Skip to main content

View Diary: The United Nation votes to accept Palestine as a non-member observer state by a margin of 138 - 9 (343 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Indefensible - what a joke. (81+ / 0-)

    Israel has more military might than all of the states which border it COMBINED.  They get over $3 BILLION a year of Uncle Sam's best military hardware every year - a gift from the US Taxpayer - for free.

    The West Bank has absolutely no military at all.  We've seen what a puny fight Hamas can put up - Israel owns them at will.

    Please stop with the Netanyahu talking points in this diary.  They have no place here.

    Celtic Merlin

    Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

    by Celtic Merlin on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 03:25:41 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

      •  Palestinians are often perceived as heathens. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FloraLine, Lepanto

           There is good and bad in any race or ethnic group. The success in stereotyping all Arabs as an inferior,violent race often justifies Israel's harsh and unfair treatment of them. What is amazing is this was exactly what Hitler did to the Jewish people. One of the main reasons that Hamas has so much power is that they provide schools, hospitals, housing and jobs for their people. Another unfortunate truth is that we would never hear of the Palestinian's plight if not for groups like Hamas who actively and yes violently fight back, though Hamas's military force is puny compared to Israel's massive force.


        "A lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth gets it shoes on." Mark Twain

        by pipercity1 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:18:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  indefensible against whom: (5+ / 0-)

      when Israel's pre-67 borders are referred to as 'indefensible' it's not Hamas they are referring to, it's Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran...  recall that they are the 67 borders because territory changed hands in 1967 when all of Israel's neighbors, with their combined territory, financial resources and armies got ready to invade.  even though Israel was able to stop them and decisively so, they tried all over again a mere six years later.  So even though Israel is super rich and strong and smart (and good-looking) and really, really good at not being invaded by 10 or 15 armies at a time, it's still like super, super annoying for them to have to call up half their population, shut down normal life for several weeks at a time, and lose a bunch of lives, every time all her friendly neighborhood continent-sharers are due to be reminded that they never win and there is, in fact, plenty of
      desert to go around.  

      The West Bank has absolutely no military at all.  We've seen what a puny fight Hamas can put up - Israel owns them at will.
      the concern is not that Israel is going to be invaded by Hamas, or other militant groups out of Gaza or the West Bank, (obviously 'defensible' borders in that context make no sense as Hamas now has the means to hit within range of Israel's major cities without ever leaving home) but that a self-governed Palestine will be used as a military launching point by her more powerful  neighbors.  but yeah, good one,  I'm sure all the mothers who lost children during the war that creating the 67 borders are laughing uproariously.  haha.

      and for the record - I think Netanyahu is a useless douche, Likud disgusts me, and I write my own talking points - from scratch.

      •  Guess they should've thought about that (11+ / 0-)

        (calling up half the population to defend "their" land) when they took that land from other people in 1948.  

        They had to have known the inhabitants wouldn't give up that easily.  They were simply prepared to be at war indefinitely in order to get what they wanted, this now anachronistic "ethnic homeland," like the Kurds.  

        And surprise, they are still at war.  

        What's bizarre is complaining that the people whose homes you took are still pissed about it.

      •  But unless you address the issue of settlements (5+ / 0-)

        you lack understanding of the real issues. Palestine is not an independent state. It is occupied, illegaly by the Israelis military who have imposed martial law. And the Isrealis are building permanent settlements in occupied terroties. (forgive my spelling Google Spell check is not working properly). So since Israel is in Palestinanin teroitory illegally do not the residents have the right to fight against the occupation? If the US were occupied would we not fight back. Or if Israel were occupied would she not fight back.

        Israel has chosen to colonize the occupied territories with permanent settlements. A two state solution must eliminate these settlements. They are a violation of International law. The Germans and the Russians both did this and were punished for it. The Chinese are trying to do this in Tibet and are being met with international condemnation. Why does Israel get treated differently/. Israel has an absolute right to exist but you can not blame Palestinains for not seeing this in the wake of these settlements. The settlements must go as a first step towards peace. Then there must be an absolute right of return of refugees. This must not be negoiated away. Israel must open up about its nuclear weapons. And the US must stop protecting Israel from international justice. The Palestinains must disarm and have there security guarentedd and protected by the international community to include NATO powers, but not the US, and neutral powers should also participate.

      •  The myth that Israel was about to be attacked in (5+ / 0-)

        1967 was debunked in 2007 in this article in Salon based on then newly declassified papers from the LBJ library. The entire article is worth reading, but here's an excerpt:

        Little-noticed details in declassified documents from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, indicate that top officials in the Johnson administration — including Johnson’s most pro-Israeli Cabinet members — did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable, at least until the final hour. In these documents, Israel emerges as a vastly superior military power, its opponents far weaker than the menacing threat Israel portrayed, and war itself something that Nasser, for all his saber-rattling, tried to avoid until the moment his air force went up in smoke. In particular, the diplomatic role of Nasser’s vice president, who was poised to travel to Washington in an effort to resolve the crisis, has received little attention from historians. The documents sharpen a recurring theme in the history of the Israeli-Arab wars, and especially of their telling in the West: From the war of 1948 to the 2007 conflict in Gaza, Israel is often miscast as the vulnerable David in a hostile sea of Arab Goliaths.

        “You will whip the hell out of them,” Lyndon Johnson told Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban during a visit to the White House on May 26, 1967. The president’s conclusions were based on multiple intelligence reports, including a CIA assessment that Israel “can maintain internal security, defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts, launch limited attacks simultaneously on all fronts, or hold any of three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth.” As Nicholas Katzenbach, U.S. undersecretary of state at the time, recalled: “The intelligence was absolutely flat on the fact that the Israelis … could wipe out the Arabs in no time at all.”

        A key discrepancy lay between U.S. and British intelligence reports and those conveyed to the administration by the Israelis. On May 26, the same day Eban met with Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, the secretary of state, relayed a message from Israel indicating “that an Egyptian and Syrian attack is imminent.” In a memo to the president, Rusk wrote: “Our intelligence does not confirm this Israeli estimate.” Indeed, this contradicted all U.S. intelligence, which had characterized Nasser’s troops in the Sinai as “defensive in nature” and only half (50,000) of the Israeli estimates. Walt Rostow, the national security advisor, called Israeli estimates of 100,000 Egyptian troops “highly disturbing,” and the CIA labeled them “a political gambit” for the United States to stand firm with Israelis, sell them more military hardware, and “put more pressure on Nasser.”


        But privately Nasser was sending strong signals he would not go to war. On May 31, he met with an American emissary, former Treasury Secretary Robert Anderson, assuring him that Egypt would not “begin any fight.” Two days later, Nasser told a British M.P., Christopher Mayhew, that Egypt had “no intention of attacking Israel.” The same day he met again with Anderson, agreeing to dispatch his vice president, Zakariya Mohieddin, to Washington, in an apparent last-ditch attempt to avoid war. (Anderson and Johnson had also spoken of a visit to Cairo by Vice President Hubert Humphrey.)

        Rostow decided that Israel should know about the secret visit. In a June 2 note to the president, the national security advisor urged that the United States inform Israel of Mohieddin’s impending trip to the White House: “My guess is that their intelligence will pick it up.” The same day, Nasser sent a telegram to the American president indicating that Egypt would not attack Israel, but that “we shall resist any aggression launched against us or against any Arab state.”

        “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

        by RJDixon74135 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:56:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          if the last few years have taught us anything it's that other countries should always base their decisions about whether or not to go to war on US intelligence.  or wait, maybe it was the opposite?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site