Is Israel Too Strong for America?

[Malthus]

And they were worse 10 years ago then they were 40 years ago.  Like I already said, the concessions of Oslo lead to a surge in suicide bombings, not a decrease.  Withdrawal from Gaza lead to an increase in rocket attacks.  And you continue to ignore the impact of things like the security wall.

Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.

There's a quote I'd like to see in context. 

[Valmy]

Jordan should be the only "palestinian" state.

Jordan may have alot of Palestinians but last I checked that state belongs to the Hashemite Dynasty.

[Jos Theelen]

And they were worse 10 years ago then they were 40 years ago.  Like I already said, the concessions of Oslo lead to a surge in suicide bombings, not a decrease.  Withdrawal from Gaza lead to an increase in rocket attacks.  And you continue to ignore the impact of things like the security wall.

Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.

There's a quote I'd like to see in context. 

You mean this context?

That set the trend for the Israeli State's attitude towards the Palestinians. In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "Palestinians do not exist." Her successor, Prime Minister Levi Eschol said, "What are Palestinians? When I came here (to Palestine), there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins. It was a desert, more than underdeveloped. Nothing." Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts." Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "grasshoppers" who could be crushed. This is the language of Heads of State, not the words of ordinary people.

[Warspite]

What's with all the ad homs against Palestinians 

[Malthus]

And they were worse 10 years ago then they were 40 years ago.  Like I already said, the concessions of Oslo lead to a surge in suicide bombings, not a decrease.  Withdrawal from Gaza lead to an increase in rocket attacks.  And you continue to ignore the impact of things like the security wall.

Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.

There's a quote I'd like to see in context. 

You mean this context?

That set the trend for the Israeli State's attitude towards the Palestinians. In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "Palestinians do not exist." Her successor, Prime Minister Levi Eschol said, "What are Palestinians? When I came here (to Palestine), there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins. It was a desert, more than underdeveloped. Nothing." Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts." Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "grasshoppers" who could be crushed. This is the language of Heads of State, not the words of ordinary people.

That's exactly not what I mean - those are obviously cherry-picked quotes strung together by a (hostile) third party.

I mean the actual context of the quote.

For example, in 1966 it was two years since the WB was part of Jordan. To say that "Palestine doens't exist" would be a mere statement of fact - it didn't. Is that what she meant? Impossible to say, out of context.

Check this out: http://books.google.com/books?id=3kbU4BIAcrQC&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22Palestinians+do+not+exist%22+meir&source=bl&ots=Szj5XzDdWh&sig=285nOlmvvHtMcKJnTaGt3LE6YGk&hl=en&ei=sWQBS7XJNIOolAeV3aCGCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Palestinians%20do%20not%20exist%22%20meir&f=false

In point of fact, in context it is obvious that what she said happened to be true at the time it was said (variously attributed to 1966 or 1968) - Palestinian nationalism was mostly a creation of the 1967 war; prior to that, there never had been a notion of an independent Palestinian state, other than the UN partition plan (notably *rejected* by all Arab participants, including Palestinians). "Palestinians" as a nationalism is a more modern creation, almost entirely in reaction to Israel.

Actual knowledge of historical context sheds a rather different light on the matter. Meir isn't denying the literal existance of Palestinians as if they were un-persons, she is stating the historical fact - that Palestinian nationalism was, at the time, wholly artificial. 

Also, I'm not inclined to believe in the accuracy of various nasty stuff claimed to have been said by Israeli leaders without source or citation, since anti-Israel folks have a nasty habit of either distorting what was said or simply making stuff up to suit themselves.

[Malthus]

Reply #2: here's the source of Begin's "two legged beasts" quote:

Investigation--Example 2: Internet hate sites, as well as Fisk, attribute this derogation of Palestnians as "two-legged beasts" to former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The source generally given is:

Menachem Begin, as quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts,"New Statesman, June 25, 1982

Indeed, the radical French-Israeli journalist, Amnon Kapeliouk, did attribute such a quote to Begin in his New Statesman article criticizing Israel's invasion of Lebanon. The author posited:

For this reason the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanise the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as "beasts walking on two legs".

However, further investigation by CAMERA reveals that the actual speech upon which Kapeliouk based his quote, as well as news reports at the time demonstrate that the journalist distorted the quote, giving it a completely different tone and meaning. Begin was talking, not about "the Palestinians" but about terrorists who target children within Israel.

On June 8, 1982, Begin addressed the Knesset in response to a no-confidence motion over Israel's invasion of Lebanon. He talked about defending the children of Israel, and according to a June 9, 1982 AP report, "his voice quaver[ed] with anger and sadness." According to the minutes of the session, Begin stated:

The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of... Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.

Kapeliouk neither recanted nor apologized for his deception.

Summary: Distortion by an Israeli critic of a Begin speech discussing terrorism and terrorists.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=775

Note: cite also disposes of "grasshoppers" quote.

See what I mean?

[Jos Theelen]

That's exactly not what I mean - those are obviously cherry-picked quotes strung together by a (hostile) third party.

I mean the actual context of the quote.

I know you meant that. I just tried to make you angry. I couldn't find the speech of Golda Meir.
Why did you ask for the context, if you had it already?

[Malthus]

That's exactly not what I mean - those are obviously cherry-picked quotes strung together by a (hostile) third party.

I mean the actual context of the quote.

I know you meant that. I just tried to make you angry. I couldn't find the speech of Golda Meir.
Why did you ask for the context, if you had it already?

I didn't. I looked it up after you posted, using Google.

I thought to save myself the time, since you quoted it I assumed you were quoting it from somewhere.

[Sheilbh]

It was a diplomatic defeat for Obama.  But I doubt the American public was sufficiently invested in a settlement freeze for it to qualify as a defeat for America.

To be honest, I think that it most clearly is in our national interest to freeze settlement growth, and eventually roll it back.   

I think it's in Israel's national interest to freeze settlement growth.

[Palisadoes]

Does anyone here honestly think that creating an independent Palestinian state will stop the bloodshed in the middle east? Neither side wants the other on it's holy places, and neither side tolerates the other side being there, so this living side-by-side in rainbow dreamland is not going to prevent the bloodshed.

I can't even think of a solution for such people. Let them get on with it.

[Malthus]

Does anyone here honestly think that creating an independent Palestinian state will stop the bloodshed in the middle east? Neither side wants the other on it's holy places, and neither side tolerates the other side being there, so this living side-by-side in rainbow dreamland is not going to prevent the bloodshed.

I can't even think of a solution for such people. Let them get on with it.

The idea is not a utopia of unicorns and care bears shitting rainbows together, but a semblence of normalicy. The Israelis fought several vicious wars with the Egyptians - and now, they still hate each other, but have agreed at least for now that fighting isn't worth it.

There are plenty of places like this - Greeks and Turks, Indians and Pakistanis, Russians and, well, everyone ... 

[Sheilbh]

I think that this is a very important issue.  In polling in Arab countries Israel and Palestine is considered the most important issue for around 40% and top 3 for everyone but 2%.  Will it automatically cause regional peace?  Of course not but I think it's a necessary precondition to a more peaceable and democratic Middle East.

[Malthus]

I think that this is a very important issue.  In polling in Arab countries Israel and Palestine is considered the most important issue for around 40% and top 3 for everyone but 2%.  Will it automatically cause regional peace?  Of course not but I think it's a necessary precondition to a more peaceable and democratic Middle East.

I think it may be the other way around.

The problem is that Israel is a terribly useful distraction for every ME autocrat - think of what Orwell would have said about this. The "conflict" may never totally be removed until the ME gets more democratic, as the flames of conflict are kept fanned by ME politicos desperate to distract the mob from their own lamentable leadership.

[Sheilbh]

The problem is that Israel is a terribly useful distraction for every ME autocrat - think of what Orwell would have said about this. The "conflict" may never totally be removed until the ME gets more democratic, as the flames of conflict are kept fanned by ME politicos desperate to distract the mob from their own lamentable leadership.

I disagree.  I think your first part is right but that as long as this distraction exists (and let's not forget that peace would be worthwhile of itself for Israel, the West and, God knows, Palestinians) then the execrable situation in much of the Middle East will never get the attention it deserves because that anger can so easily be directed at Israel rather than the kleptocracies running affairs.

[Malthus]

The problem is that Israel is a terribly useful distraction for every ME autocrat - think of what Orwell would have said about this. The "conflict" may never totally be removed until the ME gets more democratic, as the flames of conflict are kept fanned by ME politicos desperate to distract the mob from their own lamentable leadership.

I disagree.  I think your first part is right but that as long as this distraction exists (and let's not forget that peace would be worthwhile of itself for Israel, the West and, God knows, Palestinians) then the execrable situation in much of the Middle East will never get the attention it deserves because that anger can so easily be directed at Israel rather than the kleptocracies running affairs.

Of course peace would be worthwhile - I'm not questioning that.

What I am questioning is that any "resolution" to the Israeli-Palestinian business would ever be so clear cut and unequivocal that there would be no resulting "injustices" handy for use in whipping up the mob's hatred.

Just to name one - "Right of Return". The Israelis would never agree to it and there are at least some Palestinians who will never give it up.

In short, no matter what happens, if someone wants to be angry (or make others angry) over the situation - they can; and as long as it remains politically useful - they will.