Israel under attack from hamas, war declared.

[tamada]

wack-a-doo anti-semite..

Interesting read here:

https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/232119

Very interesting. Thanks js.

[Udon Map]

wack-a-doo anti-semite..

Interesting read here:

https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/232119

Very interesting. Thanks js.

Ugh. The author of the linked piece is anything but objective. He's the executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights. In this piece he engages in the unfortunately common intellectual dishonesty of taking part of a quotation out of context and saying that it means something different from what the original author said. In this case, he references these words of Balfour:

The weak point of our position of course is that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination.

But continuing in the same paragraph of Balfour's statement, the author omitted these words:

If the present inhabitants were consulted they would unquestionably give an anti-Jewish verdict. . . . we conceive the Jews to have an historic claim to a home in their ancient land . . . .

That gets us to the question of who was there first. Does anyone here really want to have that conversation again?

[jackspratt]

My post arose from looking further at FDK's use of "anti-semite".

And why I suggested the link was an interesting read was the fact it showed Balfour to be a virulent anti-semite, as well as racist. And even more so, the statement that the Declaration was not so much about getting the Jews to Israel, but rather, keeping them away from the UK. Very Kissinger-like.

I agree - there is little point in further discussing who was where, and when. The problem is now.

[Udon Map]

I agree - there is little point in further discussing who was where, and when. The problem is now.

Except, I suppose, to the extent that the claim of the Palestinians (and those who support them) is that the area in question rightfully belongs to the Palestinians because it has always been Palestinian, and that the Jews are occupiers imposed on them by Balfour and the U.N. If the determining factor regarding who's entitled to the area in question is who was there first, that raises a number of problematic facts for the Palestinians and their supporters. That could be one of the reasons that one doesn't hear that argument as much any more, it's not one which the Palestinians and their supporters can win.

What I meant by asking the question was that it has been discussed ad nauseam.

[Khun Paul]

Yhr question no-one has ever asked is priopr to BAlfour and his deliberations and spereatio etc, what would have happened to the Area known as Pal;estine , Would all teh then residents Jews aas well as ARabs,coexisted peacefully as hey had done for centuries, or,would the area been subjected to a genocide.

THe western Powers ( those who won WW 1 and their all;ies happly divided up an area and everyone pretended to be happy, had they actually just said okay sort it out yourselves, what would be the situation now.
WE deal with the sins of our fathers and it is costing us lives and money` .....Why, ????

[rick]

So the conflict began in 1947/48. Up to that point there was no conflict. So the Arab. / Jewish issues started back then when for some reason I can't fathom the UN decided to start the middle east conflicts. Sad to see some try to change the narrative. The issue is not Jews and Muslim , if it was the Jews would be facing Muslims from every country around the world declaring war on them. It's about Israel and Palestine and the occupation . accusations about a dead guy might have sexually assaulted someone is sad, when the UN has reported that babies have now died of starvation. Ask a holocaust survivor what it's like to die of starvation.

The conflict didn't start in 1947. It started a hundred years ago when Jewish Zionist settlers moved to Palestine under the British mandate. The 1920's and 30's were a time of poverty in Palestine, where most of the Palestinians were farmers. They sold their land to pay off debts, the new settlers had some money. Many farmers ended up homeless.

Tensions developed between the new settlers and the Palestinians. An Arab revolt against British rule started in 1936 and lasted until 1939, demanding independence and an end to Jewish migration and land purchase. It is claimed up to 10% of Palestinian men died during the revolt, which was ruthlessly put down - the British troops were helped by Jewish militias. A white paper was issued towards the end of the revolt which effectively banned sale of land to a non-Arab in 95% of Palestine and restricted Jewish migration. The Zionists rejected this, and Jewish militias then started a terrorist campaign against the British and the Arabs. Then WW2 intervened.

The UN partition deal in 1947 gave The Jews 56% of the land, although they made up only about one third of the population. Naturally the Arabs were not happy. Civil war then started, which the Jews won, driving out many of the Arabs from the areas they took control of.

And that led to 75 years of Israel being armed and supported by Western Europe and the United States, the Palestinians got - nothing. And then you wonder why the conflict never ends?

[tamada]

My post arose from looking further at FDK's use of "anti-semite".

And why I suggested the link was an interesting read was the fact it showed Balfour to be a virulent anti-semite, as well as racist. And even more so, the statement that the Declaration was not so much about getting the Jews to Israel, but rather, keeping them away from the UK. Very Kissinger-like.

I agree - there is little point in further discussing who was where, and when. The problem is now.

So the dog whistle 'Balfour was a racist' worked.

Looks like he was more NIMBY than racist to me.

[tamada]

Pouring cold water o the current slew of allegations regarding a UN agency, for years and almost since its inception various factions have used UN agencies for a variety of reasons some of them are at best dubious .

Access to Internationally accepted information is greatly sought after for those intent on causing havoc,more so when it is known that HAMS will do anything to spread words and hide people within acceptable schemes.. There is no doubt in my mind that often many working for these agencies have a desire to help the people involved but often blind eyes are turned to facilitate their endeavours.
Like the policeman with his snitch, the waters are muddied and so it is regarding this allegation . Who are we to say it really happened, those that know will never tell and HAMAS certainly will not as the UNRWA is a tool they use to assist them often unwittingly .

Interesting read here:

https://www.newsweek.com/fresh-evidence ... on-1876258

[Udon Map]

The conflict didn't start in 1947. It started a hundred years ago when Jewish Zionist settlers moved to Palestine under the British mandate.

While that's a very convenient perspective for Israel's opponents, the Jews have been there for thousands of years, dating at least back to Abraham. There are numerous archaeological sites in the area where coins and writing in Hebrew have been found, and which have been scientifically dated to thousands of years ago. Where are the archaeological finds of Palestinian civilizations in Israel?

And if the Palestinians were there first and "Jewish Zionist settlers moved to Palestine under the British mandate" a hundred years ago, how is it that Al Aqsa is built on top of the western wall of the ancient Jewish temple and not the other way around?

And there's nothing like a visual:

[tamada]

More interesting reading here:

https://www.cfr.org/blog/ending-unrwa-a ... cing-peace

[jackspratt]

The solution to closing down UNRWA is spelt "Two State".

In the meantime ......

[Udon Map]

The solution to closing down UNRWA is spelt "Two state".

. . . which might be a real possibility if the Palestinians accepted Israel's right to exist. But in order to do that, they'd have to get rid of Hamas, the expressly stated purpose of which is to kill Jews and eliminate all Jews from existence. Figure that one out, jackspratt, and you'll be on to something.

[jackspratt]

Following the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and the subsequent Israel–Hamas war, multiple governments renewed the long-dormant idea of a two-state solution. This received serious pushback from Israel's government, especially from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Intergovernmental bodies supporting a two-state solution
G7

In the statement issued after their virtual meeting of 6 December 2023, the Leaders of the G7 wrote that they are "committed to a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution that enables both Israelis and Palestinians to live in a just, lasting, and secure peace."[79]

European Union

Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, wrote on 15 November 2023: "We need to work with our regional partners towards [...] the two-state solution [...] it remains the only viable way to bring peace to the region."[80]

In her address to the G20 leaders on 22 November 2023, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, said: "We have to [...] work for a two-state solution. This is the only way to ensure lasting peace for Israeli and Palestinian people as neighbours."[81]

Governments supporting a two-state solution

United States
President Joe Biden has made numerous statements in favour of the two-state solution,[82] as have Secretary of State Antony Blinken[82] and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.[83]

China
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi has stated that "China calls for [...] the formulation of a specific timetable and road map for the implementation of the 'two-state solution'".[84]

Germany
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called for a two-state solution,[85][86] as has Minister of Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock.[87]

United Kingdom
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary David Cameron, have strongly advocated a two-state solution.[88] David Cameron and German Minister of Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock published a joint statement, supporting a two-state solution.[87] Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, has stated that his party is "strongly in favour of a two-state solution".[89]

France
President Emmanuel Macron has advocated a two-state solution.[90]

Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and New Zealand's Prime Minister Christopher Luxon have issued a joint statement, saying "We recommit ourselves to [...] a just and enduring peace in the form of a two-state solution".[91]

Saudi Arabia
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal Bin Farhan has said that Saudi Arabia would be interested in a normalisation deal with Israel that is linked to a two-state solution.[92]


Governments opposing a two-state solution
Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly and emphatically rejected a two-state solution.[93][94]

Non-governmental supporters of a two-state solution
Israel

Ehud Barak, Israel's Prime Minister from 1999 to 2001 and Minister of Defense from 2007 to 2013, told TIME on 6 November 2023 that "The right way is to look to the two-state solution".[95]

Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister from 2006 to 2009, told Politico on 16 October 2023 that the two-state solution "is the only real political solution for this lifelong conflict".[96] On 6 November 2023, he told CBC that "a two-state solution should still be the goal of the Israeli government".[97]

Ami Ayalon, the head of Israel's Shin Bet internal security service from 1995 to 2000, said on 14 January 2024 in an interview with The Guardian that "Israel will not have security until Palestinians have their own state".[98]

Interviewed by Ezra Klein on 8 December 2023, Nimrod Novik, a member of the executive committee of Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS), reiterated the CIS's view that the two-state solution is "the only solution that [...] serves Israel’s security and well-being long-term."[99]
North America

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has strongly supported President Biden's calls for a two-state solution and criticised Prime Minister Netanyahu's opposition.[100]

Twenty-seven former Jewish leaders of organizations including AIPAC, the Jewish Agency for Israel, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Union for Reform Judaism, wrote a letter to President Biden on 14 December 2023, calling for a "steadfast US commitment to the pursuit of two states for two peoples".[101][102]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

[Udon Map]

Following the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and the subsequent Israel–Hamas war, multiple governments renewed the long-dormant idea of a two-state solution. This received serious pushback from Israel's government, especially from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

More "But Israel . . . ."

Would your home country have much interest in co-existing with a neighbor, the rulers of which have stated that their goal is to eliminate your country?

Would your home country have much interest in co-existing with a neighbor which has been firing rockets at population centers in your country daily for a decade or more?

Would your home country have much interest in co-existing with a neighbor which invaded your country, murdered ~1,200 people and took a couple of hundred civilians hostage?

You don't seem to have much of a problem with Hamas' goal of eliminating all Jews, or its efforts to realize that goal. Fix that and a two state structure becomes eminently doable.

[jackspratt]

No, my country would be smart enough to figure out this has been going on for far too long, and it's time to negotiate a (Two State) solution.

You don't seem to have much of a problem with Hamas' goal of eliminating all Jews, or its efforts to realize that goal.

You really ought to be better than that.

[Udon Map]

No, my country would be smart enough to figure out this has been going on for far too long, and it's time to negotiate a (Two State) solution.

It's difficult to negotiate with a group that is bent on your destruction.

You don't seem to have much of a problem with Hamas' goal of eliminating all Jews, or its efforts to realize that goal.

You really ought to be better than that.

Perhaps, but you always seem to find that it's Israel's fault, you always point to Israel as the impediment to peace. Perhaps you haven't heard, -- Israel accepted the most recent peace/ceasefire proposal made by Egypt and Qatar. Hamas rejected it.

But Israel . . . .

[Khun Paul]

Sadly proven nad carefully kept archival documentation was not kept regarding the religious mix and at how the MUSLIMS AND THE JEWS really lived and co-habited following 1 AD.Therefore the precise moment the Jews became a thorn in the side of some Muslim factions is unclear.
Suffice to say history teaches us ( for those that are capable of learning from history ) that a Religious enmity is one of the hardest to quell or even obtain a compromise.
THE USA Mayflower occupants were fleeing England for religious freedom and look at what that spawned. These days unlike for our forebears information good and bad is now so quickly disseminated that as soon as you get your head around one problem a contrary view is spawned and what was a nothing problem turns into a global problem.

Harder when certain groups actually publish their aims, changing such an idealistic viewpoint is nigh on impossible .
Sadly this will continue as we saw with WW 11 where a complete destruction of one particular organisation stopped it, but the cost was horrendous to life in general. .

this is something none of us wish to reoccur.

[tamada]

No, my country would be smart enough to figure out this has been going on for far too long, and it's time to negotiate a (Two State) solution.

It's difficult to negotiate with a group that is bent on your destruction.

You don't seem to have much of a problem with Hamas' goal of eliminating all Jews, or its efforts to realize that goal.

You really ought to be better than that.

Perhaps, but you always seem to find that it's Israel's fault, you always point to Israel as the impediment to peace. Perhaps you haven't heard, -- Israel accepted the most recent peace/ceasefire proposal made by Egypt and Qatar. Hamas rejected it.

But Israel . . . .

This just in ..

Chuck Schumer restates the bloody obvious.

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-791998

[Udon Map]

Chuck Schumer restates the bloody obvious.

Agreed. Time for elections.

[tamada]

Chuck Schumer restates the bloody obvious.

Agreed. Time for elections.

American and/or Israeli?

Biden is an avowed and unwavering supporter of Israel. It's in his DNA. He's taking a hammering in the polls and in the House on this stance. However, his exasperation with Netanyahu still appears to be boundless.

What's Trump's real position? It's only been about 10 days since he stopped the previous flim-flam about Hamas being 'smart' and stated that Israel must “finish the problem”. Outwith his irrelevant and superfluous claims that the Hamas atrocity would never have happened if he had been president, what will (or can) he actually do?

As for Israel's government, it seems to lurch from one unholy alliance to another with Bibi being the only part of these coalitions and minority governments that we ever hear from. Does he still think that he can be eventually placed in that pantheon of respected, centrist leaders like Meir, Rabin or Peres? The Abraham Accords got him closer, but that appears to have been undermined by Hamas's attack and Israel's response. Personally, I consider he's beyond his use-by date, but that could just be my bibi-fatigue. But, if he goes, who does that leave 'in charge'?