Why sooner or later, Palestine must be established - -Part 2

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo
"You know, you are amazing! Offer WHOM a state? Who was there, in place, to speak for these people? With the exception of the UN Partition, there was no talk of a "Palestinian state" until much later - '60s, I believe. "

What about the much cited un-partition-plan of 1948??

"And the Partition did not specify anyone's sovereignty over the Arab part; so for all intents and purposes, Palestinians were to be absorbed into Jordan and Egypt - both Arab countries. No matter how much some of them try to say that they are Canaanites, or whatever, they speak the same language, eat the same food, and look no different from the other Arabs. "

that's not true, palestinians are a distinctive people who also speak arab, it's not because englishmen and Americans both speak english that they are the same people.
The partition plan didn't mention that jordan and Egypt would possess Palestine. by the way if you go to morocco or Iraq, people are very different, eat different food, etc.



"As far as Israel's diplomatic position as the "bad guy" - that was only to USSR (after Israel refused to become their puppet), and the Arab states. France and UK were happy to use Israel's services in 1956, in return for equipment and moral support. "

of course after 1967 this perception became more obvious in Europe, but people saw israel always as an aggressive state established on the blood of other people.

"I don't know what you are reading to get this information, or what you are smoking while reading it, but this is crazy!
No matter what, no matter how, you always manage to make Israel at fault - for EVERYTHING! Like the Isolationer, you are "not open to the Israeli point of view". "

Not when that point of view is totally biased and always points fingers to "the arabs" while never looking in the mirror and assuming its own responsability for what happened.
I said that arab countries and the palestinians made mistakes too, but israel as well.

No comment, except: I don't know what you are reading to get this information, or what you are smoking while reading it, but this is crazy! No matter what, no matter how, you always manage to make Israel at fault - for EVERYTHING! Like the Isolationer, you are "not open to the Israeli point of view

[takeo]

i think i am, i respect israel's right for security.
But you are not open to the palestinian point of view, maybe the consequence of too much one-sided propaganda.

here an (israeli) site to open your view:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/index.html

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo
i think i am, i respect israel's right for security.
But you are not open to the palestinian point of view, maybe the consequence of too much one-sided propaganda.

here an (israeli) site to open your view:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/index.html

I have seen Gush Shalom, I have seen Chomsky's stuff, I have looked at the PLO sites, and Arab media, etc. etc. Amazing amount of time is available when one is on disability (nothing major, just back surgery) and not working. Quite honestly, Shalom Achshav seems like a rather reasonable outfit to me. However, considering the dangers involved in the concessions they propose, and considering that in the worst-case scenario it's not my children who are in danger, I wouldn't become active on their behalf.

I am not against the Palestinians. In high school, one of my best friends was a Palestinian girl. I learned a lot from her, and am very grateful that I knew her.

The things I am not open to are:
1. Outright lies
2. Half-truths
3. Unfairness

I do research for a living, much of it legal research. I go for the source, to see where the information is coming from. My views are based on such research of materials, coming from all sides. These views are colored, I'll admit, by my personal experiences and experiences of the people I know and care about; but just so you know: in my circles, I am known as a "bleeding heart liberal"

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
But you are not open to the palestinian point of view, maybe the consequence of too much one-sided propaganda.

Or, more likely, the consequence of being honest and sane.

[takeo]

ok, newsguy, i know you are as closed to the palestinian point of view as the border between syria and israel, and only 100% pro-israel bias will be considered sane and fair;

ah ok, disability , i hope it's not too serious, i'm not on disability, so i have to quit israel forum for some time to actually work on my computer

I think the worst-case scenario is the military solution proposed by the extreme rightwing as Newsguy and netanyahu;
i think the proposals of the peace-movement are no big risk for israel but a great chance to establish lasting peace.

"The things I am not open to are:
1. Outright lies
2. Half-truths
3. Unfairness "

neither do i, but i discovered more unfairness and lies or half-truth in the israeli point of view, some in the palestinian as well;

"I do research for a living, much of it legal research. I go for the source, to see where the information is coming from. My views are based on such research of materials, coming from all sides. These views are colored, I'll admit, by my personal experiences and experiences of the people I know and care about; but just so you know: in my circles, I am known as a "bleeding heart liberal"

me too, but more from a historical point of view, but my methods are the same as yours.
i think you're quite liberal too, at least compared to most posters here. what do you mean "bleeding heart"?
in my circles i'm known as a moderate leftist.