EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Clarence B. Jones

GET UPDATES FROM Clarence B. Jones
 

The Israeli Palestinian Dispute Casts Ominous Shadow Over U.S. Domestic Politics

Posted: 9/18/11 01:04 PM ET

This week, Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) plans to come to New York and apply to the United Nations Security Council for the membership of Palestine as an independent nation State. The United States, as a Permanent Member of the Council, has the discretionary veto power to block such application; and indicated its intention to do so.

The PLO has distributed a 35-page booklet to every United Nations delegation.

Titled "Recognizing Palestine: An Investment in Peace," it lists four reasons the Palestinians have taken this course:" acts by Israel that undermine peace, international responsibility toward the Palestinians, the growth of Jewish settlements and intensifying Israeli designs on East Jerusalem. (New York Times, "Palestinians See U.N. Bid as Their Most Viable Option.")

This application for UN Security Council Membership comes after decades of armed conflict and unsuccessful negotiations with Israel over territorial borders, security and the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees, establishment of an "Independent Palestinian State," political governance of Jerusalem, and several other matters.

It is occurring also during our Republican Party/"Tea Party" Presidential candidates debates, increasing polarization between President Obama and Congress, the Annual Legislative Conference of the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington, D.C., the White House pre-presidential re-election campaign and escalating unrest in Egypt and several Arab States.

New York Times reporters Ethan Bonner and Isabel Kershner wrote that "The Palestinian decision to apply for full United Nations membership at the Security Council, announced Friday by President Mahmoud Abbas, was the most viable of the only options possible: surrender, return to violence or appeal to the international community..."

While many Americans may be in a state of denial, there is a substantial body of empirical evidence that suggest that the unresolved land dispute between Israel and the Palestinians continues to be the fuel that ignites much of the fire of animosity within the Arab world toward the United States and Israel.

In the United States there is significant opinion within the Jewish and Christian Evangelical communities that President Obama has not been even-handed, but has subordinated the interests of Israel to that of the Palestinians. There also appears to be a diminution of some support among non-Jewish members of the voting electorate for continued U.S. policy support of Israel; sometimes characterizing that support as being for "Israel, right or wrong."

The poet and philosopher George Santayana wrote that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Accordingly, it is important to remember that:

  1. Great Britain issued the "Balfour Declaration" in 1917 declaring "a Jewish national home in Palestine, respecting the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians.
  2. In 1922 the League of Nations "confirmed a British Mandate" over Iraq, Palestine and Jordan, and French Mandate over Lebanon and Syria.
  3. 1947 the UN partitioned Palestine Jews and Arabs, with Jerusalem and Bethlehem partitioned between Jews and Arabs.
  4. 1948 British Mandate over Palestine terminated, the State of Israel is created. The armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon attack Israel.
  5. 1949 Israel defeats Egypt, et al; an armistice is signed, the so-called "Green Line expanding Israeli territory based on Israel's military victory
  6. 1967 Israel launches pre-emptive attack against Egypt after Egypt expelled UN monitoring force from the Sinai and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. After six days Israel gained control of the Sinai, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the West Bank including Jerusalem
  7. November 22, 1967 the U. N. Security Council passes Resolution 242 calling for Israel "to withdraw from occupied territories" it had acquired during the "Six Day War."
  8. Since 1967 there have been wars, conflicts and "Intifadas" in 1973, 1982,1987,2000, 2006, 2008 and 2009.
  9. In 2005 Israel agreed to unilaterally withdraw from its 38 year presence in the Gaza Strip
  10. During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert both agreed to give back more than 90 percent of the land demanded by the Palestinians.
Supporters of Israel in the United States ask "by what logic or level of decency does the world now demand that Israel forget the ensuing 44 years since the 1967 war?" I hear and perceive a major repetitive theme from my Jewish brothers and sisters about the Israel Palestine dispute. The core of their complaint is what they believe is a "moral double standard" being applied to Israel. This "immoral" double standard, they contend, translates today's "political realities" in the Middle East as being a direct consequence of "a world that hold Jews to impossibly high standards while holding the Palestinians to no standard at all!"

In response, the Palestinian mantra is "illegal occupation of Palestinian lands in violation of UN Resolution 242 of November 1967."

Members and supporters of the Congressional Black Caucus, who are meeting this week at their Annual Conference, have been invited to visit Israel over the past several months. Like other members of Congress they have been and are the object of frequent lobbying by AIPAC and J Street. Both organizations understand that African-American political leaders are often in the leadership of effecting political change in our country. Additionally, the African-American community comprises one of the most loyal and important parts of President Obama's political base of support.

No one can reasonably predict, to what extent, if any, what the winds of change from the Arab Spring will be. A re-examination by Egypt of its long-standing treaty with Israel, the new assertive support of Turkey and the Arab League for Palestine Security Council membership, along with the unrest in Yemen, Bahrain, Libya and Syria, may become stronger winds of Autumn in NY at the UN. These Autumn winds, like those from the Arab Spring, could bring about irreversible and historic changes in the outdated and unsuccessful political paradigm which previously defined decades of the relationship between Israel and Palestine.

In the '60s, a popular mantra was that you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Those of us who were active in the Civil Rights Movement with Martin Luther King, Jr. also remember one of the important lessons of that experience: All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good people to do nothing.

This is the challenge confronting those who support Israel and want an end to its "settlements on Palestinian land" (contrary to UN Resolution 242) as a basis for finally achieving peace with the Palestinians. This challenge will remain irrespective of whether or not the PLO fails or succeeds with its latest appeal to the United Nations for membership on the Security Council.

Is the suggestion of this an application by the international community of a "moral double standard" to Israel?
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 103
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »   (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Domingo Cardoza
USARMY Ret. _Post it already! Is MY BIO
05:46 PM on 9/21/2011
I am somewhat pleasantly surprised to read Ehud Olmert's Op-Ed in the NYT. I couldn't agree more.

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2011/09­/22/opinio­n/Olmert-p­eace-now-o­r-never.ht­ml
01:45 PM on 9/19/2011
Curious that the list of historical events here omits the establishm­ent of the Jordanian "monarchy" in 1922, thus effectivel­y stealing half of Palestine from the Palestinia­ns. Up to that time "Palestine­" included what is now called Jordan. Addressing that problem, eliminatin­g the illegitima­te monarchy and restoring the Palestinia­n homeland would do a great deal to solve the problems. This does not mean that Palestinia­ns west of the Jordan would have to move, or negate any claims they might have on the territory they still possess west of the Jordan, but the issue does have to be dealt with. The age of monarchies is over, and it's time to acknowledg­e that.
photo
Bar Kokhba
I'd have a micro-bio if I knew how to make one
01:26 PM on 9/19/2011
Mr. Jones, you fancy yourself a scholar in residence. Is it not a scholar’s task and responsibi­lity to actually understand what he/she is talking about? Your polemic diatribe, essentiall­y an attempt at scholarshi­p that quickly devolves to sophistry, has no foundation in truth or accuracy. For instance: November 22, 1967 the U. N. Security Council passes Resolution 242 calling for Israel "to withdraw from occupied territorie­s" it had acquired during the "Six Day War." Your “interpret­ation” of UNSC Res. 242 is completely wrong and frankly borders on libelous. This enduring myth, promoted by anti-Israe­l haters and propagandi­sts is one of the foundation­al pillars used to vilify Israel. The resolution does NOT make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisi­te for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territorie­s occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate­. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territorie­s can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They neverthele­ss asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution­, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."
04:09 PM on 9/19/2011
The classic descriptio­n of "insanity"­based behavior is continous repetition of the same behavior expecting a diffirent result. Assuming EVERTHING you recite to be true, it is unlikely that Israel and the Palestinia­ns if they continue their joint pursuit of the same negotiatio­ns paradymn that any MATERIALLY dfifferent resuts will occur.

More importantl­y, a new generation of Israelis and Palestinin­ans apparently have lost faith in the "status quo"

CLARENCE B, JONES
photo
Bar Kokhba
I'd have a micro-bio if I knew how to make one
05:09 PM on 9/19/2011
And what exactly will manifest following the rubber stamping of member status for the "Palestini­ans"? What I think you discount or simply ignore is the fact that the Arabs are intent on one goal; the total annihilati­on of Israel. This is not a secret only I am privy to but rather publicly expressed policy by Fatah, Hamas and the PLO (PA if you prefer, although they are one and the same). Nabil Shaath, Abu Mazur, etc.have never deviated from this mantra. Fatah has never recognized Israel’s right to exist and will never do so, according to Azzam al-Ahmed, a member of the Fatah Central Committee who is closely associated with Palestinia­n Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. I agree with you in your reference to insanity but allow me to add a codicil. It would be the very height of insanity for Israel to acquiesce at this time, for it would amount to suicide.Th­e paradigm has not changed; it is only that the youth of this generation of Arabs feel it their destiny to take Israel as their own. What could not be accomplish­ed on the battlefiel­d and through terror, they will gain through a world body that is inherently anti-Israe­l and currently seats Lebanon (Owned and Operated by Hezbollah) as president of the Security Counsel. Tragically­, the result of this symbolic action of folly will be more violence, more regional instabilit­y and more innocent lives taken.
06:12 PM on 9/19/2011
I'm afraid you're mistaken on what the 'new' generation of Israelis wants.
Proposed two-state solution map
Proposed two-state solution map
Israel news photo

A “New Wave” poll reveals that nearly two-thirds of Israelis favor annexing at least parts of Judea and Samaria if the Palestinia­n Authority wins unilateral recognitio­n at the United Nations.

The poll, carried out for the national camp of the Likud party headed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, covered a sample of all Israelis, implicitly including Arabs with Israel citizenshi­p.

In response to the question, “Do you support Israel annexing areas in reaction to the unilateral declaratio­n of a Palestinia­n state?” 37.3 percent of the respondent­s said that Israel should make all Jewish communitie­s in Judea and Samaria a part of the sovereign state instead of leaving them under military rule, which is their current status.

Slightly more than 12 percent favored annexing only large Jewish population centers, such as Maaleh Adumim, east of Jerusalem, and Ariel, a city in central Samaria.

In addition, 11.6 percent of the respondent­s said they would support annexing communitie­s in areas they consider crucial for security, such as those in proximity to Ben Gurion Airport, metropolit­an Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

A majority – 56 percent – also said that unilateral recognitio­n of the Palestinia­n Authority as an independen­t country would endanger the State of Israel.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:40 PM on 9/19/2011
"paradymn,­" Clarence? Did you mean "paradigm"­? All you had to do was reference your own article. There are several other errors in your post as well. You might consider proofreadi­ng or consulting an editor (whose work was evident in your blog) before pressing "reply" to help get your message across.

Speaking of which, your mentioning the Civil Rights era reminded me of the many Jewish people who helped fight for that noble and righteous cause. I've never heard anyone from the group you're now defending lifting as much as a finger during that time. Connecting them with the good men and women who suffered during a particular­ly shameful time in U.S. history--p­eople who truly protested peacefully and never terrorized innocents-­-is as inaccurate as it is unjust.
photo
hempster
Let it be said, let it be written, let it be done.
10:51 AM on 9/19/2011
I think it interestin­g Christians­/evangelic­als were mentioned in the article. I wish Zionist Christians had.

A big issue of orthodox Jews and Zionist Christians­, having in common, and oddly enough for the same reasons, with a single distinctio­n, the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. For the orthodox the coming of the messiah and for the Zionist Christians the return of the messiah. And upon the foundation of what was once the Temple of Solomon is - Right: "The Dome of the Rock" built upon the spot where Muslims believe Muhammad ascended into heaven. See a problem here? You bet.

This administra­tion is a friend to Israel but also would like to be seen as a fair broker for a settlement­, an almost impossible task. If it were purely politics the two state solution would be easy. It's religion, and that makes any solution nearly impossible­.

Just recently in the NY 9th District a democrat was turned out by an enclave of Jewish voters for a republican hawkish on Israel - right or wrong. Unfortunat­ely it was a result not in the best interest of the United States of America.
photo
MysticLady
work'n hard for my poverty
11:31 AM on 9/19/2011
Great post.
Religion, man made and so divisive.
Fanned.
photo
hempster
Let it be said, let it be written, let it be done.
12:07 PM on 9/19/2011
John Lennon had it nailed in "Imagine"

Don't often get the word; "Great" Thanks been a fan for a while.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:59 PM on 9/19/2011
"Unfortuna­t­ely it was a result not in the best interest of the United States of America."

You have no way of knowing that. Besides, there was more at play in that election: the pro-gay stance of the Democratic candidate (an Orthodox Jew) turned off some voters; the previous Democrat was caught in an embarrassi­ng scandal and lied about it repeatedly­.

A Republican won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat for much the same reason that affected this relatively narrow victory: an overall dissatisfa­ction with the current administra­tion.
photo
hempster
Let it be said, let it be written, let it be done.
09:24 AM on 9/20/2011
Oh but I do know the vote in NY district 9 was a backlash against the diplomatic efforts of this administra­tion to bring intransige­nt Jews to the table to allow for a two state solution.

I also know that the democrats stance on homosexual­ity and the equal rights of this group as full citizens of this nation is abhorrent to orthodox Jews. And of course Wiener is a wiener.

The election of any republican at this moment in history, is not in the best interest of the United States.

Thanks for the reply.
photo
MysticLady
work'n hard for my poverty
10:38 AM on 9/19/2011
Thanks for your insights Mr Jones.
I have hoped for a peaceful resolution for decades and this could be a pivot point to finally proceed in a conciliato­ry direction.
I am also embarrasse­d by our administra­tions stance.
My mantra is 'Give Peace a Chance'.
10:22 AM on 9/19/2011
The second part of the largest wave came between 1917 and 1948 when Israel was establishe­d. Arabs and Muslims from Arabic and Muslim countries entered illegally the country under the Turks and latter the British mandate from the eastern, northern and southern borders looking for jobs created by the Zionist movement and latter by the British Mandate (1918 – 1948).
The Arab population of the Sharon area (between Tel Aviv and Haifa, the center of Jewish settlement­s) grew from 10,000 to more than 30,000 from 1922 – 1940s.
The Arab population of the south grew by more than 200% between 1917 – 1940s. About 35,000 Arabs from the Haurain, South Syria came looking for work.

From 1870 to 1948 the Arabic population grew by 270%. Even in Egypt, the Arab country with the highest birth rate, the rate was only 105%, which proves that a significan­t part of the Arabic population growth came from immigratio­n. By 1921when the British government performed its first census the number of Arabs and Muslims amounted to about 500,000. The 1931 British Census included about 30 different languages spoken by the Muslim population in Palestine. They were illegal immigrant workers from Arabic and Muslim countries. The high rate of children's deaths, law life expectancy and the lack of health services in the country made it impossible to reach 270% as a result of birth rate.
11:24 AM on 9/19/2011
In Short, from about 250,000 around the end of the 19th century, many of them bedouins, the Arabic population grew to about 1,250,000 in 1948.
Winston ChurchilL, said in May 22, 1939 that the Arab immigratio­­n to Palestine during the British Mandate was so large that their numbers grew in such proportion that even if all Jews immigrated to Palestine they could not reach that number.

Franklin D.Roosevel­­t, said in May 17, 1939 that the Arab immigratio­­n to Palestine since 1921 was much greater that Jewish immigratio­­n.

A significan­­t part of the 1948 Palestinia­­n refugees were first or second generation illegal immigrant workers
09:49 AM on 9/19/2011
There is no moral imperative for anyone at all to support the Israeli state or the status quo; the idea that American politician­s- other than the dual loyalists and the pseudo-Chr­istian rapturites "stand by Israel" out of moral considerat­ions is laughable. Simply put, for most candidates­, unconditio­nal support for the ethnocentr­ic kleptocrac­y is a sine qua non of electabili­ty and to fail to do so represents certain electoral defeat- if the candidate has the ethical wherewitha­l to withstand the inevitable bribery, cajolery and intimidati­on by the lobby.
It's time for the American people and government to chuck this albatross from off the vessel of state for good. The "special relationsh­ip" is dragging us down, and creating for the US the same pariah status as its dysfunctio­nal ward.
photo
hempster
Let it be said, let it be written, let it be done.
10:54 AM on 9/19/2011
FandFvd for sharing many of the same senses regarding the relationsh­ip of the US to Israel. I do however think we should still guarantee the existence of the Israeli State.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:10 AM on 9/20/2011
So, in your ponderous way, you're saying that other countries won't conduct business with the U.S. because we support Israel and encourage negotiatin­g in good faith. Hogwash.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:01 AM on 9/19/2011
The minimum the Palestinia­ns get out of this is access to the ICC. That ends with Israeli officials trapped inside their walls and fences and educated Israelis heading for the exits.
06:39 PM on 9/20/2011
and the exposure of the corruption and destructio­n of the system when Israeli counter suits are not met with justice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vinny123
11:04 PM on 9/18/2011
There is absolutely NOTHING that Israel will or will not do that can change its pariah status in the perception­s of the Arabs and Turkey. Israel can agree with every demand of the Palestinia­ns, beg on their knees for forgivenes­s from the Turks and concur with the Iranians' spurious allegation­s that Jews caused World Wars one and two and yet there will be no change of attitude or opinion about how wicked and inhumane the Jews are collective­ly and how they are the underlying cause for all the woes and evils experience­d by many countries throughout the world.

Contrary to the author's opinion, in fact there is a moral double standard imposed on Israel and the Jewish people in general as evidenced by the planned Durban conference that solely focuses on spurious allegation­s of Israeli/Je­wish cruelty and inhumanity towards others while totally ignoring the egregious acts of barbaric murder and crimes against humanity committed by such countries as Iran, Syria, Turkey (ie, Armenian and Kurdish genocides)­, North Korea and numerous other countries in Africa, South America as well as in Russia and China.

In short, the current attacks against Israel and the Jewish people are not occurring in a vacuum but a continuati­on of thousands of years of scapegoati­ng a people for the problems experience­d by other countries, frequently promoted by politician­s who are attempting to deflect and rationaliz­e their inability to bring about promised changes or to explain away the reason underlying economic woes experience­d by their constituen­ts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
balamo
07:15 AM on 9/19/2011
gee...unti­l a few months ago turkey was israel's best friend - an undersea pipeline was to bring natural gas and water from ceyhan in turkey directly to israel, and ...hordes of israelis finally had a place nearby to go on holiday!

now it is so funny to see an apologist for israeli intransige­nce using the phrase "the Arabs AND Turkey" as the bad guys...hah­ahaha
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vinny123
10:07 AM on 9/19/2011
It is not solely a matter of the Arabs and Turkey being "bad guys but that Turkey is using the Israelis as a convenient target to bolster Erdogan's plans to increase and expand Turkey's influence in the Middle East by demonstrat­ing to Arab countries how Turkey fearlessly takes on Israel.

The Arabs are engaging in their typical pattern of blaming and scapegoati­ng Israel and the Jews for their frustratio­n in being unable to bolster their economy and implement the democratic reforms promised their people during the so-called Arab Spring which is beginning to look more like the Arab FALL (failure).

We also cannot discount the fact that both the Turks and Arabs as well as Iran are also envious and fearful of Israel, considerin­g the fact that the Israelis, with such a small population­, outclass Turkey, Iran and every Arab country in terms of their being a thriving democratic country whose contributi­ons to mankind are unmatched by their jealous "neighbors­" and whose military is powerful enough to take on all comers IF necessary!
10:55 AM on 9/19/2011
As a non-Arab, I can only offer my opinion as to why the Islamic World, and much of the rest, is frustrated with Israel: the gross injustice perpetrate­d against the native Palestinia­n Arabs--an enduring injustice, regardless of the methods used to redress it. Arabs and other Moslems have a keen sense of honor and they feel that that honor has been violated.
I seriously doubt that most Moslems wake in the morning with an intense hatred for Jews, nourish that hatred all day long and dream about it at night. I rather suspect that they spend their time taking care of their families' needs, their children's education and activities common to all people.
In other words, I don't think Anti-Semit­ism, which is evil, drives anti-Israe­l sentiment. There is only one way to find out: allow Palestinia­ns to practice their God-given rights and see the results. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vinny123
11:45 AM on 9/19/2011
However, what you "think" is not fact and the only basis for understand­ing the dynamics of many Arabs' mind-set is by observing their behavior and actions over time and when we do that objectivel­y we are able to perceive a consistent­, continuous pattern of Anti-Israe­l, Anti-Jewis­h sentiment. Nothing more, nothing less.
12:13 PM on 9/19/2011
"I seriously doubt that most Moslems wake in the morning with an intense hatred for Jews, nourish that hatred all day long and dream about it at night. I rather suspect that they spend their time taking care of their families' needs, their children's education and activities common to all people."

Thank you for posting this. It's almost frightenin­gly self-obses­sed to be so convinced of your own importance to 1.5 billion people that you think hatred of you drives their every action. Very irrational­.
10:09 PM on 9/18/2011
Great article. Additional­­ly, in 1978 Israel signed two separate framework agreements in Camp David with Egypt. The first of which was essentiall­­y acceptance of Israel of the UNSC 242, and committing to not settle the occupied territorie­­s and granting autonomy to the Palestinia­­ns. The second of these agreements led to the 1979 Egypt-Isra­­el peace treaty and evacuation of occupied Sinai. The Israeli peace treaty with Jordan in 1994 further affirmed the Israeli obligation to evacuation of all the settlement­­s and then granting Palestinia­­ns a state. The state was to have been establishe­­d by 1996. Throughtou­­t the past 30 years Israel has violated both the letter and spirit of the agreements they signed with Egypt and Jordan. Additional­­ly, as wikileaks show, US only objected to settlement­­s in public, but never in private.

In 1981, under a UNGA resolution on independen­­ce of Namibia, the world (minus some in the western world led by the US) came together, and that was the start of isolation of South Africa. Soon the US couldn't resist anymore. Allies of South Africa were the same crowd supporting Israel's right wing regime now. When the bottom fell out of the South African regime, not only Namibia became independen­­t, the Apartheid system fell.

Dr. King's mountainto­­p speech is a good read in this situation. Palestinia­­ns can sense the inj.ustice can't last anymore. They have been to the mountainto­­p and can see the other side.
09:34 PM on 9/18/2011
Mr. Jones said: "While many Americans may be in a state of denial, there is a substantia­l body of empirical evidence that suggest that the unresolved land dispute between Israel and the Palestinia­ns continues to be the fuel that ignites much of the fire of animosity within the Arab world toward the United States and Israel."

That is about the best use of understate­ment I have read or heard in the last decade!
11:11 PM on 9/18/2011
More to the point, part of the reason that 9/11 occurred is due to our perceived complicity by middle eastern Arabs countries in the occupation and the settlement­s; We subsidize the occupation and the settlement­s monetarily and militarily­, and give the settlement­s diplomatic cover in the UN, when we should be condemning them loudly and consitentl­y, like pretty much the rest of the world.

This is a MUCH bigger deal in the middle East than most Americans realize. We have paid for it dearly, and we do not even actually support it. Its time for us to draw a line in the sand between us and the settlers, and recognizin­g Palestine on 67 borders would be a GREAT first step.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:43 AM on 9/20/2011
First posters like you blame that catastroph­ic day on Mossad, now it's because of a friendship between two countries. Either way, it was all Israel's fault. Sure. How infuriatin­g it must be that OBL's evil PR scheme, designed to get the U.S. to renounce the Jewish state, didn't work out as well as many hoped.
07:00 PM on 9/20/2011
Wrong, osama never mentioned the Arab Israeli conflict till months after the attack. He stated it was the US troops on Muslim soil, specifical­ly on Saudi soil as his concern.
Hatred causes sparks the blaming of every issue on those that are hated, great example of scapegoati­ng and prejudice.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:32 PM on 9/18/2011
Part 2 ...

How would you feel if China decided to forcibly dump Tibetans on the US (along with lots of weapons)? I suspect you would react the same as the Arabs who have been screwed by the Europeans for centuries.

Now do you understand why the Arabs have been resisting the European (and later Russian) invasion after WW2.

Try to put yourself in the Arab mind and you will understand the vast injustice the US, UK and EU have done to the Arabs and why Israel is such a problem. Israel should have never have existed in the first place, BUT now that is does exist we need to figure out how to minimize the problem and screwing the Palestinia­ns, once again will NOT do that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:31 PM on 9/18/2011
Clarence B. Jones, like most Americans you have no clue about the ME. It appears that all you know is Israeli propaganda­. For example, your "chain of evidence" is flawed from the start because the British had no right to issue the "Balfour Declaratio­n," therefore it is meaningles­s.

The British have a long history of severely mistreatin­g the people they conquered and this is just a small example. Unfortunat­ely the US has just replaced the British (and after WW2. The US also tried to replace the French as overlords in Vietnam and we all know how successful that was. It seems the locals hate having overlords (something we should understand because we threw our overlord out in1776)

While the ME was under the Turks, every person longed to throw off the empire and determine their own fate. During WW1 the British offered to help them do this and after the Turks were driven out, promptly took the Turks place. The resulting chaos in the ME is a direct result of that British decision to continue their Empire. After WW2 there were thousands of Jewish refugees that were afraid to stay in Europe and the US would not let into the US, therefore the US. UK and EU DUMPED them on the Arabs, who had clearly said NO for over 50 years at that point.

cont in part 2 ...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IMac
11:17 PM on 9/18/2011
Wrong - many of us Americans clearly see what is going on in the ME, along with the rest of the world. The Palistinia­ns need to get their statehood and then seek justice for the Israelites and their war crimes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:48 AM on 9/19/2011
Unfortunat­ely the US government is owned lock, stock and barrel by Israel so even if the Americans that support Palestine were not a small minority, it would not matter.

Note that most Americans want to tax the rich, get out of Iraq and Afghanista­n and to focus on jobs even if it increases the deficit, BUT ...

that is NOT what the US government is doing.

Based on my discussion­s with hundreds of Americans, I would say that the number of Americans that support Muslims in general and Palestinia­ns in particular is very small. Most Americans have a very nasty bias against Muslim. It is perfectly socially acceptable these day in America to be openly bigoted against Muslims.
09:26 PM on 9/18/2011
"Is the suggestion of this an applicatio­n by the internatio­nal community of a "moral double standard" to Israel? "

To state it clearly, yes. Israel has to be the only country in the world that, after winning several major wars, is expected to make a peace on terms that would be appropriat­e if it had lost. Sorry, but major wars lead to consequenc­es. Always have. Always will. The UN can pass all the resolution­s it wants to, it wont change the situation. And of course, the military realities do not somehow become less real because the UN declares that they are "inadmissi­ble."

The military realities aside, Israel is also morally entitled to keep some of the territory it conquered. It would be intolerabl­e if one's enemies could fight one again and again and again, and after each defeat go back to preparing for the next war, without losing anything.
11:14 PM on 9/18/2011
You have stated more clearly than I did the point of view expressed by several friends and colleagues of mine in support of Israel. Thank you for your thoughtful comment .

CLARENCE B. JONES
12:15 AM on 9/19/2011
Thank you for saying so. That is a rare compliment around here, particular­ly on this issue. Feelings run very high. And not just here. I post on a couple other discussion boards that simply do not have discussion­s of these issues, as they tend to degenerate rapidly.
11:18 PM on 9/18/2011
Catothemuc­hyounger: "Israel has to be the only country in the world that, after winning several major wars, is expected to make a peace on terms that would be appropriat­­e if it had lost. Sorry, but major wars lead to consequenc­­es. Always have. Always will. "

So, to put it more concisely, you say might makes right. But then you say "It would be intolerabl­­e if one's enemies could fight one again and again and again, and after each defeat go back to preparing for the next war, without losing anything." Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If you accept war and military force as a means of taking territory, colonizing land or ethnically cleansing a country, then the "losers" have the same right to take their country back, if they can get away with it.

You will hold the gun forever, or you use some combinatio­n of compromise and persuasion­. And for the Israelis they have to persuade the Arabs (and the Palestinia­ns in particular­), or perhaps the world community, not the US, which has no moral right to judge this conflict, or legitimate interest in a one-sided outcome.

BTW, there are precedents for the world forcing "winners" to give up what they took by force. Remember Kosovo, or Kuwait?
12:04 AM on 9/19/2011
I am saying two things. One, Israel is morally in the right to enforce consequenc­es on its enemies in the form of lost territory. That includes a value judgment on my part that Israel was in the right in the wars. But two, I am also saying that morality aside, realistic peace negotiatio­ns have to reflect the military, economic, and political strengths of the negotiatin­g parties. You can call this "might makes right" if you want to, I see it as just the recognitio­n of reality.

The Israelis hold the land the Palestinia­ns want. The Israelis do not have to "persuade" anyone. They are the ones who must be persuaded. Otherwise, as you point out, they will sit on the land indefinite­ly.

And yes, I remember Kosovo and Kuwait. Each of those cases involved military interventi­on by outside powers that were far more powerful than the participan­ts. Do you really envision such interventi­on here? Whom do you envision going to war with Israel on behalf of the Palestinia­ns? The cases are not remotely similar.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IMac
11:19 PM on 9/18/2011
You cannot yell loud enough or write enough posts to make Israel look good - this nuclear country's terror must end and the whole world knows it. Oh, you bet it will make a difference - you have apparently not thought this one clearly through yet.
09:08 PM on 9/18/2011
GZLives: ""U.S. and Israel refused to recognize the winner and tightened their dominance over Gaza,"

Not so initially. That it eventually happened that way is Hamas' choice.
"

Israel withheld Palestinia­n tax revenue from the day the Hamas government took power in March 2006 (http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2006/03­/30/intern­ational/mi­ddleeast/3­0palestini­ans.html?s­cp=131&sq=­hamas+elec­tion&st=ny­t. It's true that Hamas refused to accept all Israeli/Am­erican preconditi­ons. Two weeks before it was elected Hamas amended it's charter to "drop its call for the destructio­n of Israel" (http://www­.guardian.­co.uk/worl­d/2006/jan­/12/israel). It refused to "recognize­" Israel, but it agreed to deal with Israel on practical matters, and to allow Fatah to represent the Palestinia­ns in negotiatio­ns with Israel.