Posted on 02/21/2003 7:15:36 PM PST by SeenTheLight
As the Israelis did to the Arabs who were living in Palestine. I don't condone either action. Do you?
Nonsense. Before Arafat and Oslo emerged on the scene they had the highest standard of living in the Arab world.
The Palestinian reached parity with the non-Palestinian Israeli? Why continue to bring the non-Arab world into it? We might compare some US citizens with Mexican standard of living, as proof that everything is OK. But it's not relevant. What's relevant is parity within the jurisdiction. I don't see you claiming that-- just sliding around it, not very well.
I won’t resond yet. Clearly you’ve never read Washington’s address. Go and read it. Read about the insulation our oceans provide us (gone by Monroe’s time, thus the doctrine). Particularly read his comments about America’s obligation to honor current commitments. Washington would clearly have taken Israel’s side.
Whoa there! We were stark neutral for the first 125 years (minus forays like 1898). So what did the first 125 years worth of presidents know that you apparently missed from the policy? It is nice that we have friends. I am not saying don't have friends. I am just saying don't have entangling alliances, just as Washington says, and how presidents after him interpreted it for the first 125 years. Apparently you have problems not just with me and my interpretation, but with US history in general. Good luck!
OK, you're admitting that they haven't gotten there yet. Now why the qualification based on foreign government compliance? The title of the discussion is Israel. The jurisdiction is Israel. So let Israel focus on what Israel can provide. Starting with rights for all.
That’s utter nonsence. Where do you get these crazy ideas. I have been going by my recollection of agreements as reported in the news. My further recollection is that Israel has reneged on some of its signed agreements.
Have fun with your recollections, post the facts here when you come up with them.
One way or another, I don't think there will be peace as long as there is confiscation of civilian property.
Sure did, they threw all the Jew *astards out of their countries and confiscated their property. You’re right, shows me they’re not Jewhaters. As the Israelis did to the Arabs who were living in Palestine. I don't condone either action. Do you?
I’m sure there were some arabs who left out of fear, or were driven out. But the fact is every leader throughout the Arab world called for them to leave the mandate area, to facilitate a “free fire zone” enviornment to kill the Jews, with the promise that upon return they could claim the homes of the recently departed Jews. That’s fact, not recollection. Things just didn’t work out the arab way. Tens of millions of refugees resettled after WWII, all of them other than 600,000 arabs, and it’s all Israel’s fault. Right.
The Palestinian reached parity with the non-Palestinian Israeli? Why continue to bring the non-Arab world into it? We might compare some US citizens with Mexican standard of living, as proof that everything is OK. But it's not relevant. What's relevant is parity within the jurisdiction. I don't see you claiming that-- just sliding around it, not very well.
Sure it is. Israeli Arabs have the same rights as any other Israelis, and a higher standard of living than the rest of the arab world. Arabs in the territories had the same standard of living, prior to waging war. Mexicans, heck they love to come here, legally or illegally to raise their standard of living.
Whoa there! We were stark neutral for the first 125 years (minus forays like 1898). So what did the first 125 years worth of presidents know that you apparently missed from the policy?
Apparently a lot, everything from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli, including the war of 1812, and Monroe’s rightful doctrine that we’d kick the *ss of any European nation daring to seek influence in our hemisphere. Not exactly neutral.
It is nice that we have friends. I am not saying don't have friends. I am just saying don't have entangling alliances, just as Washington says, and how presidents after him interpreted it for the first 125 years. Apparently you have problems not just with me and my interpretation, but with US history in general. Good luck!
It’s my opinion that old George (who made his speech in the context of criticism for not aiding France in their ongoing war against England, in recognition of their help during the Revolution. As you may or may not know, we ended up taking sides in 1812) would have recognized our loss of oceanic insularity about the time Monroe did.
His opinions on America keeping true to her alliances are clear. Sure, clearly your are the bearer of the truth, I’m factually challenged. I’ll let anyone reading this thread draw their own conclusions.
=====================================================
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot….
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little Political connection as possible.-So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.-Here let us stop…-
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course.-If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected. When belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by our justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation ?-Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?-Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?-
'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world;-so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it;-for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy.)-I repeat it therefore let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense.-But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.-
Israel provides rights for all. Multiple posters have pointed that out. You're unable to present a single FACT disputing them. Why not?
MM
Those who would deny the Jews of Israel the right to defend themselves are anti Semites. You are on the side of the Jihadists.
Those who want Israel to be destroyed are anti Semites
Prove it! You don't have a clue what you are talking about. The settlements on the West Bank are not built on property stolen from the Palestinians. They are built on state land. You will suck up any anti Semitic lie you stumble across.
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusalem/jerusalem43.htm
Professor Yosef Katz, senior faculty member in the Geography Department at
Bar Ilan University and author of 13 books on the history of Jewish
settlement policies in the land of Israel during the twentieth century,
delineates the process of how land was acquired for settlement purposes.
"The process of taking possession of the land in the West Bank after 1967
was done in a completely legal fashion. There are three categories for
possession of land in the West Bank and Gaza. The first category is
purchase of land from Arab land owners. This is a completely legal action."
"The second category for taking possession of the land is through what is
called 'administrative territories' - which means state owned lands. These
state owned lands originally belonged to the Turkish government when
Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Empire (over a 400 year period). Meaning
that from the start these were state owned lands - not owned by private
individuals - which passed through various hands depending on who was
ruling Palestine at the time. Afterwards these lands were transferred to
the British when they ruled, then to Jordan when they conquered the
territory in 1948 and finally the state lands became Israel's when the area
was conquered by Israel in 1967."
"Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza on privately owned land, were
encouraged by Israel to continue to hold on to their land and expand,
without Israeli intervention".
So the curfews and the bulldozings, etc. without trials, are just my imagination?
Yada, Yada.
Let them defend themselves, just don't use my tax dollars.
It’s my opinion that old George (who made his speech in the context of criticism for not aiding France in their ongoing war against England, in recognition of their help during the Revolution. As you may or may not know, we ended up taking sides in 1812) would have recognized our loss of oceanic insularity about the time Monroe did.
Looks like I was actually quoting Jefferson's Inaguaral:
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none."
There, did I get that right? Did I interpret it correctly, Professor?
His opinions on America keeping true to her alliances are clear. Sure, clearly your are the bearer of the truth, I’m factually challenged. I’ll let anyone reading this thread draw their own conclusions. ===================================================== As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot…. The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little Political connection as possible.-So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.-Here let us stop…-
Well, look at that. Repeat:
Guess I wasn't so far away from Washington after all. We didn't have an Israel in 1801, did we? Correct me if I am wrong...
So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.-Here let us stop…-
But the areas are ghettos, and there are checkpoints, searches, whatever to and from the rest of Israel. I thought the idea was they could not have 100% autonomy because then they would use the strip as a launching point for an invasion to cut Israel in half militarily.
With US tax dollars and US military arms? And whether or not the Jordanians want the West Bank back or not, it does not seem like a good reason to confer on the people who now live there a second class citizenship status by the government that is effectively in control of the region.
or communists.
Sorry I missed what prompts your levity. Did I find your ancestry in jest? I have to say that most of the pro-Israeli people are among the most rude people on the net. They rank in rudeness with the raw Left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.