ship was overtaken. The British then sailed the ship into Haifa port, where its passengers were forcefully removed to three deportation ships.

Due to the high profile of the Exodus 1947 emigration ship, it was decided by the British government (some claim that by Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin himself) that the emigrants were to be deported back to Europe. Before then, captured illegal immigrants were placed in fenced and guarded detention centers in Cyprus.

When the deportation ships arrived at Port-de-Bouc near Marseilles on August 2, the emigrants refused to disembark, and the French refused to cooperate with British attempts at forced disembarkation. Realizing that they were not bound for Cyprus, the emigrants conducted a 24-hour hunger strike, refusing to cooperate with the British authorities.

During this time, media coverage of the human ordeal intensified and the British became pressed to find a solution. The matter also got the attention of the UNSCOP members who had been deliberating in Geneva. After three weeks, the ships were sailed to Hamburg, Germany which was then in the British occupation zone and where the emigrants could be forced off the ships and back to DP camps. Although most of the women and children disembarked voluntarily, the men had to be carried off by force.

Within a year, over half of the original Exodus 1947 passengers had made another attempt at emigrating to Palestine and were detained in camps in Cyprus. When the State of Israel was established in May 1948, all surviving passengers made aliyah.



Historical importance


The ship's ordeals were widely covered by international media, and caused the British government much public embarrassment. It is said that the events convinced the US government that the British mandate of Palestine was incapable of handling the Jewish refugees problem, and that a United Nations-brokered solution needs to be found. The US government then intensified its pressures on the British government to return its mandate to the UN, and the British in turn were more willing to accept this.


.
 
Quote from southamerica:
More...

I don’t have any prejudice against Jews.
Oh but you do. You have brought up every single anti-israel lie, distortion and prejudice typically used by jew-haters and you have actually managed to invent several your own unique lies and distortions. If you prefer to be called anti-Israel rather than antisemite - it's fine with me.

Israel expects to be always on the spotlight. Israel receives disproportionate amount of news coverage
Right, it's Israel's fault too. Earlier you accused the jews of being the "God's chosen people" because the bible says so, now you're accusing Israel of being in the spotlight of the world attention... because the world media keeps reporting about the ME. Israel would love nothing more than to be left alone, quietly deal with her problems and have the world attention directed to real issues - the terror attacks in Mumbai, treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, decline of soccer in Brazil and genocide in Darfur.

If a peace settlement is reached between Israel and its neighbors including the Palestinians – then Israel has so much to lose including the annual cash flow from the United States
It's actually the other way around, Israel receives its cash flow according to the peace agreement with Jordan and Egypt. Jordan and Egypt receive similar amount of aid.

In case of peace in that area Israel would lose a lot of moneys coming from the United States and other parts of the world to the tune of maybe as high as 20 percent of the annual GDP of Israel.
Your ignorance, prejudice and stupidity is best revealed in this comment. The US aid to Israel is 2.5 billion dollars, Israel's GDP $129 billion. It's less then 2 percent buddy, not 20 percent and the money is spent primarily on defence which Israel would not have to do in case of a peace agreement with Israel's neighbors. And even without peace in the region Israel can easily offset this financial aid by buying cheaper Chinese, Russian or French weapons.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

You also asked me: “Why is it that you suggest to send palestinian jews to sudan?” I am not suggesting that at all – I am just bringing to your attention the historical events that transpired regarding that mess in Palestine and the part that the British played on all of this..
In the end of the 1940s jews and arabs lived in Palestine - like it or not but that was the actual situation on the ground and your suggestion that the UN should have created Israel but not Palestine in Sudan is preposterous, biased and stupid.

If the British had actually created that Jewish state in the Sudan instead of the Palestinian lands
the British did not create Israel, moron, the UN did.

2) most likely 9/11 would not have happened
9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Israel, it had much more to do with the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, with american troops in Saudia Arabia, with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Again your ignorance is staggering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top