Has the USA finally had enough of Israel's foot dragging and obstruction?

[Flash Walken]

Harvard did a survey.

Case closed I guess.

[mykalberta]

Even though I despise Neil Macdonald from CBC, he has an ok article on cbc.ca

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/0...macdonald.html

[Pastiche]

Why do you despise Neil MacDonald of all people?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

I guess the concepts of sarcasm and exageration are lost on some people.

You would know.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You would know.

I know you are but what am I?

Really? Is that what it comes down to? Hilarious.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Harvard did a survey.

Case closed I guess.

What exactly is your point?

That Arabs aren't living peacefully in Israel?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Hey Nage. Why was there never any terrorist attacks anywhere prior to 1948?

There were plenty of terrorist attacks prior to 1948. It was actually quite in fasion for communist parties to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of....E2.80.931940s

Beyond grivences with Israel there are a lot of things that have contributed to increases in terrorism in the middle east.

Wahhabism spread greatly. You also had modernization and population explosions in the middle east.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

BZZZT

Wrong. Israel is a theocratic Jewish state enshrined in their laws.

Israel is a Jewish state, but it's no more a Jewish theocracy than Canada is a Christian theocracy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by blankall

Israel is a Jewish state, but it's no more a Jewish theocracy than Canada is a Christian theocracy.

You missed the BZZZZT part.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

What exactly is your point?

That Arabs aren't living peacefully in Israel?

*sigh*

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Sure, as long as they're not from Palestine.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You missed the BZZZZT part.

The interwebs are serious business. No room for BZZZZT

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by blankall

There were plenty of terrorist attacks prior to 1948. It was actually quite in fasion for communist parties to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of....E2.80.931940s

Beyond grivences with Israel there are a lot of things that have contributed to increases in terrorism in the middle east.

Wahhabism spread greatly. You also had modernization and population explosions in the middle east.

All your link does is prove my point. Terrorism didn't arrive in the middle east until 1946 when jewish terrorists attacked the King David hotel in Jerusalem then a few years later at the Deir Yassin massacre. All this proves is terrorism is generally driven by political gains as opposed to radical religious ones.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

All your link does is prove my point. Terrorism didn't arrive in the middle east until 1946 when jewish terrorists attacked the King David hotel in Jerusalem then a few years later at the Deir Yassin massacre. All this proves is terrorism is generally driven by political gains as opposed to radical religious ones.

Radical religious goals and political goals are almost always the same thing. In this case terrrorists want to establish a Muslim state in what is now a Jewish one. It's simultaneously a political and religious goal. I'm not sure where this separation between the two exists.

This line becomes especially blurred in the context of Wahhabism and the Iranian theocracy where religious and political leaders are the same people.

As for terrorism in the middle east, it was going on long before 1946.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud

Not that I am condoning it but the Deir Yassin masacre has to be looked at in context. At the time there was various massacres of Jewish populations all over the middle east. It's arguable wether Deir Yassin represented methods of warfare in the region at the time or it was just done out of revenge.

[Coys1882]

Can anyone recommend a good resource to get caught up on what's going on in the Middle East, specifically the ever ongoing saga with Israel. I really would like something that is as neutral as possible though.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Can anyone recommend a good resource to get caught up on what's going on in the Middle East, specifically the ever ongoing saga with Israel. I really would like something that is as neutral as possible though.

Good luck with that.

Honestly, I think your best bet is probably Wikipedia. That is policed by both sides. Any other resource is going to be massively titled towards one side.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by blankall

Good luck with that.

Honestly, I think your best bet is probably Wikipedia. That is policed by both sides. Any other resource is going to be massively titled towards one side.

I figured as much - seems like it might be a good project for an author who has no ties to either side. Thanks anyway.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by bcb

There's no history. It's annoying that a certain few posters are quick to (a) post threads condemning Israel for very trivial reasons, and (b) preface their misguided opinions by stating they aren't against Jews.

I really don't know if _Q_ is antisemitic or not, but I don't think his views would make him many friends in the Jewish Community.

Wow. This post takes things to an extreme. Forget 'you have your side and i have mine'. This post is 'you have no side so STFU'.

And people want peace in the Middle East? We can't even debate an article criticizing Israel without anti-semetism allegations, or accusing people of being misguided for taking a certain stance.

You have no right to speak about democracy if you can't even hear out someone's opinion.

[PyramidsofMars]

nm

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

BZZZT

Wrong. Israel is a theocratic Jewish state enshrined in their laws.

They have a system of laws and rights based around Judaism, but that doesn't make them a theocratic state. They are a secular democracy with a moderately influential religious lobby - not unlike many other western style democracies. For example, the U.S. and Turkey both have secular states whose politicians occasionally have to appease the religious contingents.

At one point, not long ago, the largest recipient of military aid from the U.S. was Turkey. Interesting fact.

Interesting, but not really that surprising when you think about it. Turkey is a NATO ally and was a major staging ground for the Iraq war. I believe they are also considered an ally of Israel. They are also building a Disneyland in Turkey (interesting but irrelevant fact).

Coincidentally, the U.S. support of Turkey is a prime example of how we often ally with countries that have contraversial pasts. They have had conflicts with their Armenian and Kurd minorities that make the Israelis and Palestinians look like bussom buddies. I like Turkey and think they are a good country to be allied with, but I am just making the point that Israel isn't a lone case as far as being a contraversial ally goes.

[FlamingStuffedTiger]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm normally pretty pro-Israel but find the idea of the settlements pretty distasteful.

Arguing about East Jerusalem is a little pointless at this time though. Regardless of who is right or wrong, the Israeli policies have resulted in facts being changed on the ground. If the Palestinians really wanted the 1967 borders then they should have accepted them in 1967 instead of attacking their neighbours. I think ultimately what you will see is a land swap, with arab majorities in the North of Israel as opposed to a return to the 1967 borders.

Although I think Israel should do their best job to return as much land to the Palestinians, I also see the Israeli point that they fought for the land in a defensive war. If my neighbour tried to invade me and I was able to push them back I wouldn't want to give everything back and sit there waiting for the next invasion. In that sense the settlements are a stront strategical move, both physically in that they create a buffer between the arabs and the main parts of jerusalem and as far as bargaining goes.

Had the Palestinians persued peaceful negotiations from the get go, things may have been different.

We should all remember what happened the last time Israel withdrew unilaterally from a territory. The local population elected Hamas and spent the next few years launching rockets into Israel. Essentially forcing Israel to evacuate the bottom part of the country. Now Israel is being asked to abandon a territory that woudl give these rockets access to Israel's major cities.

Anyways to get back on topic, I think that Israel was showing extremely poor judgement. Or at least that is how it looks.

Like I said earlier, I think this whole "diplomatic row" may just be a sham to improve Israel's bargaining posture:

1) it gives Israel another thing to throw away during bargaining. These settlements are not going to happen for several years anyway. So Israel can throw them in as an act of goodwill for the meantime. if negotiations fall apart they can start construction.

2) It gives the US the image they are playing hard ball with Israel. It makes the US seem like a fair negotiator even though nothing has changed.

I pretty much agree with your post. I'm sure that there are also some internal political pressures at play as well. Many of the Orthodox Jews have long been in favor of the settlement project and I'm sure that the government would face some backlash if they were to bow to international pressure here. Because of this, I'm really waiting on the Israel's final stance on all of this before I make up my mind about what it all means. In any case, as far as I can tell, its a pretty messy situation over there