PDA

View Full Version : 1967 - Israel's Wasted Victory


Jedburgh
05-25-2007, 03:04 PM
The Economist, 24 May 07: Forty Years On (http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9222979)
...Forty years of conflict have convinced most Palestinians and Israelis that they are best off separating into two states. Yet they seem incapable of getting there.

Though most Israelis have come to accept that the Palestinians should have independence, most still think they are not automatically entitled to it, but first need to earn it by providing Israeli security. For their part, though most Palestinians are willing to let Israel exist if it leaves them alone, most think armed struggle of some sort is justified as long as it continues to occupy their land and kill suspected militants and innocent bystanders alike. Neither side has ever had a leadership willing to override those views.

In the meantime the Israeli settlements that dot the West Bank like holes in a Swiss cheese keep growing. The measures that protect them from Palestinian extremists, such as special settler-only roads and hundreds of checkpoints and roadblocks, stifle the West Bank's economy and drive even more Palestinians to extremism....

SoiCowboy
05-26-2007, 02:38 AM
Peace can only come from hardliners, after a sea of blood, sanctioned by a perceived strong America.

It's how the Oslo peace accords came about. With a triumphant America flush from the Gulf War able to force a tired Israel and weakened PLO from the First Intifada to make a peace of sorts.

Look at the Israeli-Egyptian peace after the Yom Kippur War between Sadat and Begin.

With a fatally weakened Olmert presidency, anarchy in the Territories and a perceived weak America, nothings going to happen for a while yet.

Culpeper
05-26-2007, 05:20 AM
In my opinion, the war left Arab war refugees that the other Arab countries kept trapped as a thorn in the side of Israel. After the war, Israel did everything it could to protect and provide safe harbor for Jewish refugees in Arab countries. The aggressors of that war should still be made to pay. All territories claimed by Israel after that war should be swept clean of the generations of Arab refugees and sent to Arab countries where the Arabs will be forced to do what they should have done to begin with, which is take responsibility for biting off more than they can chew. Had Israel done this to begin with we wouldn't be seeing the problems we are witnessing today. Historically, that territory was Jewish land before it became Palestine. Theoretically, there is no Palestine and there are no Palestinians. However, there is the original modern day Israel and what the Arab lost as a result of the war that Israel has every right to maintaining as she wish. The Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the West Bank shouldn't exist at all with Arab interests. The Arab nations tried to destroy Israel to the ground and lost. "To the victors goes the spoils of war." Period. The fallacy of the Six Day War, or as the Arabs call it, "The Setback", is that it gave Arab extremists a handle to hold on to that has led to all this strife in the entire region. Had Israel been aggressive after the conflict as they were during the conflict the victory would have been whole and the situation in the Middle East would be quite different today. So, in that respect, it was a wasted victory. But Israel isn't the only nation to blame. The United Nations, led by the United States did everything they could to set up a human catastrophe that we are still paying for to this day. When it comes to the Middle East there should never be any sort of settlement after a coalition of aggressive Arab nations are totally defeated. We already know what happens when the opposite is applied.

Tom Odom
05-26-2007, 02:22 PM
In my opinion, the war left Arab war refugees that the other Arab countries kept trapped as a thorn in the side of Israel. After the war, Israel did everything it could to protect and provide safe harbor for Jewish refugees in Arab countries. The aggressors of that war should still be made to pay.

There are any number of scholarly works that refure this simplistic view. No frontline Arab country "trapped" Palestinians. To the contrary, they wanted them either back in Palestine or dispersed. Many took the latter route; may did not. Two civil wars broke out as a result of refugee concentrations. One was in Jordan in 1970; the next was in Lebanon in 1975.

Historically, that territory was Jewish land before it became Palestine. Theoretically, there is no Palestine and there are no Palestinians. However, there is the original modern day Israel and what the Arab lost as a result of the war that Israel has every right to maintaining as she wish. The Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the West Bank shouldn't exist at all with Arab interests.

If by you mean King Saul and David, there were people there when the Israelites conquered the area. The "no Palestinians" is a long term Zionist propaganda tool that was in play decades before Israel became a country. At ome stage, the Zionist movement claimed there were no people living in the region.

Neither side wears a white hat in this struggle. To state the the US has left Israel twsting in the wind is absurd.

Regards,

Tom

Jones_RE
05-26-2007, 07:57 PM
Arab culture has centuries old traditions of raiding, kidnapping, piracy and assassination. Not to mention vicious internal wars. The outcome of the 1967 war may give a target and a rallying cry to Arabs everywhere but in my opinion it didn't create the various foreign and domestic crises that continually assail the middle east. Mind, the occupation of Palestine and Iraq isn't helping anything.

In my opinion, the Economist article starts from the flawed assumption that there was some opportunity for peace to be wasted. Had Israel withdrawn from the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Sinai and Golan Heights their state would simply have been a better target. Had they thrown out the Palestinians they still would have been assailed by PLO exiles who simply would have had more power in neighboring Lebannon and Jordan. Their current course of action has ended in today's craptastic situation.

Frankly, I think the concept of "peace" in that region of the world is a little strained. It implies that once Israel and the Palestinians hammer out their differences there will be no fighting and everyone can go back to the natural state of happy and loving coexistence. Actually, in the middle east it appears that peace itself is the unnatural state - simply an unstable pause between wars.

Culpeper
05-26-2007, 09:00 PM
Simplistic is correct. Keep it simple. Trying to please everyone after the Six Day War was a mistake made by the United Nations and the United States had a heavy hand in the matter. So, it is not absurd. It is a fact. Your tendency to over empathize with the Arabs in this area is a fault and far from scholarly. It is what it is. If you think I'm wrong than how do you suppose all those Arabs ended up staying in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and so forth to starve. You want Israel to be their welfare state no different than the very countries that tried to destroy Israel to begin with. A coalition of Arab countries, supported and armed by the Soviet Union, tried to destroy Israel. The areas in question were lost by this coalition. The people in these areas needed a name. Palestinian. And that is all it is is a name fore these people are a generation of nothing more than Arab refugees from that war. And you think these Arab countries had no responsibility for these people? Israel should have sent them straight to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel would still be having a problem but not one concerning occupied territories full of unemployed people that hate them and bent on destroying Israel. I wonder what you thought about Israel immediately after the Six Day War.

Tom Odom
05-26-2007, 10:32 PM
Simplistic is correct. Keep it simple. Trying to please everyone after the Six Day War was a mistake made by the United Nations and the United States had a heavy hand in the matter. So, it is not absurd. It is a fact. Your tendency to over empathize with the Arabs in this area is a fault and far from scholarly. It is what it is. If you think I'm wrong than how do you suppose all those Arabs ended up staying in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and so forth to starve. You want Israel to be their welfare state no different than the very countries that tried to destroy Israel to begin with. A coalition of Arab countries, supported and armed by the Soviet Union, tried to destroy Israel. The areas in question were lost by this coalition. The people in these areas needed a name. Palestinian. And that is all it is is a name fore these people are a generation of nothing more than Arab refugees from that war. And you think these Arab countries had no responsibility for these people? Israel should have sent them straight to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel would still be having a problem but not one concerning occupied territories full of unemployed people that hate them and bent on destroying Israel. I wonder what you thought about Israel immediately after the Six Day War.

Culpepper,

The conflict did not start in 67. It started in the 1920's and 1930s. The US role after WWII was relatively neutral; as a result the first source of arms for the new state of Israel was the Soviet Union via Czechoslovakia when the Soviets has a passing fancy that the left-wing Israelis might become a player, a fancy soon dismissed. US support for Israel remained relatively neutral through the 1956 War when Israel, France, and the UK conspired to take the Suez Canal. LBJ on the eve of the 67 War started to open up the arms supplies to Israel and turned on the spigot afterwarrd, replacing France as Israel's number one supplier by 1973. All of this took place in the Cold War and the Soviets took the other side. 1978 and Camp David marked the end of the Cold War in the Middle East because it took two key players Israel and Egypt off the battlefield. Since 1978 the US has been spending close to 10 Billion a year in keeping the two nations at peace.

As for the refugees, they are just that refugees, They have stayed refugees because it keeps their status before the UN and the world as refugees. The use of the term Palestinian Arab predates the creation of the State of Istrael; its use over time to represent a Palestinian people is exactly the pattern taken by the Zionist movement and creating an Israeli people. Where the report that started this thread pointed to wasted victory was in dealing with the reality of a Palestinian people, especially on the issue of settlements in the territories. Looking at an issue in total is not a fault. In 1967 I was 14. Like most Americans at the time, the 6 Day War was a blip to me on the back drop of the Vietnam War. I have also studied the region for 27 years. I have taught both sides in the same classroom I have lived among both sides and seen the conflict up close.

Nothing in the Middle East is simple.

Regards

Tom

Culpeper
05-26-2007, 11:46 PM
Tom

It is "Culpeper" like in "Culpeper Courthouse". Not like the football player.

These occupied territories were not Palestine prior to the Six Day War. They belonged to the nations that tried to destroy Israel in 1967. As you well know, this was the third time since 1948 that certain Arab nations had tried to destroy the Israelis. I was eight years old in 1967 and I could see the problem certain decisions would cause afterward. And I had the distraction of an older brother fighting as a Marine in Vietnam. As far as I'm concerned the wasted victory for Israel is simple enough for a child to figure out. Had Israel said, "Enough is Enough" than there would be no occupied territories. There would be no "Palestinians". These Arabs would have been assimilated into the population of Israel's neighbors and so forth. Refugee fallout would today be an Arab nation problem and not an Israeli problem. Instead, these Arab nations lost territory and abandoned people in defeat and left them behind for Israel and the rest of the world to deal with. So, we give them a name and state they deserve their own country? This is Israel's wasted victory. Naming the 1967 conflict, "The Six Day War" is as misleading as calling the people of the resulting occupied territories, "Palestinians". The Arabs got the name right. "The Setback".

Tom Odom
05-27-2007, 02:39 AM
Culpeper,

We will have to agree to disagree.

Tom

AdmiralAdama
06-12-2007, 11:45 AM
From previous threads on this message board, Mr. Odom seems to come at the Arab-Israeli side from a moderately anti-Israeli position. His stance seems to be that the foreign "Zionists" have invaded a country and that their claim on the land is inferior to the "Palestinians". We will not change such Arabist views on this thread. However, in fairness, i do believe we should be clear that there was nothing like a "Palestinian" nation up til the 1960s, just about the time when the Arabs realized that painting the conflict as "Israel vs. Palestinians" would appeal much more than "Israel vs. Arabs". It's as if Nazi Germany decided that the Sudeten Germans living in Czechoslovakia required a new nation known as "Sudetenland" to achieve self-government. Oh wait, they did do that :)

tequila
06-12-2007, 12:17 PM
Tom has the historical right of it.

Trying to tar LTCOL Odom with some sort of anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist brush because he doesn't buy the founding myths of the Israeli state is a favorite tactic of extremists on the Israeli side. Thankfully their arguments have been mostly refuted by Israelis more interested in facts rather than polemics.

The wiki article on the origins of Palestinian nationalism is informative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#Origins_of_Palestinian_identity).


Even before the end of Ottoman administration, Palestine, rather than the Ottoman Empire, was considered by some Palestinians to be their country. One of the earliest Palestinian newspapers, Filastin founded in Jaffa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa%2C_Israel) in 1911 by Issa al-Issa, addressed its readers as "Palestinians".[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#_note-4) Evidence of Palestinian conceptions of Palestine as a distinct country within the Ottoman Empire can be found in another Palestinian newspaper, al-Karmel, which on 25 July (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_25) 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913), wrote: "This team possessed tremendous power; not to ignore that Palestine, their country, was part of the Ottoman Empire."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#_note-5)

The idea of a unique and separate Palestinian state was at first rejected by most Palestinians. The First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (in Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem), February 1919), which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Conference%2C_1919), adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic), natural, economic and geographical bonds."[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#_note-6)

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) and the French conquest of Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria), however, the notion took on greater appeal. In 1920, for instance, the formerly pan-Syrianist mayor of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Jerusalem), Musa Qasim Pasha al-Husayni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_Qasim_Pasha_al-Husayni), said "Now, after the recent events in Damascus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus), we have to effect a complete change in our plans here. Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine".

Similarly, the Second Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (December 1920), passed a resolution calling for an independent Palestine; they then wrote a long letter to the League of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations) about "Palestine, land of Miracles and the supernatural, and the cradle of religions", demanding, amongst other things, that a "National Government be created which shall be responsible to a Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament) elected by the Palestinian People, who existed in Palestine before the war."

Conflict between Palestinian nationalists and various types of pan-Arabists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arabism) continued during the British Mandate, but the latter became increasingly marginalised. The most prominent leader of the Palestinain nationalists was Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni), Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. By 1937, only one of the many Arab political parties in Palestine (the Istiqlal party) promoted political absorption into a greater Arab nation as its main agenda. During World War II, al-Husayni maintained close relations with Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi) officials seeking German support for an independent Palestine.[citation needed] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources) However, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War) resulted in those parts of Palestine which were not part of Israel being occupied by Egypt and Jordan.

The idea of an independent nationality for Palestinian Arabs was greatly boosted by the 1967 Six Day War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War) in which these lands were conquered by Israel; instead of being ruled by different Arab states encouraging them to think of themselves as Jordanians or Egyptians, those in the West Bank and Gaza were now ruled by a state with no desire to make them think of themselves as Israelis, and an active interest in discouraging them from regarding themselves as Egyptians, Jordanians, or Syrians.[citation needed] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)

Moreover, the natives of the West Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank) and the Gaza Strip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip) now shared many interests and problems in common with each other that they did not share with the neighboring countries.

Tom Odom
06-12-2007, 01:08 PM
Thanks for that Teqila.


AdmiralAdama,

I am perfectly happy to debate issues and history. We can even agree to disagree. I will not suffer your applying labels to me or any other council members based on a surface read or understanding of my views, background, or writing. Labels as you apply them are simply a tactic of diversion.

Stick to issues.

Regards,

Tom

Abu Buckwheat
06-12-2007, 01:38 PM
These occupied territories were not Palestine prior to the Six Day War. They belonged to the nations that tried to destroy Israel in 1967.



There is virtually no real historical arguement that supports this contentions. Tom Odom is right. He is not coming at it from a pre-determined position. Palestine is much older than many give history credit for. Arabic/Aramaic for Palestine is Filistine (historically now the Gaza strip) ... In fact the Persians named the whole place Philaestina which incorported old Filistin, Judea and Samaria.

Palestine didn't belong to the nations that were trying to destroy Israe. Remember those "Arab" lands were held together under the Ottman empire until WWI... the British and French drew the false lines of what is now Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, etc... so don't blame the locals for herding sheep and fishing and had dotted lines imposed on them (just like the Iraqis!). Until the Balfour Declaration in 1917 these people all lived together from the iron age, through the Persians, Romans, Byzantines, Abassids, the Europeans Crusades (who killed Jews and Moslems with equal delight) and the Ottomans who came in the 16th century.

Hey... arguing historically that Jews once had a kingdom there in 600 BC and they hold now the right to kill anybody who objects or who had liuved on that land in the intervening 2600 years is like arguing the Serbs should get an empire and oppress a million Moslems because they lost a battle in Kosovo 600 years ago. However hsitory has favored Israel and they now have a nice, prosperous land with that horrible Maccabe beer. :D

Facts as they exist now: Israel is a defacto Jewish state. Done. Not going away. But in 1967 they didn't really face the threat they made us all believe ... -on paper maybe but not actually in the field which is why they won so quickly. The Arabs were a rhetoric-based "aggressive Arab force"... the core of the Egyptian Army was mainly in Yemen at the time, so it was just bluster. Israel doesn't do bluster well. Blitzed the nations around them to disarm them and took what they could and ended the threat... until 1973. It took Egypt/Syria invading to show they they could be defeated militarily and so Camp David led them to make nice with their neighbors Egypt and Jordan.

However, the West Bank and Gaza they are occupied in 1967 is and shall remain the space of the decendants of the locals who have always lived there ... they are now referred to as Palestinians, both Moslems and Christians. Palestinians/Druze and Hashemite bedouins living in Israel are called Arab Citizens of Israel. In fact so many Arab Jews emigrated to Israel from Arab nations (Yemenis, Persians, Jordanians, Syrians, Moroccans, Kurds, Palestinains, Iraqis, Saudis, Egyptians, etc) they are called Mizrahi Jews- ... they constitute 35-40% of the population. So are we talking about people, nations or religion?

Its not about which position you come from its about what the facts of the matter are. I grew up Catholic in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood and Hebrew & Yiddish were my first foreign langauges, but as an American Arabist and geo-political realist one can't take sides even if one likes Israel, you gotta look for a solution for the 9 million Palestinians. Its only fair and it could solve numerous regional and global political problems for all of us.

Israel knows it cannot keep up the occupation. A free, democratic, non-HAMAS run Palestine (because Israel isolating Arafat and the moderates was a HUGE strategic mistake... they gave Palestine to HAMAS) is what we are all after. Israel can use the manpower for industry and Agriculture and Palestinians can use the money for TVs, Coke and advanced university degrees which is what they are known for ... they are the most educated people in the Middle East.

However, if you oppress a people long enough (with 75% male unemployment) they revolt. Ask the Romans about the Zealots and their group the al-Sikariat or better yet ask the British about the Stern Gang and Irgun terrorist groups. Even Arafat admired them as nationalist fighters and modeled the PLO after them.

Unfortunately its all fact... how one chooses to interpret those facts is where we get conflict and disagreement, but the facts remain.

Abu Buckwheat
06-12-2007, 01:39 PM
Thanks for that Teqila.


AdmiralAdama,

I am perfectly happy to debate issues and history. We can even agree to disagree. I will not suffer your applying labels to me or any other council members based on a surface read or understanding of my views, background, or writing. Labels as you apply them are simply a tactic of diversion.

Stick to issues.

Regards,

Tom


All this went down while I was writing one post? I gotte be more succinct!

tequila
06-12-2007, 01:53 PM
I can't wait for this thread to melt down, like every other internet argument about Israeli/Palestine does. As soon as someone posts something from Joan Peters, I am out of here. :D

Culpeper
06-12-2007, 02:23 PM
No one has an answer for the Arab victims Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq left behind? The people who we now refer to as "Palestinians" and I refer to as a generation of refugees. There has been several very insightful posts on this thread and no one can answer the question. So, lets just enable Hamas and Fatah and give it name. There is nothing we can do about it now so I guess the entire point is moot. As I mentioned before, Israel did everything it could for her own refugees in these Arab nations after the conflict. We don't give them a name. Boat drinks for everyone.

Abu Buckwheat
06-12-2007, 02:29 PM
Boat drinks for everyone.

... and on this proposal I am easily swayed! :D

SWCAdmin
06-12-2007, 02:52 PM
From previous threads on this message board, Mr. Odom seems to come at the Arab-Israeli side from a moderately anti-Israeli position. His stance seems to be that the foreign "Zionists" have invaded a country and that their claim on the land is inferior to the "Palestinians". We will not change such Arabist views on this thread. However, in fairness, i do believe we should be clear that there was nothing like a "Palestinian" nation up til the 1960s, just about the time when the Arabs realized that painting the conflict as "Israel vs. Palestinians" would appeal much more than "Israel vs. Arabs". It's as if Nazi Germany decided that the Sudeten Germans living in Czechoslovakia required a new nation known as "Sudetenland" to achieve self-government. Oh wait, they did do that :)
I believe you have much to add here. Please do so without labelling approaching an ad hominem attack as the primary venue for adding it.

goesh
06-12-2007, 05:09 PM
By all accounts and reports, it appears fatah and hamas are on the verge of full scale war with each other. This may be more vestiges of history than the raw conflict of grabbing for power since vested interests go way beyond the triangle of the US, Israel and the palestinians, whoever the latter might really be. I doubt the loyalty and committment of neighbors to the 'palestinians' has changed one bit and they are still aligned with the same players despite the infighting. Personally I think Israel's traditional and historical culpability is somewhat exonerated in light of the serious escalation between hamas and fatah.

AdmiralAdama
06-12-2007, 08:48 PM
Apologies for an inauspicious beginning here.

The Arab refugees of 1948 were similar in ethnicity, religion, and language with their surrounding brothers. Indeed, millions of refugees occured in the post WWII era. ALL of these refugees were resettled in neighboring countries except for the "Palestinians" who were kept in "refugee camps" and supplied with money from the UN and propaganda from their leaders, who supported the Nazis in WWII, btw.

If the Palestinians were a "people" how come we never heard this before 1948? How come there was no "intifada" against the Egyptians and Jordanians who were "occupying" the "Palestinian" lands?

And if all the "Palestinians" want is a state, how come they didn't grab the opportunity in 1939? Or 1948? Or 1967? Or 2000? How come the PLO was created in 1964, before the gains of 1967?

We see in the anarchy of Gaza today that the "Palestinians" do not want a state. They want to destroy Israel, as the Hamas charter lays out. This same desire to destroy Israel motivated the Arab invasion in 1948 and the genocidal Arab talk of 1967, and the sentiment continues today. Sometimes we should take what our enemies take seriously -- both in the 30s in Germany and today with Islamist supremacism.

AdmiralAdama
06-12-2007, 08:55 PM
as an American Arabist and geo-political realist one can't take sides even if one likes Israel, you gotta look for a solution for the 9 million Palestinians. Its only fair and it could solve numerous regional and global political problems for all of us..

I certainly believe that one should "take sides" when faced with a fellow democracy trying to survive against the same forces that are threatening us. Islamist supremacism and Jihadism are the forces arrayed against Israel and America. Although Israel's position is different than the United States, we are still facing the same names -- Al Queda, Syria/Iranian sponsored proxy forces, etc. To "not take sides" is not only out of step with American commitment to democracies under assault from dictatorships, but will also damage our credibility and position in the Longer War. Remember that Israel is according to Iranian cant the Little Satan -- we are the Great Satan.

And this cult of "solutionism" is extremely dangerous. There is no "solution" right now, and certainly not in more ceding of land to Jihadist/anarchist forces. The "Palestinians" have made it clear over and over that they don't want a state. This type of "solutionism" is what gave Sudetenland to the Germans -- it's mistaking the grievance for the cause, which is an ideology of Islamist supremacism and Jihadism.

Would you also support not "taking sides" between the Brits and the Germans in the 40s? Or not "taking sides" between China and Taiwan? What exactly is America for if it is not "taking sides" between liberty and the dark forces?

Steve Blair
06-12-2007, 09:12 PM
Apologies for an inauspicious beginning here.

The Arab refugees of 1948 were similar in ethnicity, religion, and language with their surrounding brothers. Indeed, millions of refugees occured in the post WWII era. ALL of these refugees were resettled in neighboring countries except for the "Palestinians" who were kept in "refugee camps" and supplied with money from the UN and propaganda from their leaders, who supported the Nazis in WWII, btw.

If the Palestinians were a "people" how come we never heard this before 1948? How come there was no "intifada" against the Egyptians and Jordanians who were "occupying" the "Palestinian" lands?

And if all the "Palestinians" want is a state, how come they didn't grab the opportunity in 1939? Or 1948? Or 1967? Or 2000? How come the PLO was created in 1964, before the gains of 1967?

We see in the anarchy of Gaza today that the "Palestinians" do not want a state. They want to destroy Israel, as the Hamas charter lays out. This same desire to destroy Israel motivated the Arab invasion in 1948 and the genocidal Arab talk of 1967, and the sentiment continues today. Sometimes we should take what our enemies take seriously -- both in the 30s in Germany and today with Islamist supremacism.

I find a great deal of this simply ridiculous. First off, putting Palestinians and people in quotes like that is insulting. How would you feel if someone posted something with "Israelis" and "people"? By the same token, sweeping generalizations of the motives of any diverse group is dangerous and misleading. Certainly there are some within the Palestinian leadership circles (and I say circles because we are currently see two groups fighting for control), but there are also far-right elements within Israel that would like very much to see the Palestinians go away as a people.

No one has clean hands in this region. No one. Many of the Arabist groups supported the Nazis (or at least leaned in that direction) because they thought it would remove British domination from their territories. Many of the problems we see today in the Middle East and Africa are a direct result of European colonialism and empire-building, and the motives of the locals aren't often as clear-cut as we might wish. Nor does the region exist in a vacuum.

AdmiralAdama
06-12-2007, 10:00 PM
One should remember that the original mandate for Palestine encompassed Jordan as well. Britain lopped off 80% of it and created Jordan, which was a wholly Arab state. The idea that all of a sudden, the Arabs living west of the Jordan were a particular "people" that deserved a state of their own is quite recent, and should be understood as an attempt to convince the West that the argument is really one between the Israelis and the "Palestinians" and not between Israel and the rest of the Arab world.

During the "occupation" of the West Bank by Jordan, there was no call for a "Palestinian state" to be created by their fellow Arabs.
The idea of a second “Palestinian” state in the “West Bank,” in addition to the Palestinian state of Jordan, did not occur to anyone — certainly not to the “Palestinians,” not to the Arab countries, and not to the rest of the world.
The idea of the "Palestinian people" was created for the purpose of grabbing the West Bank, and for its future use as a launching pad for the destruction of Israel.

The Arabist groups who supported Nazism did so not merely out of anger towards British domination but because the hatred of the Jews aligned themselves quite well with the Nazi party. In 1940, al-Husseini requested the Axis to recognize the "right" of the Arabs

to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy.

If we do support a "Palestinian" state in the West Bank, it should be because it is judged to help us in the greater war against Islamist supremacists/Jihadists, and does not pose a threat to the besieged democracy next door. I happen not to believe in this fairy tale, but at least that is an honest interpretation. It should not be because of some gullible belief in the inalterable rights of a "Palestinian" people for a second Arab nation in the Palestinian mandate.

Tom Odom
06-12-2007, 10:23 PM
Apologies for an inauspicious beginning here.

Ok


The Arab refugees of 1948 were similar in ethnicity, religion, and language with their surrounding brothers.

By Arab refugees I assume you are referring to those of Palestine as a region, And to that I would say, yes similiar and no not all the same. The area of Palestine was an extension of the composition of Lebanon, that is Muslim, Druze, and Christian, all of whom were Arabs in that they spoke Arabic. As an extension of Lebanon (the Levant) the area also ran up against the more traditional Bedouin tribes that made up Sinai, Transjordan, and Hejaz.

In 1948, the UN voted for partition of the area accoding to the rather bizarre map as laid out after years of discussion--and influence of the Brits. The surrounding Arab states decalred that Israel would not stand as a nation and a mish mash of Arab armies were defeated piecemeal by the Israeli forces, including the Palmach, the Haganah, and the Likud/Stern hardliners.

As all of this went down along the fringes of the new Israeli state, hardline elements within the Jewish defense forces engaged in ethnic cleansing forciing as many Arabs out as they could. This was not a declared policy of the new state but it was done. Look up Deir Yassin for the most notable case--it took place on the eve of partition.

Indeed, millions of refugees occured in the post WWII era. ALL of these refugees were resettled in neighboring countries except for the "Palestinians" who were kept in "refugee camps" and supplied with money from the UN and propaganda from their leaders, who supported the Nazis in WWII, btw.

Here I am confused over which refugees you are referring to. The UNHCR came about as a result of this period; the UNHCR supports refugees and yes they supply them with food and means to make a living.

On the support of the Nazis, that the Mufti of Jersusalem was sympathetic to the Germans and he was definitely anti-Semtic in his leanings, The Egyptians, the Syrians, and the Iraqis all had leanings that were as much anti-British as they were pro-Nazi.

And by the way, the Stern Gang (Lehi) actually established contact with the Nazis because trhey were anti-British and the Nazis could be counted on to drive more European Jewry into the arms of Zionism. Keep Lehi and the Irgun in mind because Begin's Likud emerged from those early roots.


If the Palestinians were a "people" how come we never heard this before 1948? How come there was no "intifada" against the Egyptians and Jordanians who were "occupying" the "Palestinian" lands?

For the same reason no one called the Jews in Palestine, Israelis. The region was called Palestine for centuries. The Palestinians had not need to push for a state in 1939--indeed they were under colonial administration. Transjordan was a semi-state that resulted from the Arab Revolt in WWI and its modern successor was Jordan. Egypt gained its freedom in the post WWII era. Neither Jordan nor Egypt were "occupiers" of Palestine.


We see in the anarchy of Gaza today that the "Palestinians" do not want a state. They want to destroy Israel, as the Hamas charter lays out. This same desire to destroy Israel motivated the Arab invasion in 1948 and the genocidal Arab talk of 1967, and the sentiment continues today. Sometimes we should take what our enemies take seriously -- both in the 30s in Germany and today with Islamist supremacism.

By "we" I assume you mean you; I would say that the Palestinians do want a state; the real issue is how that state is going to be defined. There is a tremendous difference in the Palestinians of 1967 and 2007. They are very much more radicalized. In that regard, they are very much like the Shia of Lebanon where Israeli occupation provided the fertile ground for the rise of Hizballah. Hamas is very much the Sunni clone of what happened in Lebanon with Hizballah. The year 2000 was a watershed event in this saga because both sides were as close as they have ever been to a settlement. Arafat's and Sharon's grandstanding killed that.

Finally I would say to you that I am neither pro Arab nor pro Israeli. I am pro balance in foreign policy. Neither side in this particular conflict wears a white hat.

Regards

Tom

AdmiralAdama
06-12-2007, 10:26 PM
"balance" between a democracy trying to survive and an array of terror groups/dictatorships dedicated to politicide is not "balance" at all -- it may be called other things, but "balance" is certainly not one of them.

Steve Blair
06-12-2007, 10:28 PM
Neither side wears a "white hat" in this region. Period.

AdmiralAdama
06-13-2007, 01:19 AM
Not sure what you mean by "white hat" -- certainly, America has much more in common with a fellow democracy than the same forces -- Iranian proxies and Jihadist terror groups -- that are arrayed against them in, say, Iraq. This kind of moral equivalence between democracies and burgeoning terror states seems unwise, to say the least.




There is a tremendous difference in the Palestinians of 1967 and 2007. They are very much more radicalized. In that regard, they are very much like the Shia of Lebanon where Israeli occupation provided the fertile ground for the rise of Hizballah. Hamas is very much the Sunni clone of what happened in Lebanon with Hizballah. The year 2000 was a watershed event in this saga because both sides were as close as they have ever been to a settlement. Arafat's and Sharon's grandstanding killed that.

Hezbollah was founded, nurtured, and funded by Iran. They are more of an Iranian foreign legion today -- part and parcel of the Iranian Shi'ite jihad. Similarly, Hamas is an outgrowth of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which started in the 20s quite a long time before the current problems. Jihadist groups have taken "root" in Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Chechnya, Indonesia, etc. They hardly need "Israeli occupation" to grow.

As well, blaming the collapse of the Camp David accords on both "Arafat and Sharon" may have a pleasing type of balance about it, but it is hardly correct. Arafat was offered 95% of the West Bank and Gaza and said NO without any counteroffer and started an "intifada" centered around suicide bombings of civilians. No white hats, indeed.

Steve Blair
06-13-2007, 01:36 AM
And many of the founders of the modern state of Israel bombed schools and other assorted non-military targets to make their point in the days before 1947. Hagana even approached the SS in 1937 regarding the movement of Jews from Europe to Palestine in order to achieve numerical superiority and thus a territorial claim to the region.

But that's neither here nor there. Let's see some substance other than rhetoric about good and evil. There's enough of both in the Middle East (on BOTH sides) to go around. Otherwise this thread may have reached its useful life.

AdmiralAdama
06-13-2007, 01:51 AM
Not sure what you mean by latest reply.

Unsourced claims that pre-Israel Jewish organizations engaged in "terrorism" against schools says nothing about today's battle between a democracy and an array of Jihadist terror organizations.

Just as America's treatment of the Indians does not preclude it from wearing the "White Hat" in a battle against Nazis, neither does Israel's pre-Independence struggles with the local Arabs mean that it is not part and parcel of Western democracies, on the front line of the Jihad.

To try to assert moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas/Fatah is like asserting moral equivalence between Czechoslovakia and the forces arrayed against it leading up to WWII. One need not demand that a fellow democracy actsalways with a other-worldly purity to see the quite different morality of its opponents, Jihadists and dictatorships that openly assert their desire for politicide. America's alliance with Israel is similar in this case to her Alliance with Taiwan & South Korea -- it is in our interest to defend besieged democracies. That is what America has always stood for, in between bouts of isolationism.

Jedburgh
06-13-2007, 04:15 AM
I'm with Steve on this one. I get sick and tired of the ignorant partisanship on this issue - either Israel is the golden child, always in the right - or the Palestinians are the woefully oppressed innocents. In reality, both sides have bloody hands, and both continue to contribute enormously to the continual cycle of violence. (Can't either side get better leadership?)

However, I feel that Israel, as a sovereign state, the regional superpower, and the occupier with the overwhelming capability to do whatever they want in the territories, bears a greater responsibility to take the actions necessary to acheive a solution to the conflict.
...Arafat was offered 95% of the West Bank and Gaza and said NO without any counteroffer and started an "intifada" centered around suicide bombings of civilians....
A common myth in surprisingly large circles is that the Palestinians were offered the farm at Camp David and then the ungrateful bastards threw it in Barak’s face. Not so.

First off, by the time the summit was held, several negative processes had become permanent features of the post-Oslo environment:

- The steady confiscation of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza
- The accelerated expansion of existing settlements and the construction of new ones
- The division of the West Bank and Gaza into cantons separated from each other by Israeli controlled territory
- The paving of 250 miles of bypass roads on confiscated land that were designed to bisect, truncate and encircle Palestinian areas
- The institutionalization of the closure policy and the construction of dozens of checkpoints throughout the territories designed to control and restrict movement between Palestinian areas

At the summit itself, Barak moved immediately to final status issues, rather than implement a third redeployment of IDF troops as was mandated under previous agreements. So, the PA was forced into a position of discussing final status arrangements when it controlled little more than 17% of the West Bank and almost 80% of Gaza in isolated, encircled enclaves. This put the Palestinians into a position where the third phase of withdrawal was made contingent upon major Palestinian concessions on final status issues. Certainly not a congenial starting point upon which to begin negotiations at the summit.

Yes, Barak did go a bit further than any other Israeli leader in breaking the taboo on talking about East Jerusalem and the Haram Al-Sharif. However, his vision of a final settlement – neither generous nor a real “compromise” – did not not change significantly from what had gone before. Key elements that resulted in rejection by the Palestinians were:

- Annexation of 3 large settlement blocks which would split the West Bank into four cantons with the passages between them under complete Israeli control, and an encircled and divided East Jerusalem completely cut off from other Palestinian areas. Under this scenario, the Palestinians were cut off from the outside world – their only borders were with Israel. End of "occupation", but continuance of Israeli control over their lives.
- Continued Israeli control over the Palestinian economy through the imposition of an import and indirect taxation regime, which would make it impossible for a Palestinian state to implement external trade or fiscal policies different than Israel’s.
- Continued Israeli control over all groundwater resources in the West Bank and Gaza.

So, in sum, the Israeli offer precluded contiguous territory, defined and functional borders, and political and economic sovereignty. I would say those conditions completely nullified the idea of feasible political targets for the Palestinians, in the sense of providing for an eventual independent and sovereign Palestinian state. At that point, the second Intifada became a tragic inevitability. Sharon’s entry into the Haram Al-Sharif lit the tinderbox, much like the entry of the forces of Antiochus II into the sacred precincts of the Temple in Jerusalem triggered the Maccabean Revolt.

AdmiralAdama
06-13-2007, 04:54 AM
Not sure where you're getting your information. Dennis Ross was the US envoy to the region -- he makes clear that the Palestinians were offered contiguous territory. Instead of a counter offer of this very generous concept, Arafat said no, left, and started the "suicide bomb" intifida.

You can read more of Dennis Ross reporting of the offer, and the map, here

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

Here's the summary

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000555.html

DENNIS ROSS: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT CAMP DAVID AND BEYOND

A summary by Dennis Ross of what was offered and what took place at the Camp David and Taba negotiations:

1. Yasser Arafat presented no ideas at Camp David.

2. The Taba talks would have happened in late September if not for the outbreak of violence. Arafat knew the US was ready to make a proposal and thus promised to control the violence, but didn't. (I think he was hoping that he could leverage the violence into political gain.)

3. All of Gaza and a net of 97% of the West Bank were offered at Taba.

4. The West Bank area offered was contiguous, not "cantons".

5. The Jordan valley would be under Israeli patrol for only 6 years.

6. The Palestinians were offered a capital in eastern Jerusalem.

7. There would be a "Right of Return" to the nascent Palestinian state.

8. A $30 Billion fund to compensate refugees would be set up.

9. Taba was rushed due to Clinton's, not Barak's, end of term.

10. Members of the PA delegation thought Taba was the best they could hope to get and encouraged Arafat to accept it.

11. Arafat accepted everything he was given at Taba, but rejected everything he was supposed to give.

12. Arafat scuttled the Camp David offer. Arafat scuttled the Taba offer. Arafat scuttled the Mitchell plan. Arafat scuttled the Tenet plan. Arafat scuttled the Zinni plan.

Today, we see the Palestinians throwing each other off roofs as the Hamas terror group fights the Fatah terror group in Gaza after a full Israeli withdrawal. The West is lucky Arafat said No and we didn't see a terror mini-state appear between Israel and Jordan.

And of course I'm not saying that Israel is the "Golden Child" -- merely that it is on the front lines facing the exact same forces -- Jihadist terrorists and Iranian proxy groups -- that America faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The geopolitical dynamics, along with Israel's standing as a Western democracy, mean that it is in American interests to support Israel in its struggle to survive in a very difficult region. It's perplexing that this point is controversial -- nobody really suggests "balancing" our support for South Korea with support for North Korea, or suggested "balancing" our support for Taiwan with support for China. Only in regards to Israel is America expected to be "even handed" vis a vis a democracy and forces of totalitarianism and terror.

Culpeper
06-13-2007, 05:16 AM
bin Laden claims America has blood on her hands as well but that doesn't make it so. Not like the blood on his hands. But when it comes to choosing sides where Israel and the likes of Hamas and Fatah are concerned than I'm going to pick Israel. Both terrorist organizations have no interest in statehood with Israel in existence. No different than choosing sides on the this war in Iraq. Maybe the President isn't the sharpest knife in the draw. Maybe he accidentally brought the fight in the same region that so many before brought the same fight for the same reason over and over again because certain factions of Islam keep trying to kill in the name of religion. The last prophet of Islam was Mohamed. There will be no more prophets. What makes bin Laden so smart? He teaches his soldiers to hate and kill the enemy. They don't debate about it with their soldiers. I would hope that we, as a different culture, do debate about it. That is what makes us better than them. But at some point, some where, in some places, the debate ends. And when it does I prefer to see the dogma of the likes of bin Laden killed with extreme prejudice like so many before over the centuries beset with the same distorted ideas of the world have met their faith before. We can study Islam until we are blue in the face but the only thing the average American needs to know about Islam at the moment is what they learned on September 11, 2001. Everything they need to know about how difficult it is for a free society to fight back they learned on September 12, 2001. I would like to think the next time some maniac like bin Laden openly declares war on the USA that we don't ignore it or even put up barriers to prevent fighting back. After all, that is why we are here today. The fallacy of a free society up against the tyranny of evil men. And what side are these evil men on? They seem to grasp that need for success while we try to figure out if we can break our rules for success. I think Navy SEAL, Marcus Luttrell, can tell us a thing or two about the difficulties in making these types of decisions.

AdmiralAdama
06-13-2007, 05:24 AM
It is important to remember that the "Palestinians" danced in the streets when the World Trade Center fell. These types of display make it a little easier for me to figure out where I stand in the conflict.
pics
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4030_Palestinians_Party_on_September_11&only
video here
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/302316/palestinians_celebrating_9_11_from_cnn/

Culpeper
06-13-2007, 05:52 AM
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that a whole lot of Muslims have met an untimely death since September 11, 2001? There is so many that nobody can agree on just how many. I'm not just including war. They have been hammered just as hard from senseless tragic accidents to natural disasters. I would guess that America is at the lower end for the cause of these deaths. As for revenge, I think certain Islamics have suffered enough. But some with the right amount of authority seem to want to continue the fight. In some places it is just part of the daily grind. It is a jihad war of choice and yet it is all America's fault. That sentence just doesn't make any sense. Until some jihad kid blows up a train or a bus in Europe. And as usual it is complete contempt for the victims and total support for the torturer. Like our own judicial system. It is forget about the victim and release the poor murderer because he could have been the champion of the world. In other words, it is try to empathize with the poor jihadist because it is part of his culture and since the jihadists has hateful things to say about America than it must be America's fault. They can even put "American" people in quotations and we will give them a bye on that in any discussion. After all, they are jihadists and it is part of their culture to insult us. And that is all right.

Tom Odom
06-13-2007, 02:08 PM
"balance" between a democracy trying to survive and an array of terror groups/dictatorships dedicated to politicide is not "balance" at all -- it may be called other things, but "balance" is certainly not one of them.

Balance is the correct term when you declare your foreign policy goals include an accomodation between opposing forces.

The long term reality for Israel is found in simple demographics and the prognosis is not good. The original intent of this thread was the failure to make progress during the 40 years since the 1967 war; taken in total, Israel's actions and policies in that 40 years are remarkably like the colonies of an earlier age. Military dominance in those cases did not outlast the cultural and political pressures arrayed against them.

Again the issue of who is a Palestinian is exactly the same as who is an Israeli; in 1948 the UN and the world declared there was room for Israel and Israelis. In the years since the same has happened for the Palestinians. The process that lead to Israel becoming a state was bloody; Zionist terrorist organizations transitioned from pre-WWII minor players into post-WWII major actors in the struggle over Palestine. None of this reality has been lost on the Arabs and certainly none has been lost on the Israelis.

Yes Hizballah was funded by the Iranians. But the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon was the focal point that sparked Hizballah's emergence. Hamas as a player was relatively small in the beginning. PLO--Fatah failures in accepting what Barak put on the table (and Barak himself later remarked he would not have taken the deal) coupled with the remergence of Sharon as the hardliner pretty much set the stage for Hamas' successes.

As much as I disliked George Tenet's book I did find his discussions of this period illuminating for the glimpses inside the negotiations and cooperation between the Israelis and Palestinians. Tenet never seemd to get that as the US envoy between the two sides, he should not be taking bicycle rides with the Israelis during breaks. To his credit, he stood the line when Netanyahu had the audacity to demand Pollard's release as a pre-condition for any agreement, Finally he does offer a pretty good assessment of Arafat at the end of his career, still grasping for Jerusalem and failing as a result.

Parallels between Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel are streched to say the least. The US has repeatedly stated our goal is a just peace between the Israelis and the Palestininans. Achieving that means getting beyond simplistoc descriptions of a Palestiniain state as a "terror state" between Israel and Jordan. As for one to one linkages beteen the wars in OIF and OEF with what takes place in Gaza, that too is simplistic and ultimately self-defeating because it obscures realities.

Again we will have to agree to disagree.

Tom

Steve Blair
06-13-2007, 02:15 PM
Not sure what you mean by latest reply.

Unsourced claims that pre-Israel Jewish organizations engaged in "terrorism" against schools says nothing about today's battle between a democracy and an array of Jihadist terror organizations.

My point is quite simple: there is history in this region and neither side is perfect. Selectively quoting other websites and drawing very tenuous links to other locations does not change that fact. You can paint your own worldview in black and white, but that doesn't make it so.

I'm with Tom on this. We will have to agree to disagree.

Sarajevo071
06-15-2007, 09:17 PM
It is important to remember that the "Palestinians" danced in the streets when the World Trade Center fell. These types of display make it a little easier for me to figure out where I stand in the conflict.
pics
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4030_Palestinians_Party_on_September_11&only
video here
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/302316/palestinians_celebrating_9_11_from_cnn/

The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Cheering Movers and Art Student Spies: Was Israel Tracking the Hijackers Before the 9/11 Attacks?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/08/1610254

Some Serbs celebrated BIN LADEN's attack on NEW YORK 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX17oIPKubA

To help you to "figure" things better...

AdmiralAdama
06-16-2007, 01:54 AM
Too silly to comment -- the "five dancing Israelis" are about as real as the "4 thousand Jews who were warned of the 9/11 attack beforehand" conspiracy theory.

Sarajevo071
06-16-2007, 05:46 AM
Too silly to comment -- the "five dancing Israelis" are about as real as the "4 thousand Jews who were warned of the 9/11 attack beforehand" conspiracy theory.

:D:D:D

So... Police, FOX News, ABC News, CBS, FBI, and ALL other people who saw that on TV (them being arrested, interview with old women from New Jersey who called cops on "Arabs" dancing on top of the van, they statements to police and FBI that they are jews and on "U.S. side", paper trails in jails...). You are way to silly with you petty zionist propaghanda. Must be nice in your word. Am I to assume you will say now that Ha'aretz, Forward and Jerusalem Post are anti-jewish and silly!? :D


September 16, 2004: Israelis Arrested on 9/11 Sue the US, Claiming Mistreatment and Torture

Four of the five Israelis arrested on 9/11 (see 3:56 p.m. September 11, 2001), Paul and Sylvian Kurcheil, Omer Marmari, and Vyron Shmuel, file a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the US Justice Department. They claim they were arrested illegally, then held without charge and interrogated and tortured for months. Their lawyer claims the case will serve as a venue to debunk theories that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. [Ha'aretz, 9/16/2004; Jerusalem Post, 9/16/2004] Forward, a publication geared towards the Jewish population in the US, reported in 2002 that the FBI concluded at least two of the five were Mossad agents and that all were on a Mossad surveillance mission. [Forward, 3/15/2002]
================================================== =

September 11, 2001: Five Apparent Israeli Spies Arrested for Puzzling Behavior at Time of First WTC Attack

The white van used by five Israeli agents as they were leaving New York on 9/11.The white van used by five Israeli agents as they were leaving New York on 9/11.Five Israelis are arrested for “puzzling behavior” related to the WTC attacks. Shortly after an FBI lookout bulletin was issued for a van with the words “Urban Moving Systems” written on the side, officers with the East Rutherford Police Department in New Jersey stop the van after matching the license plate number with the one given in the bulletin. According to the police report, Officer Scott DeCarlo and Sgt. Dennis Rivelli approach the van and demand the driver exit the vehicle. The driver, Sivan Kurzberg, does not obey after being asked several more times, so the police physically remove Kurzberg and four other men from the van and handcuff them. They have not been told the reasons for their arrest, but Kurzberg tells them, “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” Again before the police have made any mention of the 9/11 attacks, another one of the arrested men says, “we were on the West Side Highway in New York City during the incident.” In fact, it will later be determined they were on the roof of a building at Liberty State Park, watching and videotaping the first crash into the WTC (see Shortly After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001). [Ha'aretz, 9/17/2001]
================================================== =

Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies

Millions saw the horrific images of the World Trade Center attacks, and those who saw them won't forget them. But a New Jersey homemaker saw something that morning that prompted an investigation into five young Israelis and their possible connection to Israeli intelligence.
[ABC News, 6/21/2002]
http://web.archive.org/web/20020802194310/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html
================================================== =

ISRAELIS ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF 9-11 INVOLVEMENT

By AL GUART (NY POST) www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/

September 13, 2001 -- Three men who celebrated as the Twin Towers crumbled are facing deportation, The Post has learned. The men, described as illegal immigrants from the Middle East, were arrested Tuesday afternoon in a white Chevy van near the Meadowlands based on a tip from witnesses who saw them "cheering" and "jumping up and down" in Liberty State Park after the attack, a source said.
================================================== =

THE SUSPICIOUS "MIDDLE EASTERN MOVERS" WERE ISRAELIS WITH BOXCUTTERS, EUROPEAN PASSPORTS AND $4000 CASH

SOURCE: ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS

Arutz Sheva News Service IsraelNationalNews.com 10-26-1

Five young Israelis are "on the verge of collapse," according to family members, as their incarceration in New York on charges relating to the Bin Laden attacks continues. They were arrested on Sept. 11, only hours after the World Trade Center attack, on charges of "plotting to blow up" a New York bridge. Katie Shmuel of the Galilee town of Yokne'am, says that her son Yaron is in "a very critical psychological situation," given that they are not allowed to have visitors and the difficult conditions in which they are being held. "The Israeli Consul-General in New York was allowed to visit only after asking several times and receiving a special permit," Katie told Arutz-7's Yosef Zalmanson today. "He was allowed to talk to them only in English, and only from behind a glass partition. The Consul told me that the boys are in a bad state and that they are being held under difficult conditions."
================================================== =

MORE SUSPICIOUS ISRAELI "MOVERS" DETAINED WITH DETAILED VIDEO OF SEARS TOWER

THE MERCURY (PHILADEPHIA AREA NEWSPAPER), POTTSTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA www.zwire.com/site/mercury_101801.html

MICHELLE MOWAD, Special to The Mercury, October 17, 2001

PLYMOUTH (PA) -- Two men whom police described as Middle Eastern were detained in the township by federal immigration authorities after being found with detailed video footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago.

Plymouth Police encountered the men after an officer responded to Pizzeria Uno on West Ridge Pike at 2:40 p.m. Thursday for a report of illegal dumping.

A manager there advised the police officer that a tractor-trailer was observed backed up to the dumpster at the rear of the restaurant. The manager noticed a freshly dumped pile of furniture adjacent to the Dumpster, according to police. The manager confronted the vehicle's operator, a Middle Eastern man, police said.
================================================== =

WANTED BY FBI: STILL MORE SUSPICIOUS MEN WITH ISRAELI PASSPORTS, BOX-CUTTERS,
OIL PIPELINE AND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PLANS.

SOURCE: THE MIAMI HERALD www.miami.com/herald/special/news/terrorism/digdocs/088964.htm

Nuclear plants tighten security. FBI seeking 6 men seen in Midwest.

BY MARTIN MERZER, CURTIS MORGAN AND LENNY SAVINO mmerzer@herald.com OCTOBER 3,2001

WASHINGTON -- As the nation stands on high alert, the FBI is searching for six men stopped by police in the Midwest last weekend but released -- even though they possessed photos and descriptions of a nuclear power plant in Florida and the Trans-Alaska pipeline, a senior law enforcement official said Tuesday.

The Federal Aviation Administration imposed new flight restrictions around nuclear plants nationwide Tuesday, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission advised the nation's 103 nuclear plants late Monday to fortify security. On Tuesday, agency spokesmen said the FAA's flight restrictions and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's security recommendations were based on Ashcroft's general alert rather than a specific threat. Ashcroft warned that Americans could be struck by another terrorist attack this week.

The incident in the Midwest apparently contributed to the new warning. The six men stopped by police were traveling in groups of three in two white sedans, said a senior law enforcement official, who requested anonymity.
================================================== =

etc...

No comments needed. Especially from you and your lies and silly propaganda.

Sarajevo071
06-16-2007, 06:05 AM
And, no, I am not saying that Mossad or CIA planned and planted explosives nor do I saying that was jews who piloted those planes nor was robots, BUT these jews in New Jersey and New York and they spy ring there and in Florida area is real and not imagination. Period.

Now I am done and I will not speak with you about this. No point. I know who you are and what is your agenda. Truth is out there for anyone who really wish to learn and know things and facts.

Culpeper
06-16-2007, 07:17 AM
Well, he is from the future. I guess he has history books in the Battlestar Galactia Library that shows what happened to us. That leaves us at an unfair disadvantage.

Adama (also known as Nazareth) is the name of a large city in Ethiopia. The name is also a variation on "Adam," the first man to be created according to the Bible in the Book of Genesis. In Hebrew the word pronounced "Adama" means earth.

On news of a renewed Cylon attack, Adama's first thoughts are, "Dead. We're all dead" (Home, Part II). Despite this, as well as the presumed loss of his wife in Caprica City, he manages to shepherd the last of humanity to safety.

AdmiralAdama lives in some sort of fantasy world. I'm going to give AdmiralAdama a professional referral to a specialist by the name of, Dr. Leonard Horatio "Bones" McCoy.

McCoy: Yes, Genesis! How can you be deaf with ears like that?