Topic: US in Iraq
started by: Tiger
Posted by Tiger on Aug. 22 2003,9:12 am
There was a poll on < http://www.cnn.com > asking:Should the US give up political or military control of Iraq to the United Nations? I thought it would be fun to hear your opinions.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 22 2003,10:47 am
And just WHO is the U.N.? The people that haven't been able to EVER do a real "peacekeeping" force in their 56 year history? Can you name one of their successes? Korea? Cambodia? Uganda?And just WHERE will the U.N. get the "muscle" to enforce the peace? The U.S. is on top of the call list--and we're already there! Great Britain? Already there! Should we hand it over to that military powerhouse, the French--the same people that were circumventing the U.N. embargo against Iraq? Same for the Russians? Perhaps Gambia, Chad, or Liberia (no, they don't even have a president any more). How about Libya--head of the Human Rights Council (they deposed the U.S.)--THEY would be a good choice, now that they have fessed up to bombing Pan Am (their "settlement" was less than the value of the airline they put out of business after surviving for 75 years). Maybe Paraguay will help, if a way could be found to get their few soldiers across the water. Iran--they've always had a desire for Iraq territory.
No , the U.N. is an ineffective, toothless debating society, a soapbox for third-world dictators to make proclamations from, a "feel-good", "we're all one world" balm for liberals.
But, that's only MY opinion! (smilie)
Posted by hoosier on Aug. 22 2003,12:13 pm
Jim, but how do you really feel about the UN? LOL. Just kidding 
I pretty much agree with you. Although I wanted this war to be fought by the UN in the first place, now that we are losing American soldiers everyday, I'll be damned if I would let anyone else take over.
Posted by KODIAK on Aug. 22 2003,12:56 pm
Good subject Tiger. The U.N. has lost its meaning, and is at the mercy of red tape and political correctness.....therefore will never quit driving in circles for the rest of its life. So play the tape on fast forward.......what to do? Does this police force we are training have a chance, or will they be bought off the instant we get back on the ships? I think our presence has to be neccessary for a long time, don't like it, but don't see another way out either. Its gonna take a long time before the correct (read that as non-corrupt) hierachy is established. Even after that, think through what must be going through Iran's mind at the same time, sorta like a lamb staked out in Wolf territory.
Posted by Bubba on Aug. 29 2003,5:33 pm
With the cost in money and human life escalating, order descentagrating, and no one finding the W.O.M.D. our administration looks alittle flat footed. Maybe Bush will get this back on track now that his vacation is ending.This week, Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has been defending every aspect of his post-Saddam plan for Iraq, has acknowledged some shortfalls but prefers to call them "unforeseeable circumstances." Who is he kidding.
Asked whether conditions in Iraq were deteriorating, defense secretary Rumsfeld said, "With respect to the planning that took place, it began well before there was a decision to go to war. It was extensive. Like any planning, once you hit reality, the plan needs to be adjusted and modified." You know I believe him, I believe the team had an unspoken agenda to go to war with Iraq long before Bush was elected. Too bad they never clued the rest of us in.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 29 2003,7:03 pm
Who's the team? How did they get together without the Pres.? Did Bush have this team in place before the election? How far back?
Posted by hoosier on Aug. 30 2003,10:25 am
In my opinion, as long as it is a military situation in Iraq, Don Rumsfeld and people like Carl Rowe should stay the hell out and leave it up to the military to take care of things. When the military gets things settled, then the politicians can have a go at it. In my opinion though, that is a long way down the road, if ever. Iraq has basically became Palestine and Isreal with its car bombs and such. I dont really believe that our military will ever be able to completly leave the country now that we have gone in. I also dont believe we will ever find WOMD, not that he didnt have them at one time, but I think they are long gone if they were there in the first place. I was against the war to start unless we had more international support, I mean, we have WOMD, we have used them, even on our own people. Ever heard of the military doing radiation tests I believe it was in the 50s or 60s? They flew military planes over South and North Dakota, Minnesota, and pretty much the upper midwest and dispersed radioactive material from their planes, then the government waited to see what effect it would have, on our own people. It was recently declassified, its true. But anyway, I changed my mind about the war when we went got into the capital and I seen the people whose families and friends have suffered under Saddam for far to long. My point is this, WOMD or not, the people of Iraq needed liberated from its government, I am now glad we did it, I just hope we are able to leave it to the Iraqi people and get out of there some day.
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 08 2003,2:09 pm
Boy am I releived, only another 87 Billion Dollars and we will have the problem licked! Those terroist are O so unwieldy, but we got'm on the ropes. Only another 87 Billion Dollars and I reckon they will be done for.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 08 2003,2:59 pm
This is high-stakes poker. You can't show your hand, then bluff.In Vietnam, Johnson blustered and threatened, but the N. Vietnamese knew that Congress and popular opinion wouldn't allow the war to continue--all they had to do is wait it out. When Nixon announced the U.S. withdrawal, the North Vietnamese knew the itinerary. Japanese business negotiations follow the same line--"when are you leaving? What is your flight schedule?" Far from being kind, they now know your schedule--your deadline. No negotiations will be undertaken until JUST before departure.
The Russians imploded because they saw that no matter what they spent, no matter what they did militarily, we were willing to oppose them--and they couldn't "ante up" to stay in the game, so they folded.
It would be wrong for us to set a self-imposed deadline for withdrawal--the insurgents would know that all they have to do is wait us out. That's the problem with early endings to conflict, THERE IS NO END. Look at our own Civil War--no formal surrender of the Confederacy--and people have been refighting it for 140 years! Same with every other "negotiated settlement" we've been involved with. Unless you FORCE the bad guys to the SURRENDER table, and make them sign an "OK, YOU WIN, I'LL BE GOOD" document, it never ends.
How DO we get out of Iraq? "Vietnamization"--turning the war over to the locals--didn't work in Vietnam, and won't work in Iraq. A sudden pullout would invite tribal squabbling all over again. Turn it over to the U.N.? That would be a major loss of U.S. credibility, and the U.S., as the U.N. "enforcer", would still be in the same position--but fighting as "blue helmets"--and controlled by foreign "generals" (political patronage), unfamiliar with our military resources and tactics. No, what is needed instead is a MacArthur-like "benevolent dictatorship" as the U.S. used in Japan and Germany--encouraging democracy, but hanging every bastard that took up a military arm against us.
I don't know why everybody is on such an accelerated timetable to get out of Iraq--we stayed in Japan for a couple of decades, we still have troops in Germany 58 years later, and it's been 50 years since the end of the Korean "conflict". Domestically, it's been 40 years of "fighting the war on poverty"--and we're not even close to winning that one--despite Billions of dollars spend--if you want to label something as "quagmire"--there's the best example!
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 08 2003,7:13 pm
Thanks for the History lesson Jim. Quagmire is right, just hope the Billions hold out. From a guy who questioned the WOMD, and the need to go in, I don't think we have seen the end of this with just another 87 Billion. I thank the brain trusts of W, Rumsfeild, Chainey and Wolfowitz for putting us into Iraq when I didn't think we needed to go. I guess I felt the same about Vietnam back when Kennedy was starting to move us in that direction. Now Jim don't paint me pink, my blood is red as yours. I did serve in Vietnam, I just didn't believe in it anymore that I believe that we had a right to liberate Iraq with our great coalition of the mindless.
Posted by minnow on Sep. 08 2003,7:35 pm
We are now officially "The United States of America plus Iraq" from now on...forever and ever...
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 08 2003,7:49 pm
Iraq the 51st state. Boy I know some PR's that are going to be upset.
Posted by Warbux on Sep. 08 2003,9:02 pm
Hat's off to you, Jim on your 2:59 PM post of 9/8. I applaud you. I could not agree with you more. I printed it and I am reading it to two groups tomorrow AM at coffee. You know, we had a plan back there in 1945 from the git-go. We dumped a bomb. That wasnk't enough, so we dumped another one. That did it. A few days later, on 9/2/45 they stood before General McCarthur on the deck of the USS Missouri and signed where they were told. They respected and obeyed McCarthur. They ended up liking him. Today, some nearly 60 years laater they still like him and respect him and are grateful to him for his leadership. Who the HELL has got ahold of the reins on the ponies in Iraq? We need help, Jim.Warren Jensen
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 08 2003,9:28 pm
Remember that some of our country men have objected to having our soldiers serve under a United Nations command, but it was alright for our soldiers to serve under US command in an United Nations opperation.Isn't it odd that we can not see that other counties might have objections to sending thier troops into Iraq to serve under US command because we can't keep the peace (O excuse me, the end of hostillities) we declaired back in May. Warbux, this isn't Japan 1945.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 08 2003,11:47 pm
Frankly, and I mean no offense to anyone, but the last real 'war' we had (in my opinion) is WWII. Every other 'conflict', 'police action', 'liberation', whatever they want to call it; was nothing but politically motivated and supported while delivering one hell of a bill of sale to the public. The only aggressive action that I can recall that I really think was necessary was Milosivich ( sp?? ) when he was committing genocide, and even then I think they should have settled for nothing less than death for him, people like that seriously have zero to contribute to society and should be gotten rid of.
Now I’m not trying to belittle any conflict after WWII, I just don’t think any of them were done for the right reasons. The public was given half truths and propaganda to rally support.
While every American should bee 100% behind our troops, they are just like you and me, the only difference is that for most of us each member of the armed service is taking our place in whatever may be happening, Korea, Viet Nam, Dessert Storm & Dessert Shield the list goes on, it could be you or I that would be in Iraq, waiting for the next bombing and hoping that no one we know ends up dead. We should really be thankful…
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 09 2003,10:07 am
Fighting under a foreign command hasn't worked well anywhere in the history of warfare. Even troops of the British Commonwealth didn't fight well under British leadership--and THEY had standardized practices and tactics. Consider the Canadians in WW I--completely ineffective--the British denigrated their capabilities. The Canadians revolted when asked to take Vimy Ridge--where the British had been stalemated for over 6 months. The Canadians agreed--IF they could fight under their own command--and took it in 9 days. After that, Canadians fought ONLY under their own command--and Canada developed a national pride and identity. It has been said that Canada became a nation at Vimy Ridge.Consider the awful waste of life of Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli--not only was leadership flawed, but they had no effective means of communication for covering fire--the only tactic available to the commanders was suicidal attacks from the trenches--into the face of massed artillery and machine gun fire. The result was predictable.
The Allied Powers recoginized the inability to effectively utilize foreign troops during WW II, so they assigned "theatres of operation" to effectively separate them. The ONLY example of troops fighting effectively under foreign command that I can think of is the Ghurka--and that is probably because they were conditioned to do exactly what they were told to do, fight ferociously and with no quarter--and they were fighting with primitive weapons.
In more modern times, Russia couldn't control the troops of the rest of the USSR, and as recently as Grenada, the Army couldn't even talk on common frequencies with the Air Force, Marines, or Navy. Imagine trying to meld different weapons and tactics, let alone communications, with foreign languages--it's bad enough trying to understand a Louisiana accent over a radio!
Where the U.S. may elect to use a precision weapon to take out an enemy position--a foreign commander, untrained in the use of such weapons, may order a frontal assault--at a terrible waste of lives.
Because of these coordination problems, if you talk to the troops in the field, they want no part of multinational operations, let alone multinational command. Much as some would like to believe in the superiority of "one world order"--the truth is that when playing with deadly munitions, this is no time for social experimentation.
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 09 2003,10:23 am
Jim, I agree with what you say, also liked the same post that Warbux did. But I have a question. Who is it, in the case of Iraq, that we are going to get to surrender? There are to many different groups of fighters, with only one objective, get the U.S. out. I just dont think any one person is going to be able to say, ok, enough, uncle, lay down your arms and stop fighting. I dont even believe Bin Laden could stop it. Like I said, I agree with you, just dont see it happening in Iraq, I dont believe you or I will see all of our troops leave that country in our lifetime.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 09 2003,12:12 pm
The problem is these "non-victories"--declare the "end of hostilities" and go home. As I said in my earlier post--the CIVIL WAR was a "non-victory"--though the North obviously won, schoolkids as late as the 1960s in the South were taught "people just were tired of fighting, so everybody went home"--the result--the Civil War is STILL being refought.Korea--first of the "conflicts" run by Congress, and not the military. First of the conflicts to have "do not pass" lines, off-limits "sanctuaries", and "rules of engagement". With all of the restrictions, the war was unwinnable--so "everybody got tired of fighting and went home"--except for 50,000 casualties.
Vietnam--anybody that served in THAT "conflict" did their duty whether or not they believed in the "correctness" of the war. Most will tell you "WE didn't lose the war, CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE LOST THE WAR. Most troops resented the hell out of winning a battle, taking ground, then giving it back. They resented "off limits" areas in Laos and Cambodia, where they could not destroy the enemy. They resented the buildup in North Vietnam, but the targets were off limits. They resented bringing North Vietnam to its knees, only to have the bombing called off (according to the book The 10,000 Day War, North Vietnam was within 3 days of suing for peace). The result of such micromanagement, indecision, and, it could be said, Command of the troops by someone the troops had no faith in? EVERYBODY GOT TIRED AND WENT HOME.
Somalia--things started to go badly for us--after we took the first casualties--everybody got tired and went home.
No wonder the U.S., in modern times, is viewed as weak-willed, indecisive, and easily swayed by the polls (Saddam was COUNTING on the U.S. distaste for war--much as Yamamoto incorrectly calculated that the U.S. would recoil in horror after getting bloodied at Pearl Harbor).
The U.S. should quit these "end of hostilities" wars, and demand UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. No more quick victories--make that victories that LAST. That means martial law, an occupying force that practices OFFENSE instead of DEFENSIVE posturing--where every action taken by the citizenry must be approved--and they soon learn that their well-being counts on courting OUR favor rather than the insurgents. Along with the "stick", we need to offer the "carrot" of a Marshall Plan--IF THEY BEHAVE.
The Moslem community, nearly as much as the Far Eastern nations, has a tradition of "face" or family pride. This manifests itself in ways that are strange to us, like stoning to death a daughter that may have been too "loose", or taking pride in a son "martyring" himself by becoming a suicide bomb. What is needed is to disgrace anyone who rises up against us--a quick trial, and a public flogging or hanging--the same thing they do to their own disgraced criminals.
We erred in not requiring that UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER document in Iraq. If not Saddam, the highest military officials will do. (side note--in WW II, the surrender of Italy, Germany, and Japan were made by MILITARY representatives, not the CIVIL heads of government--the civil representative seen in photos aboard the MISSOURI, dressed in formal attire, was a mid-level government representative). This has the effect of telling the populace "NO MORE ARMED RESISTANCE!".
I can't think of a single instance where this "negotiated settlement" has ever worked, and it's time to go back to something that does. Think about this--nobody under the age of about 75 in the U.S. has ever known WINNING a war--only the "cessation of hostilites".
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 09 2003,5:29 pm
Jim, I don't claim to have any answers on Iraq, but I am upset that a bunch of flat head ideologist got us into a war with this country under false pretenses, and deception. There objective was Sadam, Sadam, Sadam. Outside of failing this objective so far, they have further reduced a third world country into ruin, and have been unable to protect the people who were willing to support us with their harts and minds. They have been unable to affect an economic plan to have Iraqi oil fund the rebuilding of the country we blew apart for a second time in less than 12 years. Now one of the more outspoken members of this administration wants us to believe how detailed their planning for postwar Iraq was, and all that is needed is a little adjustment.Having called many of our past allies names because those nations doubted the stories our administration had been telling, our administration now has the balls to ask the UN for help in controlling this mess. I say this request is arrogant because they have set the conditions that military help provided by the UN must be given under the US command.
It appears that someone has awaken our leaders to the fact that we don't have any more armies we can commit, and although we are technically superior, we lack the depth of soldiers to fight multiple protracted conflicts. We are stuck and help is not coming because of our leaders did not have the patience to be diplomatic. In fact, back in May when Powell attempted to be diplomatic over postwar Iraq, others in the administration went after him.
Well Jim, like it or not, all the history on past wars does not change the facts that our leaders have screwed up, and we the citizens will end up paying with lives, debt and taxes for their failings. You are right in say we cannot declare victory and leave. Everyone knows that we must stabilize Afghanistan, and Iraq. By turning our backs on these obligations, there is a good chance that other governments in the region could be destabilized leaving a situation worse than the problem we originally confronted in Afghanistan.
The solution has got to be in diplomacy. Do you think that the leader of the free world could learn to stop speaking like the star in a Clint Eastwood movie? I think it has to start with him!
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 10 2003,8:57 am
I won't debate whether going into Iraq was right or not, nobody is going to change their mind on that. What IS important is:We don't make these mistakes again.
We have SOME KIND of consistent foreign policy.
We have a consistent way of ending conflicts.
Let's face it, the U.N., much as people would LIKE it to work, hasn't been able to enforce peace in any of its "peacekeeping" roles since its inception in 1947. Other than the abberation of the Korean War, when the Communist delegates walked out, and the U.S.-led coalition in Gulf War I, the U.N. hasn't INITIATED a "peacekeeping" mission. Asking this corrupt, ineffective, and demonstratably unwilling "organization" for "legitimacy" in peacekeeping efforts is absurd.
As demonstrated in my last post, multinational forces haven't been effective any time in the history of the world, so let's rule that out.
When do we go into a conflict? The present system seems to work well--the President can authorize it, but the War Powers act requires consent from the Senate. I think that is adequate checks and balances.
How do we achieve a consistent foreign policy? The Monroe Doctrine worked well, and we weren't even a superpower yet, just a regional player. John Kennedy's inaugural address also has meaning here--"let it be known, that we will bear any burden, pay any price......to insure freedom". Like it or not, the U.S. IS the "cop on the beat" (or your parents, if you would rather use that metaphor)--and people need to know what the law is, and where the line is drawn. Finally, foreign policy needs to be consistent in its application, not vary at the whim of the sitting president. Much like "shopping" for permission between Mom and Dad, knowing that one is more permissive than the other, nations continually "test the waters" of U.S. presidents for their resolve--or lack thereof. A "Monroe Doctrine" foreign policy lets EVERYBODY know where they stand, that it is NOT open to interpretation, and that it will survive changing administrations. That's Statesmanship.
How do we get out? By letting nations know that IF WE GO IN, WE WILL SEEK UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. No "power sharing", no "negotiated settlement"--nothing less than inflicting enough pain on the enemy to cause them to capitulate. While not "proper" in today's "PC" world, THAT IS WHAT ARMIES DO--it's the only way you WIN wars. They need to know that we will be in for the long haul--no "100 hours and out" wars--there WILL be an occupation.
This consistency of action, this doctrine, also has benefits for the American people, the President, the Congress, and the troops. If the President knows that to commit troops means that we will be in for the long haul, he will not take that action lightly. Congress, knowing we are in for the long haul, can budget appropriately from year to year, and stop the political posturing. The American people can become involved in foreign affairs--sharing the victories and the pain. During WW II, EVERYBODY was involved--production, rationing, support of our troops. The biggest lament in our military services in the last 50 years--even more than the abysmal pay, is the lack of support for our troops--people enjoying the good life at home, while the troops act as our surrogates abroad. Having a consistent foreign policy would be good for troop morale.
"Multinational peacekeeping forces" and "international consensus" (demonstratably unachievable) hasn't worked since the end of WW II--58 years! It has been said that the definition of idiocy is "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results". Time to go back to something we KNOW works!
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 11 2003,10:06 am
It sounds good, I just hope our troops can find someone over there whose unconditional surrender would be meaningful. At this stage I don't think an unconditional surrender from both Sadam and Bin Lauden would mean a tinkers dam. Our war in Iraq hasn't done much in extinguishing terrorism, in fact we may have escalated it.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 11 2003,10:38 am
But what are the options to war on terrorism? Fifty years of placating Kings, Dictators, Emirs, or platitudes to the common people haven't helped--THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADERS HAVE SWORN AN "INTEFADAH", "JIHAD", OR RELIGIOUS WAR--THESE PEOPLE HATE US, AND HAVE SWORN TO KILL US!The only thing that seems to bring these people around is loss of "face" and superior strength. "Hey, Muhammed, you lay YOUR JIHAD on the table, and we'll lay OUR JIHAD on the table, and we'll see who had the BIGGEST JIHAD! There is no such thing as "winning the war through winning hearts and minds"--CLUB THEM ON THE HEAD, THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS WILL FOLLOW. Nobody respects a doormat, and it is time we quit being one.
Despite what the "hand wringers" and talking heads on CNN proclaim (they can't WAIT to use the term "quagmire" after only a couple of months--this, from the folks that GAVE us "quagmire" in Vietnam!) even by most international reports, most Iraqis support us. What IS disappointing is the lack of a clear goal for the occupying force--I try to follow this item closely, and I haven't heard one.
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 11 2003,10:50 am
Wow, love the last two posts by Bubba and Jim. Have one question for Jim though. Who made us the cop on the beat? A lot of the rest of the world resent us because we feel that way. We arent qualified to be the world police, we have the money and the power, but we arent fair in how we use it. We sit by and watch as Isreal goes after hamas leaders with missles and tanks in civilian, densly populated areas. If you are going to be the self appointed world police, you better be willing to the fair thing, regardless of who it is, enemy or friend. My point is, we have lost all credibility in the world as the world police because of our willingness to look the otherway in the Palastine, Isreal conflict. It does have to do with politics and the fact that our government wont critisize Isreal for doing something that our government thinks it might do in the same situation. Its all emotions, and getting the bad guys, but would you really want your cop on the beat to have this much vengence on his mind. I agree, our military is probably capable of doing such a job, but not through political leadership. Just the fact that it comes from Washington taints the whole process, and political considerations will always decide whos side we take, regardless of who is right or wrong.
Posted by minnow on Sep. 11 2003,11:26 am
"The only thing that seems to bring these people around is loss of "face" and superior strength"....Then why did we go after sombody else?Bush is finished. End of story and I'm republican. Not saying the Dems will win...but Bush is a one termer like daddy Bush.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 11 2003,12:03 pm
Minnow--I wasn't talking about anyone in the Middle East in particular--just that they fear humiliation more than death, and that they respect strength.I've got to agree with you on Bush--thought he had some promise after 9/11, but has proven to be a big-spending wimp that doesn't know how to use power--he can't even stop Democratic filibustering to get judges confirmed! By any measure--actual dollars, "normed" dollars, percentage of national product, he has INCREASED federal spending--and not just on the military, but on social programs--and what has it brought him? Certainly not the love of the liberals--like Richard Nixon, he has pushed their agenda in hopes of currying favor--yet, they loathe him--much like many in the Mideast loathe us--just because of who we are!
For Hoosier--"who appointed us cop on the beat?" Good question. Isolationism vs. Involvement is not a new argument--it's been going on since George Washington warned of "Foreign Entanglements". My guess is that WE appointed OURSELVES as cop--if you saw two guys fighting, with the threat of the fight spilling over into your yard, you would probably stop it if you could. Should you? Both combatants will probably hate you!
It seems you can't win in the U.S. polls any more when it comes to foreign policy. If Bush gets involved overseas, the Dems paint him as a "warmonger"--if he stays at home, he "doesn't care" about problems in the rest of the world. Perhaps that is why they like the idea of a U.N. led approach--they can PRETEND that it is someone else doing the fighting--some major power like Chad, Zimbabwe, Togo, Paraguay, or Tonga--instead of U.S. troops and dollars. Kind of like patting yourself on the back and telling yourself what a good guy you are!
(And about as effective!)Palestine/Israel? A perfect example of U.N. stupidity. There hadn't been an Israel or Palestine for several hundred years--the entire area was a British Mandate called Trans-Jordan. In 1947, one of the first actions of the new U.N. was to give a "national homeland" to people of the Jewish faith--right in the middle of Moslems--kind of like mandating a NAACP chapter in 1920s Selma, Alabama, or a KKK chapter in Harlem. Like most proponents of Big Government, they had the arrogant belief that they could FORCE everybody to get along by government edict--and THIS is the "SUCCESS STORY" that multiculturalists would like to use for a model?
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 11 2003,3:04 pm
Jim, a few response back you were talking about the pour GI’s in Vietnam who could not pursue the enemy into Cambodia. Well that may have been true at the beginning of the war. Secretary McNamara was concerned about drawing the Chinese and Russians into the war and President Johnson backed him up.Your statement stayed with me because I wanted to find a way to tell you something other than the official US line on the topic. I started out writing it several times but deleted it due to conflicts I felt. Well two days ago I was doing research on another topic, and in the data I had gathered the following information on Cambodia pot out. Being that this was in the public domain, I do not feel any conflict in sharing it.
Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know 1999 by Rou Gutmann, David Fieff, others
“For the last three decades Cambodia has been consumed by war. In March 1970, a western created junta led by General Lon Nol deposed Prince Norodom Sihanouk. Sihanouk, a neutralist, ahd kept Cambodia out of the Vietnam War by allowing the Americans to bomb Viet Cong sanctuaries inside Cambodia while allowing the Vietnamese to use the city of Kompong Som to ship in supplies. The Lon Nol group declared war on Hanoi and President Nixon ordered American troops into Cambodia. However the president didn't inform Lon Nol of the invasion until after it had begun and been announced on American television.”
My question to you is, do you think we may have been in there? Maybe even before Nixon publicly ordered troops in?
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 11 2003,4:11 pm
"THESE PEOPLE HATE US, AND HAVE SWORN TO KILL US!"This statement may be a little simplistic. We have been told what their grievances with us are.
a) They want the infidels out of their holy places, i.e. US out of Saudi Arabia.
b) They want the US to stop sponsoring the genocide of the Palestinian people. and
c) Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, I believe we will have a few more issues to deal with.
We have been told by those in the know within the Middle East that the place to start is with B. Now you say what are they talking about? They are talking about our economic support of Israel and the fact that our attempts at establishing peace have not been those of an honest broker.
Your guess is as good as mine as to the terror ending if we would or could give them what they want. I guess it will come down to us telling our government that they should try our not. So what do you think?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 11 2003,10:49 pm
Bubba--first post--yep, we were there, just not "officially". I have friends that flew for Air America--yes, the same one as the movie--a civilian front for the CIA. Except for the stupid dialogue, the movie is fairly realistic. Though it was supposed to be a "Cargo" airline, Air America operated some definitely non-cargo airplanes--like Cessna Bird Dog Forward Air Controllers--though these would normally spot and mark the enemy for air strikes, air strikes were verboten in Cambodia--but they could call in artillery from across the border. Air America also operated North American T-28s and Skyraiders--piston-powered aircraft armed with machine guns and bomb racks--painted black--flown by Air America pilots that had been "sanitized" by having them "resign" from the U.S. forces--though they kept their military pay and date of rank.Post #2--No, I don't believe EVERY Moslem hates us--but they DO take orders pretty well from their clerics. Unlike the U.S., there seem to be few people "partly practicing" their religion--the Moslem equivalent of "Easter and Christmas Christians", for example. They tend to view the pronouncement of their religious leaders as a command--"Salman Rushdie must die!", for example, or "I want you to strap these explosives to your body and kill the infidels!".
"They want the infidels out of their holy places, like Saudi Arabia"--the whole COUNTRY IS HOLY? Non Moslems not welcome ANYWHERE? If that is the case, then yes, I'd go with the statement--THEY HATE US!
"Stop practicing genocide against the Palastinian people?" First of all, there ARE no Palestinian people--any more than "Ebonics" is a true language. There wasn't a Palestine for hundreds of years--the area at different times has belonged to many different countries, and for the hundred years or so before, had been ruled by the British as Trans-Jordan. To establish a claim for a homeland for EITHER the Palestinians or the Israelis would be like my going to Denmark, to stake a demand for land, because my great-grandfather left 100 years ago. The U.N. erred in establishing Israel in 1947, and the only way to rectify that is to establish Palestine today--OR ABOLISH BOTH! Frankly, I'd rather give the Israelis Nevada--the U.S. government owns 87% of it any way--the Israelis seem to thrive in the desert, and it would be the ultimate "land for peace"!
In the meantime, I wouldn't go so far as to call Israeli terrorist hunting (and there ARE a lot of terrorists--one bomb goes off, and 5 groups claim responsibility!
) GENOCIDE. I think they have shown remarkable restraint--the country that whipped the entire Arab world SEVERAL times could easily do it today--but have resigned themselves to limited action.Most of the people that advocate "just give them the Golan Heights or the West Bank" haven't studied geography very well. Israel is such a small country that 90% of the population, over 70% of the land mass, every major city, port, and airport would be reachable by common artillery fire from the Golan Heights or West Bank. One of the concerns about Iranian nuclear power--they have stated that "one atomic bomb will destroy ALL of Israel". Further, WHY should Israel give up the territory--that is ALL it kept after defeating the Arab world--they even gave up the occupied cities in other countries.
"Attempts at establishing peace have not been those of an honest broker"? SEVERAL times, both the U.S. and Israel have said that peace talks would start once the Arabs had shown they could control their people by going 1 MONTH without an attack--they couldn't do it. They modified their offer to make it 2 WEEKS without an attack--they couldn't do that, either. What good is a cease-fire--THAT ISN'T? One of the biggest obstacles to Mideast peace is that Arafat--or his successors--has not only been UNABLE TO CONTROL HIS PEOPLE, BUT AS THE CAPTURED SHIP SHOWS--RENEGED ON HIS PLEDGE OF PEACE. You just don't do business with a liar and a cheat, and the World--not just the U.S., decided that Arafat was irrelevant at that point. He is STILL trying to annoint a successor.
Mideast peace? Won't happen, except under one of 3 scenarios.
Overwhelming dominance of power by Arabs, Israel, or the U.S.
Israel ceases to exist in the area.
An Arab "strongman" controls his people, negotiates with Israel, each recognizes the others right to exist, and a separate Arab state is established.
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 12 2003,12:20 am
Would you sit down at the negotiating table with an occupying army? I mean, its bout like if a guy broke into your house, armed, you confront him with a gun and tell him to get the hell out. But he looks at you and says, I aint leaving till you drop your gun. Come on, Isreal is saying we will pull out of your territory, when you stop trying to force us to leave. I only hope that if America was not the power it is today, that if we were occupied by say Canada, who was supported by an overseas superpower, that we would have people walking into Toronto and taking as many as the bastards with em as possible. Make it as painful on the people as you can so their government would end the occupation. For me, there would be no talks, none, until every enemy troop was gone from our land. Now, Isreal says it is going to go in and get Arafat and expell him. What a disaster waiting to happen. Two governments hate each other, but who dies, not the people in government, just the people.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 12 2003,1:28 am
| Quote |
"First of all, there ARE no Palestinian people--any more than "Ebonics" is a true language. There wasn't a Palestine for hundreds of years--the area at different times has belonged to many different countries, and for the hundred years or so before, had been ruled by the British as Trans-Jordan. |
I don't know about ebonics but there certainly are Palestinian people.
The name Palestine originates from the Philistine inhabitance of the land of Judea. When the Romans conquered the region in the year 200 they called it Palestinia to minimize Jewish attachment to the land.
Transjordan was created by Great Britain in 1918 when they split Palestine along the Jordan river to the gulf of Aqaba and called the eastern half Transjordan. Prior to that the area had been under Ottoman-Turk rule for 400 years. In 1948 Transjordan gained independance from Britain and changed the name of the country to Jordan. So actually the British ruled Transjordan(the area east of Palestine) for 30 years.
| Quote |
GENOCIDE. I think they have shown remarkable restraint--the country that whipped the entire Arab world SEVERAL times could easily do it today--but have resigned themselves to limited action |
U.S. Aid to Israel from 1949 to 1997 was $85 Billion dollars. And the last I heard we were giving them $2 billion a year for defense. It's rather obvious why they whipped the entire Arab world isn't it?
| Quote |
Most of the people that advocate "just give them the Golan Heights or the West Bank" haven't studied geography very well. Israel is such a small country that 90% of the population, over 70% of the land mass, every major city, port, and airport would be reachable by common artillery fire from the Golan Heights or West Bank. |
How about they leave the West Bank and the Gaza strip like they agreed to in Oslo Agreements in 1993. Then they probably wouldn't have to worry so much about anyone firing artillery at them.
| Quote |
SEVERAL times, both the U.S. and Israel have said that peace talks would start once the Arabs had shown they could control their people by going 1 MONTH without an attack--they couldn't do it. They modified their offer to make it 2 WEEKS without an attack--they couldn't do that, either. |
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Peace talks have been going on there for as long as I can remember. They start up , they break down , they start up again, they break down again....
| Quote |
Mideast peace? Won't happen, except under one of 3 scenarios. |
The Multinational Forces and Observers have been doing a pretty good job of keeping the peace in the Sinai for 20 years now without an overwhelming show of force. I don't see why that wouldn't work for Israel and Palestine. We could quit giving Israel $2 billion a year in military aid then and I doubt an M.F.O. type force would ever cost us 2 billion dollars a year.
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 12 2003,8:12 am
It all boils down to this, the jewish vote here in the United States, that and a number of jewish politicians in Washington. And it makes no difference what the palistinians were a hundred years ago, what matters is that most of the world agrees that they deserve some of this land. Some here made such a big deal out of Iraq violating UN resolutions. My god, how many have Isreal violated? And we sit by and do nothing. What kind of an army has bulldozers as part of their front line force? How about a criminal army. And how is it that they think they can just go in and remove a leader that they dont like? The Palistinians sure seem to want Arafat to stick around. Isreal only does the things they do because our government backs them. ONE BIG glaring reason why the rest of the world will NEVER accept the U.S. as the worlds cop on the beat. Hell, I dont even accept that. If we were fair world police, we would go into Isreal and arrest the government for war crimes against civilians. And dont try to tell me it aint a war. Except in this case, only one side has an army, the other fights with what they can get their hands on. Oh, I would also arrest George W. for aiding the war criminals. Put him down in Cuba and let him rot, without ever seeing a lawyer or being charged. No special protection for him either, just throw him in their with the men whos rights under the Geneva convention have been trampled on.
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 12 2003,9:41 am
Well now let me see, do I know any other country that goes around removing other peoples leaders that they don't like? Boy that's a tough one.
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 12 2003,12:30 pm
Bubba, I know what you are getting at, and you are right. But, removing Saddam, I believe is a little different than Isreal wanting to remove Arafat. I believe that the vast majority of Iraqis are glad to see Saddam gone, I dont think that is the case with Arafat.
Posted by minnow on Sep. 12 2003,1:04 pm
I vote another $100 billion for rebuilding Iraq...so I can move over there and get a job!
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 12 2003,4:37 pm
| Quote |
| "I don't know about ebonics but there certainly are Palestinian people." |
To read a history of Palestine, go to this link at encyclopedia.com
< http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/palestin_history.asp >
| Quote |
| "U.S. Aid to Israel from 1949 to 1997 was $85 Billion dollars. " |
As comparred to HOW MUCH OIL REVENUE IN THE ARAB COUNTRIES? The first couple of Israeli battles against the Arabs, they received NO help from the U.S.--they were flying WW II British Spitfires against the Arabs.--and did quite well, thank you.
| Quote |
| "How about they leave the West Bank and the Gaza strip like they agreed to in Oslo Agreements in 1993. Then they probably wouldn't have to worry so much about anyone firing artillery at them." |
Check the proposals over the last 3 years--Israel has said that peace negotiations will begin when evidence of a true cease-fire occurs--initially 1 month without attacks, then shortened to 2 weeks. Arafat couldn't control his people for even that long--proving he is not the person to be handling negotiations, if he is not in control.
| Quote |
| "The Multinational Forces and Observers have been doing a pretty good job of keeping the peace in the Sinai for 20 years now ". |
Any way you dice it, I don't know of a single Arab leader that can be trusted--Sadat did so, and look where it got him!
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 12 2003,4:40 pm
Anyway you dice it, I dont know of an American or Isreali leader that can be trusted.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 12 2003,5:44 pm
| Quote |
BUT NONE OF THEM CALLED IT PALESTINE SINCE THE MILLENIA BEFORE CHRIST! I suppose we could all call ourselves Neanderthals, as well. |
It was called Judah from 1000 b.c. up until the romans conquered it in 200 AD they then called it Palestinia to minimize Jewish attachment to the land. The link you posted backs that statement up.
I don't know where you keep coming up with this statement that there isn't a palestinian people because their land was occupied. Japan occupied China yet there are still chinese people?
| Quote |
As comparred to HOW MUCH OIL REVENUE IN THE ARAB COUNTRIES? |
Oh come on, that's a lame comparison. We give Israel $2 billion in military hardware every year and at the same time make sure none of our allies sell the Arabs any weapons So they are stuck fighting against tanks and jets with rocks.
| Quote |
That only works if there is a true cease-fire--something that hasn't happened in modern memory. |
I thought we both agreed the MFO has worked. That's modern memory isn't it? I mean I still remember the 1980's, but, then again I am much younger than you
| Quote |
Perhaps those areas need to be a Demilitarized Zone, like Korea--but who would police it if violence erupted there--the U.N.? |
Once again a force similar to the MFO could handle this situation without a problem.
| Quote |
Any way you dice it, I don't know of a single Arab leader that can be trusted-- |
Why do we have to trust them. The MFO works now and nobody trusts Egypt or Israel.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 13 2003,10:52 am
| Quote |
| I don't know where you keep coming up with this statement that there isn't a palestinian people because their land was occupied |
| Quote |
| So they are stuck fighting against tanks and jets with rocks. |
In the first conflicts, Israel used cast-off surplus British Spitfires, and Spanish built Me-109s, as well as British tanks. The Arabs used Russian-supplied armor. The U.S. refused to send aircraft or armor in the early 50s. Today, Saudi Arabia has F-16s--U.S. made. Jordan has some early F-16s, as well as U.S. made F-5 Freedom Fighters. Syria has Russian Mig-25s--faster than any operational U.S. fighter, and a few Russian Mig-29s--the best front-line fighter in the Comunist world. Iraq had Mig-25s at the time of the "7-day war", Iran has Mig-25s and 29s. All of them have Russian helicopter gunships, and the latest Russian armor. The Israelis were "outgunned" in numbers by 7-1 in the aircraft department, and vastly outnumbered by armor.--the Arabs were unable to bring their forces to bear in every conflict. You can't denigrate the Israeli victories by saying that the equipment made the difference--it was the training and tactics that made the difference.Regarding the Multinational peacekeeping force--the operations in the Sinai are the only example that I can think of that WORK--AND THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE EGYPT'S SADAT SIGNED A WORKABLE CEASE FIRE (a move that cost him his life, angering his brother Arabs). Sadat was able to CONTROL his people, something that Arafat has NEVER been able to do--which is the reason that nobody bothers to deal with him any more--he is irrelevant.
All right--I've thrown out MY views and thoughts on the Middle East problem--time for anyone else to throw out THEIR views on how to solve it. The "Can't we all get along?" thing has FAILED for 56 years--should we keep doing more of the same? Be specific--who gives up what, what are the pre-conditions, should we have a monitor--and with what powers? Who should be a party to negotiations, who should speak for the amorphous "Palestinians" (and just what area DEFINES Palestine?) What happens if there is a violation of the terms of peace?
Personally, I'd like to see a "grudge match"--a WWF-style "cage fight"--nobody in or out, no "tag-teaming"--everybody clear the decks, go to the sidelines, and let them settle this once and for all, winner take all.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 13 2003,11:56 am
Put up a nice big wall and let them figure it out for themselves. (that is a joke, not serious)It seems that none of the cultures in the Middle East can agree to anything, at least not for very long, so the odds of anything ever working over there (in my mind) is pretty slim.
If they want to kill each other, whatever, I am just tired of our soldiers being killed over their problems that they do not seem to want to work out.
Even if a magic solution was brought to the table that pleased everybody, does anyone realize how many decades it would take to weed out all the hate over there? Kind of like when black people in this country were given rights, sure they put it on paper, but look back and see how long it actually took for that to take hold.
If you are ever down south in Alabama, take a trip through Mobile. Even though all Americans are to have the same rights and treated equally, you still see segregation down there. There is still a lot of old blood there that feels anyone other than white people should have assigned drinking fountains and public bathrooms.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 13 2003,12:19 pm
Ole1--I get around all over the U.S.--and I see more segregation in the North than I do in the South. With the always-present exception, Southerners have learned to live with each other. Communities are integrated, and as a result, so are most schools. The Mississipi casinos are filled with black and white workers, and patronized by both blacks and whites. In many state and local governments, Blacks are OVER-represented relative to their portion of the population, because of their propensity to vote as a bloc.
Contrast that with the cities of the North. Blacks and whites live in separate neighborhoods, and kids go to school locally--meaning further segregation. There are SELF-SEGREGATED businesses--black bars and eating establishments, and white bars--and don't ever make the mistake of going into the "wrong" one. The old adage of "don't let me catch you in this area after dark" applies to many Northern cities, for black and whites alike. Compare the segregation of Harlem, Detroit, Cleveland, or many Northern cities with Atlanta, Nashville, or Greensboro--I'll take the Southern cities any time!
"Put up a big wall and let them figure it out for themselves" (that is a joke, not serious)". No, of all the Middle East peace plans, this is one that we keep coming back to that makes sense. For decades, the Israelis were OUR surrogates, and the Arabs were the surrogates of the Russians. If EVERYBODY walked away, didn't interfere, and let them handle it for themselves, no matter what the outcome--they may see the value of getting along rather than killing each other. If one of the DID get the clear upper hand (see original post), it would go a long way towards solving the problem--one would no longer be a credible force--or perhaps even cease to exist.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 13 2003,12:34 pm
| Quote |
Just when WAS the last time there was a Palestine or Israel, except for modern times--200 A.D.? |
Here is an 1836 map of Palestine. I can post a 5th century Roman map of Palestine also if you need further proof.
Israel needs to follow the Oslo Agreement and get the hell out of the west bank and the Gaza strip. Then the world needs to drop a peace keeping force right in the middle. If they want to fight then they would have to go through the peacekeeping force to get at each other.
One other thing, one of Sadats Arab brothers did kill him for moving towards peace. But, Yitzhak Rabin was killed by his Jewish brothers for the same reason just 8 years ago.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 13 2003,12:36 pm
You are right in saying that the prejudice problem seems more extreme up here, and in many places it is. What you have to take into consideration though, is the fact that most of the problems in the South happened (or started) long before that way of thinking started to be common up here in the North, so even though it may still take the same amount of time for it to get to be as mellowed out as down South, you have to consider that it started down there earlier than up here. Also, a lot of the prejudice is not so much towards black people as it is towards Asian's (in general). Take Owatonna for example, they have entire neighborhoods that are of one race, I was caught in one of them once after dark (got lost with a buddy after a few beers at South Park), it has been quite a while since I have actually been afraid to get out of the vehicle, I sure was that night, even with liquid courage pulsing through my veins. You definitely know you're in the wrong 'hood when you stop for a stop sign and your vehicle starts to get surrounded. (needless to say that was the last stop sign we obeyed until we got back into familiar territory) But then again, I have heard the same about being in the wrong place at the wrong time up north here in MN, also. There are a lot of Indians that seem to think that all white people are direct descendants of the people that originally wrote up the treaties that were not honored. (do all crackers really look that much the same? ) Hate is basically everywhere now days, it seems that you can't really get away from it. It is just in a different stage of its life up here than down South. Down South is just a perfect example of how long hate can live and thrive after change has come to pass.That and Yanks seem to be a little less cordial than Southerners as a whole. (I can almost feel the stones being thrown at me now!) People up here need to learn to slow down, relax a little and enjoy what you can from life.
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 13 2003,12:43 pm
Liberal, nice job, I couldnt agree with you more.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 13 2003,3:57 pm
It ISN'T A COUNTRY OR NATION, and NEVER HAS BEEN ONE--it is a GEOGRAPHICAL REGION, ruled by many nations, and ill-defined in scale and scope. Here is the entire history of Palestine from Encylopedia.com| Quote |
| "The earliest known inhabitants of Palestine were of the same group as the Neanderthal inhabitants of Europe. By the 4th millennium BC Palestine was inhabited by herders and farmers. It was in the 3d millennium that most of the towns known in historical times came into existence. They became centers of trade for Egyptian and Babylonian goods. During the 2d millennium, Palestine was ruled by the Hyksos and by the Egyptians. Toward the end of this period Moses led the Hebrew people (see Jews ) out of Egypt, across the Sinai, and into Palestine. Around 1200 BC, the Philistines ( “Sea Peoples” ) invaded the southern coastland and established a powerful kingdom (see Philistia ). The Hebrews were subject to the Philistines until c.1000 BC, when an independent Hebrew kingdom was established under Saul , who was succeeded by David and then by Solomon . After the expansionist reign of Solomon (c.950 BC), the kingdom broke up into two states, Israel, with its capital at Samaria, and Judah, under the house of David, with its capital at Jerusalem. The two kingdoms were later conquered by expanding Mesopotamian states, Israel by Assyria (c.720 BC) and Judah by Babylonia (586 BC). In 539 BC the Persians conquered the Babylonians. The Jewish Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians, was rebuilt (516 BC). Under Persian rule Palestine enjoyed considerable autonomy. Alexander the Great of Macedon, conquered Palestine in 333 BC His successors, the Ptolemies and Seleucids, contested for Palestine. The attempt of the Seleucid Antiochus IV (Antiochus Epiphanes) to impose Hellenism brought a Jewish revolt under the Maccabees , who set up a new Jewish state in 142 BC The state lasted until 63 BC, when Pompey conquered Palestine for Rome. Christianity and Islam Palestine at the time of Jesus was ruled by puppet kings of the Romans, the Herods (see Herod ). When the Jews revolted in AD 66, the Romans destroyed the Temple (AD 70). Another revolt between AD 132 and 135 was also suppressed (see Bar Kokba, Simon ), Jericho and Bethlehem were destroyed, and the Jews were barred from Jerusalem. When Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity (312), Palestine became a center of Christian pilgrimage, and many Jews left the region. Palestine over the next few centuries generally enjoyed peace and prosperity until it was conquered in 614 by the Persians. It was recovered briefly by the Byzantine Romans, but fell to the Muslim Arabs under caliph Umar by the year 640. At this time (during the Umayyad rule), the importance of Palestine as a holy place for Muslims was emphasized, and in 691 the Dome of the Rock was erected on the site of the Temple of Solomon, which is claimed by Muslims to have been the halting station of Muhammad on his journey to heaven. Close to the Dome, the Aqsa mosque was built. In 750, Palestine passed to the Abbasid caliphate, and this period was marked by unrest between factions that favored the Umayyads and those who preferred the new rulers. In the 9th cent., Palestine was conquered by the Fatimid dynasty, which had risen to power in North Africa. The Fatimids had many enemies—the Seljuks, Karmatians, Byzantines, and Bedouins—and Palestine became a battlefield. Under the Fatimid caliph al Hakim (996-1021), the Christians and Jews were harshly suppressed, and many churches were destroyed. In 1099, Palestine was captured by the Crusaders (see Crusades ), who established the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Crusaders were defeated by Saladin at the battle of Hittin (1187), and the Latin Kingdom was ended; they were finally driven out of Palestine by the Mamluks in 1291. Under Mamluk rule Palestine declined. Turkish Rule In 1516 the Mamluks were defeated by the Ottoman Turks. The first three centuries of Ottoman rule isolated Palestine from outside influence. In 1831, Muhammad Ali, the Egyptian viceroy nominally subject to the Ottoman sultan, occupied Palestine. Under him and his son the region was opened to European influence. Ottoman control was reasserted in 1840, but Western influence continued. Among the many European settlements established, the most significant in the long run were those of Jews, Russian Jews being the first to come (1882). Conflict between Arabs and Zionists In the late 19th cent. the Zionist movement was founded (see Zionism ) with the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and dozens of Zionist colonies were founded there. At the start of the Zionist colonization of Palestine in the late 19th cent., the rural people were Arab peasants (fellahin). Most of the population were Muslims, but in the urban areas there were sizable groups of Arab Christians (at Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem) and of Jews (at Zefat, Tiberias, Jerusalem, Jericho, and Hebron). At the same time Arab nationalism was developing in the Middle East in opposition to Turkish rule. In World War I the British, with Arab aid, gained control of Palestine. In the Balfour Declaration (1917) the British promised Zionist leaders to aid the establishment of a Jewish “national home” in Palestine, with due regard for the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians. However, the British had also promised Arab leaders to support the creation of independent Arab states. The Arabs believed Palestine was to be among these, an intention that the British later denied. In 1919 there were about 568,000 Muslims, 74,000 Christians, and 58,000 Jews in Palestine. The first Arab anti-Zionist riots occurred in Palestine in 1920. The League of Nations approved the British mandate in 1922, although the actual administration of the area had begun in 1920. As part of the mandate Britain was given the responsibility for aiding the Jewish homeland and fostering Jewish immigration there. The British stressed that their policy to aid the homeland did not include making all Palestine the homeland, but rather that such a home should exist within Palestine and that there were economic limits on how many immigrants should be admitted (1922 White Paper). In the 1920s, Jewish immigration was slight, but the Jewish communities made great economic progress. In 1929 there was serious Jewish-Arab violence occasioned by a clash at the Western, or Wailing, Wall in Jerusalem. A British report found that Arabs feared the economic and political consequences of continued Jewish immigration with its attendant land purchases. Zionists were angered when a new White Paper (1930) urged limiting immigration, but they were placated by Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald (1931). The rise of Nazism in Europe during the 1930s led to a great increase in immigration. Whereas there were about 5,000 immigrants authorized in 1932, about 62,000 were authorized in 1935. Arabs conducted strikes and boycotts; a general strike in 1936, organized by Haj Amin al Husayni, mufti of Jerusalem, lasted six months. Some Arabs acquired weapons and formed a guerrilla force. The Peel commission (1937), finding British promises to Zionists and Arabs irreconcilable, declared the mandate unworkable and recommended the partition of Palestine into Jewish, Arab, and British (largely the holy places) mandatory states. The Zionists reluctantly approved partition, but the Arabs rejected it, objecting particularly to the proposal that the Arab population be forcibly transferred out of the proposed Jewish state. The British dropped the partition idea and announced a new policy (1939 White Paper). Fifteen thousand Jews a year would be allowed to immigrate for the next five years, after which Jewish immigration would be subject to Arab acquiescence; Jewish land purchases were to be restricted; and within 10 years an independent, binational Palestine would be established. The Zionists were shocked by what they considered a betrayal of the Balfour Declaration. The Arabs also rejected the plan, demanding instead the immediate creation of an Arab Palestine, the prohibition of further immigration, and a review of the status of all Jewish immigrants since 1918. The outbreak of World War II prevented the implementation of the plan, except for the restriction on land transfers. The Zionists and most Arabs supported Britain in the war (although Haj Amin al Husayni was in Germany and negotiated Palestine's future with Hitler), but tension inside Palestine increased. The Haganah, a secret armed group organized by the Jewish Agency, and the Irgun and the Stern Gang, terrorist groups, were active. British officials were killed by the terrorists. The horrible plight of European Jewry led influential forces in the United States to lobby for support of an independent Jewish state, and President Truman requested that Britain permit the admission of 100,000 Jews. Illegal immigration, often involving survivors of Hitler's death camps, took place on a large scale. The independent Arab states organized the Arab League to exert internationally what pressure they could against the Zionists. An Anglo-American commission recommended (1946) that Britain continue administering Palestine, rescind the land-transfer restrictions, and admit 100,000 Jews, and that the underground Jewish armed groups be disbanded. A plan for autonomy for Jews and Arabs within Palestine was discussed at a London conference (1947) of British, Arabs, and Zionists, but no agreement could be reached. The British, declaring their mandate unworkable and despairing of finding a solution, turned the Palestine problem over to the United Nations (Feb., 1947). At that time there were about 1,091,000 Muslims, 614,000 Jews, and 146,000 Christians in Palestine." |
A careful read will reveal NO COUNTRY CALLED PALESTINE in all those years--only a REGION called Palestine--kind of like Europe, or given the small and indeterminate size of the region, perhaps a better illustration is "Brittany" (the region in France, not the singer)
. In the Americas "the Pampas" is another example--ill defined, belonging to several countries over the ages, but still a region, not a country.Looking at the map on the computer, it is hard to see the names on all of the countries or subregions, but it would seem to indicate that Palestine is a Region--claimed by MANY countries--and whose boundaries are constantly changing. Syria, Jordan, and modern day Iraq have at various times controlled the region. As seen in the above description, even Israel ruled it for a while, as Judea and Israel. As described above, it has been under rule of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) since they defeated the Crusaders in 1187. During the time of the map depicted (1936), it was ruled by none other than Muhammed Ali--described as an Egyptian puppet of the Ottoman empire (1831-1840).
Both Sadat and Rabin were killed by their own side for moving towards peace--but that wasn't my point. The point was, once again--THE ONLY TIME A MULTINATIONAL FORCE HAS BEEN ABLE TO KEEP THE PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS WHEN BOTH SIDES OBSERVED A CEASE-FIRE--and that was in the Sinai (returned to Egypt by Israel after defeating them in the 7-day war). Sadat had control of his people and his army--Arafat doesn't control either. I proposed a demilitarized zone on the West Bank--and I think Israel would accept it--IF THE OCCUPYING POWER WAS ABLE TO ASSURE PEACE. I wouldn't trust that responsibility to the U.N., with THEIR dismal record, and with nobody powerful enough on the Palestinian side to control their people. Finally--IF the U.N. were to take on the responsibility--WHO would be the "muscle"? I would HOPE it would fall to the "international community" (an oxymoron--the U.N. has no sense of "community"--"people living in the same district, city, country, under the same laws"--Websters), but WHO would the impartial referee be? The U.S.? Great Britain? France? Russia?--we've all had our "turn in the box", and wouldn't be viewed as impartial. What other international powerhouse could keep the peace?
Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely NOT advocating for Israel--I'd like to "undo" the U.N. mistake of 1947 and move it somewhere else--but that is unlikely--hardly facing reality. It is ridiculous that people are fighting over a sparsly populated piece of desert with few natural resources--some of the least desireable real estate in the world. Let them fight--everybody stay clear--maybe like two schoolboys, they'll figure out they will BOTH get hurt, and may even get along.
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 15 2003,2:23 pm
found this in the Right-Wing Newspaper:MARINE CORPS BUMPER STICKER ..."IT'S GOD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FORGIVE BIN LADEN... IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ARRANGE THE MEETING!!"
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 16 2003,9:47 am
| Quote |
| All right--I've thrown out MY views and thoughts on the Middle East problem--time for anyone else to throw out THEIR views on how to solve it. |
Ok Jim- just a few quick ideas-
How about everyone just admits that Israel was a mistake, move out all the jews and let the area go back to what it was before the UN created it?
Tactically Nuke the region so no one wants to claim it?
Cut off (or give the exact same) aid to everyone? (one tank for Israel, one tank for Palestine, etc.)?
As I have seen pointed out here in this very thread, I am tired of the double standard we have shown with regards to Israel. Iraq violated sanctions and the US felt justified into going in and making the mess there now, so why was Israel allowed to violate sanctions and not receive any sort of punishment? And people wonder why the Arab world hates the US so much? I say we give Isreal the same spanking we gave Iraq and we may just be seen as the just peacekeepers that we want everyone to believe we are. If we continue to just let Israel do as they wish, there will never be peace. It is past time to smack them around like a red-headed stepchild!
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 16 2003,11:10 am
Amen brother, amen. Well said cpu_slave.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 16 2003,1:13 pm
Welcome back, CPUslave--we really HAVE missed your input!"How about everyone just admits that Israel was a mistake, move out all the jews and let the area go back to what it was before the UN created it?" I ALREADY POSTED IN FAVOR OF THAT.
Nuke the region? I'd be in favor of that, but we know that isn't going to happen--It IS fair to both sides, though!
Parity in weapons? Works for me--but how about NO weapons for EITHER side?
Leave them alone, let them settle this themselves--and nobody needs to get involved. (One problem, Israel MAY have nuclear weapons). (Problem # 2--the Israeli's have an aircraft industry capable of turning out state-of-the-art aircraft--the Arabs don't).
We agree on this--how do we keep everyone ELSE out?
P.s.--if it is REALLY a fair fight, without ANY outside interference--I think the Las Vegas "Line" would favor the Israelis--based on their training, "lack of injuries", "depth on the bench", "coaching", and "prior record against the same opponents!"
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 16 2003,2:24 pm
| Quote |
A careful read will reveal NO COUNTRY CALLED PALESTINE in all those years--only a REGION called Palestine...... |
What would you call a person that lived in the "Region" of Palestine?
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 16 2003,3:18 pm
It's nice to be back Jim- Thanks-As far as the 'Vegas Line'- I would have to put money on the Palestinians. I still have not seen an Israeli with the stones to be a suicide bomber so I will have to go with sheer will. Reality check though, there will never be a fight without some country (US) sticking it's nose where it does not belong, and that will only invite the entire Arab League to join the fray.
Just like anywhere, if you want real change (in this case peace) you need to change the leadership. The Palestinians will not replace Arafat and the Israelis elected Sharon for his hard stance on Palestine. Just look at the statements this week from Israel stating that they want to 'remove' Arafat, pretty arrogant if you ask me.
I say if the US is going to start playing 'world cop' then it needs to step up and put the smack-down on Israel. Start by having them withdrawal from the agreed upon areas, release all the political prisoners (POW's) and just STFU! Once that happens, the Palestinians need to immediately stop the assaults on the Israelis. After some time goes by and everything is looking ok then make them an independent state. Is any of this going to happen? Not likely.
Realistic option: Give then 7 days to declare peace in the region or we nuke. //bombs away!//
Posted by GEOKARJO on Sep. 16 2003,8:06 pm
"Are we stretched too thin?" Time magazine thunderously asked on a recent front cover. "U.S. forces are straining to meet missions in Iraq, Pentagon officials tell Congress," according to a headline a few days later in The New York Times. Imperial overstretch is here. It did not take long.
Only two years after the al-Qaida terrorist attacks of Sept., 11, 2001, and less than half a year after the U.S. Army and Marines carried off a lightning three-week conquest of Iraq with virtually zero casualties, the U.S. global military deployment is stretched dangerously thin, with dire potential consequences if a second full-scale conflict with a rogue nation such as North Korea should erupt.
Senior military officials and political figures openly admit that the U.S. Army Reserve and National Guard are seriously overworked. Senior Army officers are reported in the media as expressing concern that the massive strain of "overstretch" and rapid rotation into low-morale combat zones with escalating casualties might rapidly lead to a massive exodus of experienced veterans especially non-commissioned officers, the backbone of the superb, all-professional force.
A glance at U.S. global deployments makes clear where the "big, black hole" in U.S. global military over-stretch is: It is in Iraq.
Currently the conflict sucks up 161,500 U.S. troops, including 8,000 National Guardsmen -- and women -- and 12,000 Army Reservists. Excluding the Reservists and National Guard volunteers, that means 140,000 regular Army troops are still bogged down in Iraq, a nation of 25 million people, and Kuwait. That is a full 20 percent of the entire manpower of the U.S. Army.
Yet even with that relatively massive force there, the Army is critically undermanned for the job of maintaining security and rebuilding civic society in Iraq, as virtually all experts who are not government spokesmen agree.
Senior U.S. serving and recently retired officers speaking to United Press International on condition of anonymity have said at least twice as many, and perhaps more than three times as many troops -- 300,000 or 400,000 in all -- might be needed to do the job.
This is in large part, they say, because Iraq's long land desert borders are wide open to infiltration from neighboring Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Iran, and Islamist jihad guerrillas and their supporters have been taking full advantage of the fact.
Meanwhile, the global picture of U.S. troop deployments shows other striking anomalies.
Two-and-three-quarter years after President George W. Bush took office vowing to end his predecessor Bill Clinton's commitment to bogging down U.S. troops in futile "nation-building" adventures in Africa and the Balkans, Bush has committed more than 30 times as many U.S. troops as Clinton ever did to Bosnia and Kosovo for the most ambitious "nation-building" operation of all in Iraq.
There are also still 9,600 U.S. troops bogged down in Afghanistan, where the administration's "nation-building" strategy to replace the Islamist Taliban, former hosts of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida group, is now widely acknowledged to have collapsed in a chaotic and increasingly bloody shambles.
Meanwhile, 5,100 U.S. peacekeeping troops remain where Clinton committed them: in the Balkans. After nearly three years in office and with a global imperative of hunting down bin Laden and destroying al-Qaida farther away from victory than ever, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his team have not gotten around to extricating themselves yet.
Other force deployment conundrums abound in Northeast Asia. Some 31,500 U.S. troops remain deployed at the moment in South Korea. That is a larger number than are deployed across the entire United States for domestic security at a time when concerns about possible future mega-terrorist attacks, including with weapons of mass destruction, are greater than ever. The total number of regular Army troops deployed at home for domestic security is 28,600, almost 3,000 less than those still tied up in South Korea.
In fact, Rumsfeld and his civilian strategists want to draw down the South Korea force and use it more agile, aggressive ways -- their favorite adjectives -- to hunt down al-Qaida across the length and breadth of Asia. But a new problem has emerged to throw doubts on that strategy, too.
Pulling out those troops could dangerously escalate tensions with North Korea as Pyongyang might very well interpret the move as removing the "safety tripwire" of U.S. troops that guarantees America will not attack the North. For if it did, those forces would be "hostage" to the overwhelming firepower of as many as 13,000 North Korean artillery tubes north of the demilitarized zone.
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 17 2003,9:47 am
Do I get to say "I Told You So" Now?< Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11 >
I do wish I had a copy of the discussion we had on the Tribune forum on this-
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 17 2003,10:29 am
Slave, you so are right. This war in Iraq looked like and smelled like a turd long before this administration began it. How could we be so lucky to have Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz helping our poor blind President with his foriegn policy. I've been a Republican since birth, but I can not stomach the crap that this administration keeps coming up with. Linclon was once credited as saying; "They lie and relie until they are totally relieable!" I have always thought that was a great line, and now I have this administration to apply it to.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 17 2003,10:35 am
Liberal--| Quote |
| "What would you call a person that lived in the "Region" of Palestine? " |
What WOULD you call someone from the rain forest? Someone from Saudia Arabias Empty Quarter? Someone from the Rocky Mountains? All of these REGIONS show up on maps, and are better defined than the ever-changing "Palestinian" area, but we don't try to identify them as a nation-state.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 17 2003,11:55 am
When there was no country called America only a region with ill defined borders owned by many countries. Didn't the American indians live here? And when people moved here from europe weren't they Americans? Also, you call the people that lived in the Pampas region "Pampas Indians" not Pamponians and a native or inhabitant of the Brittany region was a < Breton >, not a Brittanian.
One last thing here is the dictionary definition of "Palestinian"
Palestinian
adj : of or relating to the area of Palestine and its inhabitants; "Palestinian guerrillas" [syn: Palestinian]
n : a descendant of the Arabs who inhabited Palestine [syn: Palestinian]
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 17 2003,12:31 pm
Liberal--define "American". The term "American" referred to people inhabiting the AREA depicted in the crude maps of Italian navigator AMERIGO Vespucci (sp?)--the area includes North America, Central, and parts of South America--not too precise. The term has come to mean "U.S. citizens--yet, if you want to really offend Mexicans and South Americans, try using it in that context. They will tell you that THEY are Americans, too!You call the people that lived in the Pampas region "Pampas Indians". There WERE no indiginous people in the region--
| Quote |
| "Only in NW Argentina was there a native population with a material culture"--encyclopedia.com |
)--the Pampas extend from South-central Argentina into Uraguay.Finally,
| Quote |
| "Palestinian adj : of or relating to the AREA of Palestine and its inhabitants; " |
This has become an exercise in history and semantics (though an interesting one!
). I have long agreed that the U.N. made a huge mistake in putting a Jewish state in the middle of an Arab world (so much for "world consensus and wisdom ). I wish it wasn't there, but the decision is not mine to undo. I think CPUslavwe has the best idea--give them a deadline to "declare peace"--or start all over again!
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 17 2003,2:05 pm
This has not been an exercise in semantics. This has been an exercise in me trying to get you to admit you're wrong and that there is a Palestinian people. I've supplied you with maps and facts that prove you were wrong.(about both Trans-Jordan and Palestine) And all you do is tell me that this fact(or map) is inaccurate because of this reason or that reason. But, you have yet to post a fact that backs up your original statement where you said, | Quote |
| there ARE no Palestinian people--any more than "Ebonics" is a true language. There wasn't a Palestine for hundreds of years--the area at different times has belonged to many different countries, and for the hundred years or so before, had been ruled by the British as Trans-Jordan. |
Why do blame the UN for Isreal? Why don't you blame the U.K. and the Balfour doctrine. Here is a copy of the letter from Lord Balfour that started it all.
| Quote |
Foreign Office November 2nd, 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour |
Even Lord Balfour acknowledged there was a Palestinian people.
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 17 2003,2:22 pm
Anybody that wants to get in the middle of this one better have the wisdom of Solomon.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 17 2003,2:50 pm
And I post page after page of encyclopedia text and quotes that shows there hasn't been a palestine (I'm not even going to capitalize it any more) since shortly after Biblical times --that the area formerly known as palestine was ill-defined--that during the time that your map was printed (1836) the area was ruled by the Egyptians--and that more recently than palestine even EXISTED, it was called Israel and Judea. Why don't we call it that NOW?| Quote |
| "Why do blame the UN for Isreal?" |
From Encyclopedia.com
| Quote |
| "The militant opposition of the Arabs to such a state and the inability of the British to solve the problem eventually led to the establishment (1947) of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, which devised a plan to divide Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a small internationally administered zone including Jerusalem." |
The U.N. recognized Palestine as an AREA, with claims by BOTH the Arabs and the Jews. The U.N. erred 56 years ago--the British couldn't solve the problem during their mandate--nobody has for 1800 years--we aren't going to solve it today. Back to CPU's solution.
Posted by usmcr on Sep. 17 2003,4:24 pm
any one interested in the jewish state & the palastines should read the book "the Haj' by leon uris. it is a fictional account of the birth of the state based on fact. his other book "exodous" relates to the earlier era. both books are excellent reading material to understand the difficulties between the arab & the jews.
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 17 2003,4:39 pm
Well Jim, Palestine has been at the cross roads of Africa, Europe, and Asia for many centuries. Just because the population has been in flux for all of recorded history doesn't mean that their aren't indigenous people in the area who have family histories that predate the time of Christ. Now if you don't want to call this area Palestine and its people Palesinian just because the bondaries have changed over time, I guess that I had better stop calling myself an Itallian-American.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 17 2003,5:54 pm
How do you prove who has a claim on the land--next thing you know, we are going to have to present a deed from God himself--and you probably won't take HIS word on it--you'll want it NOTARIZED, as well! Here is the history of Palestine from < http://www.arab.net/palestine/ > a pro-palestinian website. According to the website, Muslim rule wasn't even established until 638. Read carefully through the entire text--there was no COUNTRY called Palestine in ancient times. | Quote |
| "Even before the Palestinians or the Jews were in Palestine, a group of people known as Canaanites had established themselves there. Around 4000 BC, the Canaanites, who were a Semitic people from the inner Arabian (does that make them Arabs? )peninsula, settled in the land which came to be known as Canaan and later, Palestine. One of the Canaanite tribes, the Jebusites, built a settlement which they called Urusalim (Jerusalem), meaning "the city of peace"." |
Even further back, according to encyclopedia.com, the area was settled by the Neanderthals--maybe we should call ourselves Neanderthal-Danish-Americans, or Neanderthal-Italian-Americans--they too predate the time of Christ.
If this is the case, where is the National Homeland for the Babylonians? The Etruscans? The Persians? The Spartans, Trojans, or the Epicureans?
These people existed before the palestinians, and unlike the amorphous and nomadic people from the area known as palestine, their history and the boundaries of their nations were much better established. Why don't THEY have a claim on land?I don't claim to be Danish-American, even though my grandparents came over on the boat--an Englishman sneaked in there somewhere in the 1600 or 1700s.
Maybe we should just leave it as "Americans"."FREEDOM FOR THE PELOPONNESIANS!
Posted by Oldsmo Willie on Sep. 17 2003,8:47 pm
Jim, if one follows your circular logic, it would follow that the Jews, who revolted against Rome about the year 66 C.E., which resulted in the Romans sacking the Second Temple, Jerusalem and finally overruning the outpost at Masada in 73 C.E., would have no claim to the area either due to their being dispersed after the revolt ended. Further more there would be no Jews because we have no country that the Jews are named for. Come on Jim, give it a rest! Are you afriad that if you give in on this we will have to give back Manhattan, which your ancestors purchased from the Indians for beads and blankets.
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 18 2003,7:52 am
And I thought Jim was in the rarified air. Willie get some oxygen!
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 18 2003,10:22 am
This has ceased to be about Palestine, and has more to do with the ability of people to think independently, to look at problems in depth, to question authority.I'm not smart enough to think this up by myself--I have read several commentators making this remark about the genesis of the problem of defining "ownership" of the area.
Most of us were brought up in, if not a Christian home, with some smattering of knowledge of the Bible. We all ASSUMED that Palestine figured in there somewhere. Since the 1967 7-day war, and heightened Arab "activity" (rocket attacks, car bombings, suicide attacks, suicide bombings, etc.), the "politically correct" educational establishment has "taught" generations of school kids that the "activists" only wanted to reconstitute their original homeland that was taken from them by the Israelis. As Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels correctly observed, "it only takes two generations to make (the truth as we describe it)". Or similarly, "A lie unchallenged soon becomes the truth".
Page after page of encyclopedia text seems to confirm this. I have no agenda here--I don't care WHO owned it in biblical times--but I DO care that inaccuracies and PC indoctrination not be allowed to stand unchallenged. I've brough some of these facts to this page. I hope that we've all learned something from this discussion--I know that I learned it was actually the U.N.that was at fault for creating a Jewish state in Arab lands--I had always assumed it was the British. I learned how ill-defined the area of Palestine really was--kind of like defining "Northern Iowa"--an area much larger than ancient Palestine. (i.e.--Is Decorah in Northern Iowa or Eastern Iowa?) I learned something about the history of the area by having to look up facts to make a point--reminds me of high school.
If we've ALL learned something from this discussion, it has been worth the effort.I've also learned that you can lay all the FACTS before some people and NEVER change their minds!
(Just kidding!)I've got to get back to taking on the problems of
QUESTION EVERYTHING YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE!
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 18 2003,10:44 am
| Quote |
According to the website, Muslim rule wasn't even established until 638. Read carefully through the entire text--there was no COUNTRY called Palestine in ancient times. |
Islam was founded by the Prophet Muhammad who was born in 569 and the angel Gabriel didn't come speak to him until the year 610(?) he died in 632 and 6 years later Muslim rule was established. When would you have liked Muslim rule to be established, before Muhammad became a prophet and started the Islamic religion?
Even if we agreed that Palestine was only a region then are you telling me that having a COUNTRY with well defined borders and a central form of government is the only thing that makes me an American? If the American government collapsed tomorrow what would you and I become since America wouldn't be a COUNTRY anymore. What would we call ourselves? And could anyone that wants just settle on our lands.
| Quote |
Since the 1967 7-day war, and heightened Arab "activity" (rocket attacks, car bombings, suicide attacks, suicide bombings, etc.), the "politically correct" educational establishment has "taught" generations of school kids that the "activists" only wanted to reconstitute their original homeland that was taken from them by the Israelis. |
It's kind of funny that you believe that Hawaii, Tahiti, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq and other countries were all populated by indigenous people prior to WW I, but, you find it impossible to believe that the "Promised Land" had any indigenous people whatsoever. It's like the "Promised Land" was waiting for over 2,000 years for the Israelis to come and settle it.
| Quote |
Page after page of encyclopedia text seems to confirm this. |
Not one sentence you've posted from that site has confirmed that there isn't a Palestinian people. You are reading what you want into the encyclopedia.com text.
You are right about one thing and that is that you can lay all the FACTS before some people and NEVER change their minds!
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 18 2003,11:17 am
I was quoting the encyclopedia reference on the establishment of Muslim rule IN THE AREA KNOWN AS PALESTINE--not the date of establishment of the Muslim religion.| Quote |
| Even if we agreed that Palestine was only a region then are you telling me that having a COUNTRY with well defined borders and a central form of government is the only thing that makes me an American? |
| Quote |
| It's kind of funny that you believe that Hawaii, Tahiti, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq and other countries were all populated by indigenous people prior to WW I, but, you find it impossible to believe that the "Promised Land" had any indigenous people whatsoever. It's like the "Promised Land" was waiting for over 2,000 years for the Israelis to come and settle it. |
| Quote |
| "Even before the Palestinians or the Jews were in Palestine, a group of people known as Canaanites had established themselves there. Around 4000 BC, the Canaanites, who were a Semitic people from the inner Arabian (does that make them Arabs? )peninsula, settled in the land which came to be known as Canaan and later, Palestine. One of the Canaanite tribes, the Jebusites, built a settlement which they called Urusalim (Jerusalem), meaning "the city of peace"." |
| Quote |
| Not one sentence you've posted from that site has confirmed that there isn't a Palestinian people. |
I don't want any hard feelings over this--I'm willing to agree to disagree--or to keep on bringing in other points--I've learned a lot, and find it interesting--just checking to make sure everyone is OK with this.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 18 2003,1:08 pm
The reason for my post explaining when Islamic religion was founded was because you had said, "According to the website, Muslim rule wasn't even established until 638". I was just trying to point out that the religion was less than 40 years old in the year 638 when Muslim rule was established in Palestine.
| Quote |
If the U.S. ceased to exist--if it was conquered by another country, and absorbed through millenia INTO that or successive countries (as Palestine was), your heirs would no longer be United States Citizens--but your heirs would still be Americans--my point exactly. |
Why would my heirs still be Americans, yet a Palestinians heirs aren't Palestinian?
You say "My point exactly" , but, remember the point that started this whole discussion was that you said.
| Quote |
there ARE no Palestinian people--any more than "Ebonics" is a true language.... |
To which I replied "I don't know about ebonics but there certainly are Palestinian people."
It seems you forgot where you stand on this issue and where I do. You were trying to tell everyone that there is no such thing as a Palestinian and I say there is a Palestinian people. You throw out the argument that they were never a country just a region or an area so they can't be Palestinians, and I say it doesn't matter they are still Palestinians.
Why would anyone have any hard feelings over this discussion?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 18 2003,2:13 pm
Here is the entire post about the date of establishing Muslim religion in the area. I didn't mean to imply that that was the date of the establishment of the Muslim religion.| Quote |
| Here is the history of Palestine from < http://www.arab.net/palestine/ > a pro-palestinian website. According to the website, Muslim rule wasn't even established until 638. |
Please comment on this item posted previously
| Quote |
| You reside within the United States. You are also an American. People of Canada and Mexico, and even South Americans consider themselves American--if you want to really start a fight, try telling one of them that they are NOT. If the U.S. ceased to exist--if it was conquered by another country, and absorbed through millenia INTO that or successive countries (as Palestine was), your heirs would no longer be United States Citizens--but your heirs would still be Americans |
Your heirs WOULD still be able to call themselves Americans, because they still live in the AREA called America--even though their country no longer existed.What ABOUT the Etruscans, Babylonians, Persians, Spartans, Trojans, Epicurians, Pelopponnesians, or any OTHER "dead" nations? Where is the National Homeland claim for THEM?
Where exactly is Palestine? The core area, as defined by encyclopedia.com, is approximately 120 miles by 30-70 miles--but with the area trading ownership dozens of times over the years, the actual boundaries vary by hundreds of square miles. It is about as amorphous as defining "Northern Iowa". Where is the southern boundary of Northern Iowa? The eastern? Is Decorah in Eastern Iowa or Northern Iowa?
Regarding the last question--just making sure--it is dangerous business to argue religion or politics, and we're doing BOTH here--this two-bit argument isn't worth anybody getting angry over--and some people might think that I was getting angry with you because you JUST CAN'T SEE THE FACTS--or I'm not articulate enough to explain my position! (that's a joke, by the way--where IS that sarcasm icon?)
Posted by KODIAK on Sep. 18 2003,2:56 pm
Whew, both guns blazin. I don't think either Jim or Liberal are going to conceed. Interesting part of the dialogue though is the "who does the region belong to" references, leading to the "are you afraid we will have to give back Manhattan" spew. Columbus named the people he ran into here "Indians" because he mistakenly thought he was in east Asia. Currently, the combined tribes of the Pacific Northwest are being sued for access to the remains of Kennibec Man, an amazingly intact skeleton of a non-"indian" that predates any known remains of "native" people by several thousand years.
The tribes desperately want these remains to stay out of scientific hands (again, claiming they are sacred) because the ramifications would be devastating. Reparations for land supposedly taken away would cease, and tribal sovereignty in situations such as netting rights and gambling would have new challenges. It really doesn't take Kennibec Man to start that argument anyway. As Jim points out, absorbtion into current society or having been conquered over a period of time most of the time superceeds "ownership" If you like looking at maps, look at Eastern Europe every 10 years since 1905. In more recent cases, the Sioux tribes claim to much of this regions land is false. They took it away from the Chippewa and many smaller tribes. According to their own gospel, nobody is supposed to own the land anyway, it belongs to "Mother Earth". Enought rant for now, back to my den.
Posted by Mahmoud on Sep. 19 2003,9:49 pm
Mr. Hanson you are full of opinions that are not based in anything but ignorance and prejudice. You have filled your head with dung and dispense it as knowlege. Let me assure you that there is a Palestine, I was born there and that would make me a Palestinian. I am also a naturalized citizen of the United States, and know that you have every right to be a stupid. I just thought you needed to be made aware of your achievement.
Posted by minnow on Sep. 19 2003,10:22 pm
LOL
Posted by GEOKARJO on Sep. 20 2003,3:56 pm
I would like to welcome Mahmond to the forum and would ask that he share some insight on Palestine. As we are all small town people that was brought up in a redneck enviroment we are open to other insight views and opinions.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 20 2003,4:00 pm
Mahamoud--certainly YOU don't have an axe to grind, do you? Kind of like asking mice if there should be cats in the world.I don't care if there is a Palestine, an Israel, or a Caanan (which predated both). I don't care if there is a Persia, Babylon, or Pelopponesia--ALL civilizations that haven't existed for millenia. There are a number of scholars that have stated this theory--and THEY don't have an axe to grind, either. I have provided encyclopedia quotes, texts, links to other sites--an all I get back is a sophomoric "my teacher told me so" response--with no verifiable facts.
Since you have only a "handle"--a "nom-de-plume" (or, since this is the digital age, a "nom-de-network")
and are unregistered, we have no way of knowing if you are serious, or a quipster, (as in Scrappleface.coms parody of Saddam's "little-known son, OOGLAY"). I know you may find this hard to believe, coming from the land of "Baghdad Bob" and Saddam, (where the truth is ALWAYS told) that there are those on the Forum that post under different names. Please tell us more about yourself.Which Palestine were you born in? The Palestine that included Judea and Israel? The Palestine of Caanan? The Caliphe of Baghdad? The Palestine ruled by Romans? By Egypt? The British mandate? There have been so many rulers of this area, it is hard to describe the boundaries, unlike the well-defined boundaries of nearly every other ancient civilization. This area, at one time or another, constituted half the known world of Biblical times.
While handing out achievement awards, congratulations on YOUR impartiality, and your vast array of supporting facts.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 20 2003,5:04 pm
| Quote |
There are a number of scholars that have stated this theory--and THEY don't have an axe to grind--I have provided encyclopedia quotes, texts, links to other sites--an all I get back is a sophomoric "my teacher told me so" response--with no verifiable facts. |
Who are these scholars? If that's were true then I would think that you would have posted what these scholars had to say by now.
Go back and look at what you've posted as fact. And then look at what I've posted. I didn't say once say "my teacher told me so" and I didn't once parrot anything told to me by some talking head/commentator. I've supplied you with maps proving palestine exists, I've supplied you with documents and literally a plethora of facts and quotes from sites.
Also, I didn't once say anything even close to "my teacher told me this stuff" unlike you, that has said
| Quote |
I'm not smart enough to think this up by myself--I have read several commentators making this remark about the genesis of the problem of defining "ownership" of the area. |
| Quote |
There are a number of scholars that have stated this theory |
Let's see the quotes from the commentators or the scholars.
One last fact from encyclopedia.com the entry on David Ben Gurion(first PM of Isreal) will show you
| Quote |
1886-1973, Israeli statesman, b. Poland as David Grün. He settled in Palestine in 1906. He was an active Zionist and during World War I helped to organize the Jewish Legion in support of the British. In the struggle to found an independent Jewish state in Palestine he followed a policy of cooperation with the British during World War II. After the war, however, he led the political struggle against them and authorized sabotage activities. |
Now the entry you posted doesn't actually say there was no Palestine you're just reading that into it. But the encyclopedia.com entry I just posted states flat out the David Ben Gurion moved to Palestine in 1906. (no careful read needed there).
You've never answered my question about what you call a person born in Palestine. (I don't care which Palestine either. You can pick from your previous choices, The Palestine that included Judea and Israel, The Palestine of Caanan, The Caliphe of Baghdad, The Palestine ruled by Romans, By Egypt or by The British mandate?)
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 20 2003,7:50 pm
| Quote |
| "I didn't say once say "my teacher told me so". |
| Quote |
| "I've supplied you with maps proving palestine exists, I've supplied you with documents and literally a plethora of facts and quotes from sites." |
)--THEY came across the Bering Strait--do the MONGOLIANS have a claim? What's that you say--the French have a claim on it, only because it was a territory, without defined boundaries, and unadministered? That seems consistent with your defining Palestine as a country! Can you show evidence of a Palestinian government? Public works? Taxes or funding? Standing army? Defenses? (maybe that's why they ceased to be a COUNTRY! ) Unlike the constantly changing boundaries of "Palestine", the nation-states quoted HAD precise boundaries, governments, taxes, armies, and all the things that make a nation. Where is Palestine TODAY? (or for the last 50 years? For the last 75 years?) If you WERE to CREATE a Palestine today, where would the borders be? Who would you take the land from? The Syrians? The Iraqi's? The Jordanians? The Israelis? The Egyptians? How about those Romans--they ruled it once, let's take it from THEM! After all, who has the best claim on it?| Quote |
| "Now the entry you posted doesn't actually say there was no Palestine you're just reading that into it." |
| Quote |
| "He settled in Palestine in 1906." |
I have to go home and cook up some Crawdads and Etoufee, and drink some French wine--after all, I just found out that we are FRENCH, because the area was once CLAIMED BY FRANCE! (I'll have to drink a lot of wine, though, to LIVE DOWN BEING FRENCH!)
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 21 2003,1:25 am
| Quote |
if someone had "settled in California" during the time of rule by Mexico, it could have been anywhere in Oregon, California, Arizona, or Nevada. To use your logic, that would make today's residents of Las Vegas "Californians", because of the ill-defined boundaries of the area. |
No, but it would make a resident of California a Californian.
Here is an excerpt from A History of the Palestinian Problem from the United Nations website. If you follow the link and read it you will see that the UN was trying to correct a problem created by Britain and the League of Nations.
| Quote |
After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. < UN Website > |
Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Wouldn't that be a Palestinian?
I'll try asking this for the third time. What do you call a person born in Palestine. (I don't care which Palestine either. You can pick from your previous choices, The Palestine that included Judea and Israel, The Palestine of Caanan, The Caliphe of Baghdad, The Palestine ruled by Romans, By Egypt or by The British mandate?)
Posted by shaker on Sep. 21 2003,11:34 am
Liberal and Jim, I find your posts to be vary interesting and well done, its always good to see more than one side do a disagreement. Keep it up.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 21 2003,2:26 pm
So what WOULD you call a resident of Las Vegas TODAY, living in the old area of California? Would you call them a Californian? Would the Denver resident be a Texan?| Quote |
| "What do you call a person born in Palestine" |
Try this--every time you see the word Palestine, substitute the word EUROPE, and every time you see the word Palestinian, substitute EUROPEAN. The sentence will make just as much sense. Just as there is no nation called EUROPE (because it is an AREA, not a nation), the same can be said about Palestine. Someone can be born in the area formerly known as Palestine (reminds me of "the artist formerly known as Prince"--with about as much substance as his unpronouncable "symbol")
and be called "Palestinian"--just as a Belgian could be known as EUROPEAN. That DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS A NATION KNOWN AS EUROPE.There are all kinds of similarities between the Region of Palestine and OTHER regions. Someone could be called a "Southerner" in the U.S., and it wouldn't be very specific--the area would be from Virginia to Texas. They could be called a "Westerner", and the area would be even larger, and less specific--probably from the Mississippi west. If they were a "Northerner", the area is even larger and less specific--do they mean the area north of the Mason-Dixon line? What constitutes Northern in the West?
From your post, above:
| Quote |
| "One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine." |
| Quote |
| "one of the two states declared its independence, but the Arabs refused to recognize the new state,maintaining that the entire area was theirs")". |
With your intense interest in this area of the world, I think you should visit it for yourself! Call the Palestinian embassy, and get a Visa. Can't find the Palestinian embassy in the phone book? Check the U.S. State Department to see if there are any travel warnings in Palestine. Can't find that, either. Maybe the U.N. can intercede. Nope, not a member. You should probably know where the U.S. Embassy is in Palestine, in case there is trouble. Good Luck! Any special shots you should have before going there? Do you suppose you could get an answer from the World Health Organization? Better call Berlitz and ask what the official language of Palestine is. Ask your telephone operator what the country code for Palestine is, so you can call there. Better check with AOL to see what the connection number is for your computer. Call your travel agent, and tell them you would like to go to Palestine. ("Yes sir, we're working on that right now--we just can't seem to be able to book a room there--what is the capital city?") Call Hilton Hotels, and ask if they have any hotels in Palestine. While you are at it, ask Hilton if Palestinian electricity is 110 or 220 volt. Call Hertz, and see if they have any cars for rent there. (and whether they drive on the left or right side of the road). You should know something about the country--check on what the leading export of Palestine is. Call Northwest Airlines, and tell them you want to fly to Palestine. (Imagine a Bob Newhart telephone routine--"No, no, we don't fly there ourselves--no, I can't tell you what airline does--no, I don't know what city you would fly into--would you mind if I put you on hold?")--sounds like a bit from Crank Yankers!
What is the national airline of Palestine? What kind of airplanes do they fly? Are there any endangered species in Palestine--you'd better know before coming through U.S. Customs on the way home. What is the official money of Palestine called? What is the exchange rate? This airline business is getting so confusing--maybe you can go there by train or ship. What port would you like to sail to? This is getting to be too hard to actually travel there--maybe you should settle for just writing to your Palestinian friends. What is their address--will the Postal Service in the U.S. send your letter there--and will a "Palestinian" post office deliver it there? How much does it cost to send a package there? Better call UPS or Fedex--I'm sure THEY will have the answer! AT THIS POINT YOU SHOULD BE ASKING YOURSELF, "WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY IS THIS?(believe it or not, travel agents get these kinds of questions all the time--"I want to go to Europe". "Yes, but WHERE in Europe?" "Don't get snippy with me, young man, my friends went to Europe last year, and THEY had a good time!")
Being a liberal (with a small L, as opposed to a free-thinking CLASSIC Liberal)
means never having to face facts--but the FACTS are--PALESTINE HASN'T BEEN A COUNTRY IN NEARLY 2000 YEARS, AND ISN'T A COUNTRY TODAY.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 22 2003,2:04 pm
| Quote | ||
From your post, above:
Note that it says TERRITORY of Palestine, not NATION (or COUNTRY, or STATE) of Palestine--my point all along. The World Book encyclopedia says something similar to your post |
You misquoted that trying to use the word "TERRITORY" out of context.
If we lost 77% of the territory of the United States it would not turn us into a territory. We would still be a country just a 77% smaller country.
Also, you say that it's just a territory and that was your point all along. It seems that I have to remind you again that your point all along is that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people anymore than ebonics is true language. My point is that there is a Palestinian people and that your statement was wrong.
Are you willing to admit there is a Palestinian people?
I would much rather finish that discussion before discussing if it's fair to suppress the political, economic, and civil rights of people just because they never had a state, a distinct language or a distinct culture in their history.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 22 2003,2:41 pm
Welcome back! I was wondering what took you so long to respond--figured maybe it was because you were having problems finding and booking a trip to Palestine! Impossible to do, isn't it--BECAUSE THE PLACE DOESN'T EXIST AS A NATION! YOU COULD JUST AS WELL TRY TO BOOK A TRIP TO "NEVERLAND" (the one with Tinkerbell fairies, NOT the one owned by the singer that has "sleepovers" with boys!) No, I will not concede that there are "Palestinian People" with a claim on the land--as we have seen from the history of the area--EVERYONE seems to have ruled the land at one time or another--including the Hebrews. Somehow, you equate Palestinians with Arabs--when the Hebrews ruled it longer than anyone else. Here is a good read I found on the subject from Citypages.com
| Quote |
| Did you know that there was never any country called Palestine? Did you know that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people? The ideas that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied Palestinian land and that the Palestinian people are fighting for their land have been accepted by most of the governments of the world and by most of the media in the world. But if you read on, you will see that these two claims are the biggest lies ever deliberately perpetrated on humanity. Check out any map of the Middle East and see for yourself. You will find Palestine listed as a region, as it always has been, but definitely not a country. We can locate the Mojave Desert on the map, but we still do not recognize it as our 51st state, let alone a country. Similarly, Siberia is a region, not a state. Or the Sahara is a region, not a state, etc. Neither is Palestine a state. It never was a country, just a region. The Jews did not displace anyone, because no one permanently resided there. It was a land inhabited by nomadic Bedouin tribes. The whole region was nothing but deserts and swamps. Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that covered the territories, Israel and Jordan. When Mark Twain visited the area, he wrote that he found nothing but a wasteland. During the 19 years that the territories, including Jerusalem and Gaza, were occupied by the kingdom of Jordan and Egypt, no one talked about a Palestinian state; not the Arab countries, not the United Nations. Nobody asked Jordan or Egypt to abdicate their ownership and give it to the Palestinians. Not even the Palestinians themselves said anything about a Palestinian state or a Palestinian people, because nobody heard of a Palestinian people. It never existed. The fact simply is that there are no Palestinians. These people are Arabs like all other Arabs, and they happen to live in a region called Palestine. They are not a separate people. What makes a separate people? Religion, language, culture, garb, cuisine, etc., etc. The Arabs in Palestine speak the same language, practice the same religion, have the same culture, etc., as all the other Arabs. The Arabs living in Syria, Jordan and other nearby states are also the same Arabs, but they are each a separate nation because they each have a separate country. The so-called Palestinians want a separate country because they claim to be a separate nation. They are not. They were never a separate people before the new state of Israel. How did they become one now? |
I'm going home tonight to Clarks Grove--the NATIONAL HOMELAND FOR THE DANES! Even though Denmark never ruled it, even though it rests within Freeborn County, and the State of Minnesota, in the United States of America--by your thinking, we can "claim" it just a surely as the arabs can claim a mythical place in the desert as their own--because we somehow "own" it--"our people" settled there at the turn of the last century--now all we have to do is throw out those "infidel" Norwegians, Swedes, and Germans!
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 22 2003,3:48 pm
It seems that now you've resorted to reposting other peoples opinion. Not one verifiable fact in that whole repost you just made just someones opinion. Then you don't even credit the opinion.| Quote |
The Jews did not displace anyone, because no one permanently resided there. It was a land inhabited by nomadic Bedouin tribes. The whole region was nothing but deserts and swamps. Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that covered the territories, Israel and Jordan. When Mark Twain visited the area, he wrote that he found nothing but a wasteland. |
on the same trip Mark Twain described Greece Lebanon and Syria the same way. Here is what he said about Greece.
| Quote |
From Athens all through the islands of the Grecian Archipelago, we saw little but forbidden sea-walls and barren hills, sometimes surmounted by three or four graceful columns of some ancient temples, lonely and deserted---a fitting symbol of desolation that has come upon all Greece in these latter ages. We saw no plowed fields, very few villages, no trees or grass or vegetation of any kind, scarcely, and hardly ever an isolated house. Greece is a bleak, unsmiling desert, without agriculture, manufactures, or commerce, apparently." |
So if we believe Mark Twain there is no agriculture, commerce or manufacturing in Greece either.
As far as your unsubstantiated opinion on the population.
| Quote |
Based on Ottoman census records in the late 19th and early 20th century, Palestine was widely inhabited at the time especially in the rural areas where agriculture was the main profession. According to < Justine McCarthy > the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000 people, and in 1914 , just before the outbreak of WWI, Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslims Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews (including many European Jews from the first and second Aliyah). So the Jewish population of Palestine in 1914 made up under 8% of the total population, which was much smaller than the Palestinian Christian population. It should be noted that the source, Justine McCarthy, is an authority on the Ottoman Turks who is often quoted by many Israeli Jewish scholars like Benny Morris and Tom Segev. |
It's on page 26 of the book.
Now let's see you prove the numbers that you just posted in that opinion that you gleened from some website.
Posted by Bubba on Sep. 22 2003,5:29 pm
Some how the US in Iraq has become Jim and Liberal's debate; argument; discussion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I'm tiered of waiting for one of them to win, and am declairing Jim the winner because he has the balls to rob the Palestinians of their history by declairing that they do not exist. Jim you win. I don't know who the Israelis are fighting but who ever they are Jim wins! End of argument!Back to Iraq, Did anyone see what Kennedy said about the war last week? What do you think? Could he be right? How about General Clark? Do you think these guys are on to something or are they Just trying to make our President look bad for a Democratic victory next election?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 22 2003,6:15 pm
The piece was attributed to citypaper.net If it is important to you, the author's name was Sharon Nader-Sloan. How can you be offended by my posting a paper that parallels my own posts--but you offer documentation gleaned from other web sites? Are encylopedias and web sites off limits?Any luck finding the answer to the question previously posed above?
| Quote |
| During the 19 years that the territories, including Jerusalem and Gaza, were occupied by the kingdom of Jordan and Egypt, no one talked about a Palestinian state; not the Arab countries, not the United Nations. Nobody asked Jordan or Egypt to abdicate their ownership and give it to the Palestinians. Not even the Palestinians themselves said anything about a Palestinian state or a Palestinian people, because nobody heard of a Palestinian people. It never existed. |
Why is the census data conducted by TURKEY in the 1800s more "authoritative" than the observations by Mark Twain? Here is his observation, directly from his book, with attribution:
| Quote |
| "There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [valley of Jezreel] -- not for 30 miles in either direction . . . . One may ride 10 miles hereabouts and not see 10 human beings. "For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee . . . Nazareth is forlorn . . . Jericho lies a moldering ruin . . . Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation . . . untenanted by any living creature . . . . "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds . . a silent, mournful expanse . . . a desolation . . . . We never saw a human being on the whole route . . . . Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country . . . ." "Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes . . . desolate and unlovely . . . .-- Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1867 |
In a previous post, you asked for the name of scholars that shared the same opinion. Though there are many, here is a quote from one of the most pre-eminent--
| Quote |
| The entire Middle East has been divided and nation-states invented by the French and the British. Borders were decided by them and not by the natives. There was no Syria, no Algeria, no Tunisia. There was no Palestine. There was no Iraq. And the exotic names for these places were given to the world by conquerors, not the local people who lived there. Eminent historian Bernard Lewis, who is fluent in Arabic, Hebrew, Turkish and several other Middle Eastern languages, tells us there are no words for many places in the Middle East, like Algeria and Tunisia because the Arab sense of place was different than our identification of a place as a nation and places like Libya, Palestine, Syria, etc., are actually names from the Roman Empire to identify Roman geography. There is also no word in Arabic for Arabia. These words were invented by Europeans. Palestine (Syria Palestina) was a word invented by the Romans. (Bernard Lewis is Professor Emeritus of Princeton University and Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study and a former member of the faculty of the University of London. He has written dozens of books about the Middle East) |
Thank you for the reference to Justine McCarthy. I took the time to look up the author, and find fascinating details about estimating the population of the area--I will make it a point to read further. It can be found at < http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre....59.html > I am sure we each can find quotes from this scholarly work to support whatever view we have. Here is what he had to say about the data process (presumably used in the table you quoted above) [quote]"No population registrar in the Ottoman Empire, the Palestine Mandate, Jordan, or Israel ever asked a census question on national self-identification. The Ottomans did not even consider the possibility of such a question; the others did not want to know.
For the Ottoman period, the answer to the question of Palestinian identity is, statistically at least, fairly simple. The Ottomans kept records only by religious affiliation. Although they did not use "national" distinctions such as Syrian, Iraqi, or Palestinian, one can consider as Palestinians those Ottoman subject Muslims and Christians who lived in Palestine (defined as the area that would become the Palestine Mandate) between 1517 and 1917. This includes very few whose descendants would NOT consider themselves Palestinians. "
McCarthy's work shows an exponential explosion in the last 2 decades of those who consider themselves Palestinians--far more than can be accounted for by birth or migration. Palestine must be a happening place!
Any luck finding any of the government agencies, airlines, private companies, or ANYBODY WHO KNOWS WHERE THIS NIRVANA IS?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 22 2003,6:48 pm
Sorry, Bubba--I didn't see your post until I hit the post button. Yes, I agree, we are just using up bandwidth here--like the Arabs (I didn't say anything about those wascawy Palestinians! ) and Israelis, nothing will EVER be settled. We've already taken MORE TIME THAN THE ISRAELI's NEEDED TO BEAT THE ENTIRE MIDDLE-EAST ARAB WORLD! (just a "tweak" )It's often said that "you shouldn't talk religion and politics"--and we're doing BOTH here--Liberal and I have PM'd each other to make sure we're OK with that, but if this isn't of interest to others, we should do it by PM.
These kind of debates are of interest to me, but they aren't everybody's cup of tea. That doggone Liberal has me laying awake nights, trying to figure a way to beat him--it has become all-consuming, kind of like the Coyote and the Roadrunner.
Besides, CPUslave must be feeling neglected, hasn't had a good argument for a while! I don't have enough mental RAM to deal with both of these guys at the same time!
So, just what DID Kennedy, the "HERO OF CHAPPAQUIDDICK", have to say?
Posted by Mahmoud on Sep. 22 2003,10:04 pm
Mr. Hanson, I understand that you think that I am a joke. I assure you I am real. My family lived in the District of Haifa prior to the Zionist distruction of our village, Ijzim. Having lost our business and our home, we moved to the camps in Gaza. Prior to this I had been educated at the American University in Lebanon, but even with a degree, there was no work in the camps. Eventually I went to work for the International Red Cross/Red Cresent. Through my work in the camps with the Red Cross, I met an American Politician who asked me if I would want to bring my family to the United States. In 1956, my wife and I received a sponsor and moved to this country. We arrived with $20 and a few close. As hard as that may seem, it was far better than life in the camps.It is true that the British put us under the rule of the King of Jordan, we did not strongly object but that did not mean we were Jordanians. We had our own flag and our own identity. That all changed after the second World War. The Jewish population of Palestine increased from approximately 25,000 to 600,000, eventually comprising some 33 per cent of our country's population. The rest is history and the Muslims and Christians lost control of their land, water, and destiny to an invading people who had no connection with our land for nearly 2000 years.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 23 2003,8:16 am
Read posts above. I'm not re-opening this one.
Posted by KODIAK on Sep. 23 2003,10:09 am
I'm confused now. Am I a Minnesotan? Or as part of the Louisianna Purchase am I French? If Lewis and Clark had not eaten their horses and come back from the wilderness, we would all be Canadian eh? Everybody wants to be a revisionist for their own purpose. You can't make this stuff up.....well, in today's society I guess you can.