|
Sports » rec.sport.football.college » according to Richard Cohen's ..
| according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097098] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 03:19 |
|
... latest column, Israel was a mistake.
hard to argue with ..
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097125 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 04:11 |
|
stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
> .. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>
> hard to argue with ..
Where's our URL, pla?
--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097127 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 04:40 |
|
"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
> stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>> .. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>
>> hard to argue with ..
>
> Where's our URL, pla?
>
> --Ralph Kennedy
Washington Post opinion section.
T
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097235 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 15:39 |
|
TimV wrote:
> "Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
> > stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
> >> .. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
> >>
> >> hard to argue with ..
> >
> > Where's our URL, pla?
> >
> > --Ralph Kennedy
>
> Washington Post opinion section.
>
>
Registration required. rfsck that.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097296 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 18:20 |
|
xyzzy wrote:
> TimV wrote:
>
>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>
>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>
>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>
>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>
>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>
>>Washington Post opinion section.
> Registration required. rfsck that.
ok, here's the opening of the piece:
"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
r. cohen.
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097349 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 19:38 |
|
stephenj wrote:
> xyzzy wrote:
> > TimV wrote:
> >
> >>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
> >>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
> >>
> >>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
> >>>>
> >>>>hard to argue with ..
> >>>
> >>> Where's our URL, pla?
> >>>
> >>>--Ralph Kennedy
> >>
> >>Washington Post opinion section.
>
> > Registration required. rfsck that.
>
>
> ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>
> "The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
> Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
> mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
> creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
> Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
> we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
> south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
>
> This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
> Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
> is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
>
>
Thanks. With that bit I was able to google it and find an unprotected
(at least for now) link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07 /17/AR2006071701154.html
a/k/a
http://tinyurl.com/fzam4
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097408 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 21:49 |
|
stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
> xyzzy wrote:
>> TimV wrote:
>>
>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>
>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>
>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>
>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>
>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>
>> Registration required. rfsck that.
>
>
> ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>
> "The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
> Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
> mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable,
He's wrong. The UN members who came up with and propogated the stupid
partition plan are culpable.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097418 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 21:56 |
|
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, stephenj:
> xyzzy wrote:
>> TimV wrote:
>>
>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>
>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>
>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>
>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>
>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>> Registration required. rfsck that.
> ok, here's the opening of the piece:
> "The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
> Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
> mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
> creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
> Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
> we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
> south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
> This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
> Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
> is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
> r. cohen.
I think this comes close to denying the actual state of life
on the ground in the 19th and 20th centuries in that area. He
comes REAL close to denying that there was a continuous Jewish
presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
Israel didn't take any land from anybody, unless you count
Syria, Transjordan, and Egypt, who lost land after they
attacked Israel and lost.
The problem, and I hate to agree with the neo-cons on this one,
is the fact that two generations of despotic governments have
used Israel to distract their people from their own mismanagement.
Saudi Arabia is the absolute worst for this, with Khomeini's Iran
a distant second.
Cohen is doing the equivalent of blaming the Cold War on
the mistake of the establishment of the United States.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097442 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 22:39 |
|
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:12bt3jeqgt46p9f [at] corp.supernews.com...
> Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
> olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, stephenj:
>> xyzzy wrote:
>>> TimV wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>>
>>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>>
>>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>>
>>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>
>>> Registration required. rfsck that.
>
>
>> ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>
>> "The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
>> Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
>> mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
>> creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
>> Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
>> we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
>> south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
>
>> This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
>> Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
>> is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
>
>> r. cohen.
>
> I think this comes close to denying the actual state of life
> on the ground in the 19th and 20th centuries in that area. He
> comes REAL close to denying that there was a continuous Jewish
> presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
> Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
There wasn't a Jewish majority in Palestine. In 1940, the Jewish population
was around 30%. The sunni population most assuredly would have been higher
than that. Most of the increase in the 20 years prior to 1940 was because it
was clear that a Jewish state was going to be created in Palestine. The
start of violence between the two populations can be directly linked to said
declaration.
> Israel didn't take any land from anybody, unless you count
> Syria, Transjordan, and Egypt, who lost land after they
> attacked Israel and lost.
Not directly, but more than a half-million Palestinians fled during the
post-WWII violence. Their property was taken and not returned (official
estimates of around 70% of all the land in Israel was confiscated). This was
done "legally" and included taking property from people who never left
Israel but merely were absent for a few days. Even worse has been the recent
confiscation of lands to build that fence. IMO, you want a fence, build it
on your own land. Don't steal it from your neighbor.
>
> The problem, and I hate to agree with the neo-cons on this one,
> is the fact that two generations of despotic governments have
> used Israel to distract their people from their own mismanagement.
> Saudi Arabia is the absolute worst for this, with Khomeini's Iran
> a distant second.
There is no doubt about that. There have been serious problems in Israel,
especially in terms of the absentee property laws. But those other Arab
countries didn't exactly step up to the plate to take in those displaced
populations, then or now. And it is abundantly clear that they use Israel as
a pinata for Arab restlessness.
> Cohen is doing the equivalent of blaming the Cold War on
> the mistake of the establishment of the United States.
>
That's disingenuous. The problems between the Palestinians and Israelis is
directly related to the establishment of the state of Israel.
T
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097454 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 23:01 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
> olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, stephenj:
>
>>xyzzy wrote:
>>
>>>TimV wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>>
>>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>>
>>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>
>
>>>Registration required. rfsck that.
>
>
>
>>ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>
>
>>"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
>>Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
>>mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
>>creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
>>Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
>>we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
>>south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
>
>
>>This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
>>Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
>>is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
>
>
>>r. cohen.
>
>
> I think this comes close to denying the actual state of life
> on the ground in the 19th and 20th centuries in that area. He
> comes REAL close to denying that there was a continuous Jewish
> presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
> Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
that's not saying much. the UN partition plan seems to have been clearly
biased in favor of israel. according to the wikipedia article, the
plan's "arab state" was 99% arab, 1% jewish. in contrast, the "jewish
state" was 55% jewish, 45% arab.
thus, when the UN partioned the land, they gerrymandered it to give just
about the max amount possible to the jews (i.e., give the jews as much
land as possible and still have a jewish majority). hard to defend that.
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097457 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 23:04 |
|
rich hammett <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
> Minun olisi pit?nyt tiet??, olisi pit?nyt tiet??,
> olisi pit?nyt tiet?? KUKA SIN? OLET, stephenj:
>> xyzzy wrote:
>>> TimV wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>>
>>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>>
>>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>>
>>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>
>>> Registration required. rfsck that.
>
>
>> ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>
>> "The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
>> Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
>> mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
>> creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
>> Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
>> we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
>> south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
>
>> This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
>> Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
>> is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
>
>> r. cohen.
>
> I think this comes close to denying the actual state of life
> on the ground in the 19th and 20th centuries in that area. He
> comes REAL close to denying that there was a continuous Jewish
> presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
> Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
There was no Jewish majority. At the time of partition Jews comprised ~45%
of the population.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097484 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 23:52 |
|
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:12bt3jeqgt46p9f [at] corp.supernews.com...
> Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
> olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, stephenj:
>> xyzzy wrote:
>>> TimV wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>>
>>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>>
>>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>>
>>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>
>>> Registration required. rfsck that.
>
>
>> ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>
>> "The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
>> Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
>> mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
>> creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
>> Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
>> we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
>> south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
>
>> This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
>> Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
>> is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
>
>> r. cohen.
>
> I think this comes close to denying the actual state of life
> on the ground in the 19th and 20th centuries in that area. He
> comes REAL close to denying that there was a continuous Jewish
> presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
> Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
>
> Israel didn't take any land from anybody, unless you count
> Syria, Transjordan, and Egypt, who lost land after they
> attacked Israel and lost.
Your denial of Palestine is duly noted.
>
> The problem, and I hate to agree with the neo-cons on this one,
> is the fact that two generations of despotic governments have
> used Israel to distract their people from their own mismanagement.
> Saudi Arabia is the absolute worst for this, with Khomeini's Iran
> a distant second.
>
> Cohen is doing the equivalent of blaming the Cold War on
> the mistake of the establishment of the United States.
>
> rich
> --
> -to reply, it's hot not warm
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
> / The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097492 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 00:14 |
|
<aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> writes:
>
> There was no Jewish majority. At the time of partition
> Jews comprised ~45% of the population.
Composed, not comprised. The population
comprised 45% Jews. The parts compose the whole,
and the whole comprises the parts. And "is
comprised of" is never, ever correct, despite
any old Jimmy Carter quotes you might have.
Sorry, pet peeve.
--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097499 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 00:39 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
> Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
This is simply, blindingly wrong. For example, take a look at this
map from the British:
http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/dist_of_pop_jews _and_palestinians_1946.gif
Out of 16 "sub-districts" Jews were a majority in only one.
>
> Israel didn't take any land from anybody, unless you count
> Syria, Transjordan, and Egypt, who lost land after they
> attacked Israel and lost.
"At the time of partition, slightly less than half the land in all of
Palestine was owned by Arabs, slightly less than half was "crown lands"
belonging to the state, and about 8% was owned by Jews or the Jewish Agency"
They went from 8% to 55% of the land overnight. That land didn't
just materialize out of thin air. It was taken from someone.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097552 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 02:41 |
|
Charlie Board wrote:
> rich hammett wrote:
> > presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
> > Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
>
> This is simply, blindingly wrong. For example, take a look at this
> map from the British:
>
> http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/dist_of_pop_jews _and_palestinians_1946.gif
>
> Out of 16 "sub-districts" Jews were a majority in only one.
> > Israel didn't take any land from anybody, unless you count
> > Syria, Transjordan, and Egypt, who lost land after they
> > attacked Israel and lost.
> "At the time of partition, slightly less than half the land in all of
> Palestine was owned by Arabs, slightly less than half was "crown lands"
> belonging to the state, and about 8% was owned by Jews or the Jewish Agency"
>
> They went from 8% to 55% of the land overnight. That land didn't
> just materialize out of thin air. It was taken from someone.
Israel stole Arab land from the British?
Does that mean the Palestinians should be attacking London
or that the British should be attacking Tel Aviv?
-Tom Enright
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097581 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 03:54 |
|
"Tom Enright" <freddy_hayek [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153356068.309173.66250 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Charlie Board wrote:
>
>> rich hammett wrote:
>
>> > presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
>> > Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
>>
>> This is simply, blindingly wrong. For example, take a look at this
>> map from the British:
>>
>> http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/dist_of_pop_jews _and_palestinians_1946.gif
>>
>> Out of 16 "sub-districts" Jews were a majority in only one.
>
>> > Israel didn't take any land from anybody, unless you count
>> > Syria, Transjordan, and Egypt, who lost land after they
>> > attacked Israel and lost.
>
>> "At the time of partition, slightly less than half the land in all of
>> Palestine was owned by Arabs, slightly less than half was "crown lands"
>> belonging to the state, and about 8% was owned by Jews or the Jewish
>> Agency"
>>
>> They went from 8% to 55% of the land overnight. That land didn't
>> just materialize out of thin air. It was taken from someone.
>
> Israel stole Arab land from the British?
Not exactly.
>
> Does that mean the Palestinians should be attacking London
> or that the British should be attacking Tel Aviv?
Now your starting to see it.
http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/brit-mandate-pa l-isr-prime.html
But then one should also read whatever they can about Irgun and Lehi.
Wikipedia mentions these groups in a page on "Palestinian Exodus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097585 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 04:00 |
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:01:22 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>rich hammett wrote:
>> Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
>> olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, stephenj:
>>
>>>xyzzy wrote:
>>>
>>>>TimV wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>>>
>>>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>>
>>
>>>>Registration required. rfsck that.
>>
>>
>>
>>>ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>>
>>
>>>"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
>>>Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
>>>mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
>>>creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
>>>Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
>>>we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
>>>south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
>>
>>
>>>This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
>>>Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
>>>is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
>>
>>
>>>r. cohen.
>>
>>
>> I think this comes close to denying the actual state of life
>> on the ground in the 19th and 20th centuries in that area. He
>> comes REAL close to denying that there was a continuous Jewish
>> presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
>> Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
>
>that's not saying much. the UN partition plan seems to have been clearly
>biased in favor of israel. according to the wikipedia article, the
>plan's "arab state" was 99% arab, 1% jewish. in contrast, the "jewish
>state" was 55% jewish, 45% arab.
>
>thus, when the UN partioned the land, they gerrymandered it to give just
>about the max amount possible to the jews (i.e., give the jews as much
>land as possible and still have a jewish majority). hard to defend that.
I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
extra land.
At this point, the only bigger mistake would be the reward of
terrorism as a political tactic.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097595 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 04:52 |
|
"The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
news:2potb25mg5ts97qfe3mpipim6dskorcdt6 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:01:22 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>rich hammett wrote:
>>> Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
>>> olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, stephenj:
>>>
>>>>xyzzy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>TimV wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Registration required. rfsck that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
>>>>Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
>>>>mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
>>>>creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
>>>>Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
>>>>we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
>>>>south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
>>>>Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
>>>>is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
>>>
>>>
>>>>r. cohen.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this comes close to denying the actual state of life
>>> on the ground in the 19th and 20th centuries in that area. He
>>> comes REAL close to denying that there was a continuous Jewish
>>> presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
>>> Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
>>
>>that's not saying much. the UN partition plan seems to have been clearly
>>biased in favor of israel. according to the wikipedia article, the
>>plan's "arab state" was 99% arab, 1% jewish. in contrast, the "jewish
>>state" was 55% jewish, 45% arab.
>>
>>thus, when the UN partioned the land, they gerrymandered it to give just
>>about the max amount possible to the jews (i.e., give the jews as much
>>land as possible and still have a jewish majority). hard to defend that.
>
> I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
> extra land.
Yea that's it. Screw the people living there -and fuck any promises made to
them when their help was needed- and make way for a mass exodus of people
who've been recently displaced because of war.
>
> At this point, the only bigger mistake would be the reward of
> terrorism as a political tactic.
Perhaps it would be best just to round up all the potential terrorist and
send them to some remote camp, until this whole war thingy blows over.
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097596 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 05:01 |
|
The Grand Beckoning wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:01:22 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>
>>rich hammett wrote:
>>
>>>Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
>>>olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, stephenj:
>>>
>>>
>>>>xyzzy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>TimV wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Registration required. rfsck that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
>>>>Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
>>>>mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
>>>>creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
>>>>Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
>>>>we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
>>>>south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
>>>>Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
>>>>is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
>>>
>>>
>>>>r. cohen.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think this comes close to denying the actual state of life
>>>on the ground in the 19th and 20th centuries in that area. He
>>>comes REAL close to denying that there was a continuous Jewish
>>>presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
>>>Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
>>
>>that's not saying much. the UN partition plan seems to have been clearly
>>biased in favor of israel. according to the wikipedia article, the
>>plan's "arab state" was 99% arab, 1% jewish. in contrast, the "jewish
>>state" was 55% jewish, 45% arab.
>>
>>thus, when the UN partioned the land, they gerrymandered it to give just
>>about the max amount possible to the jews (i.e., give the jews as much
>>land as possible and still have a jewish majority). hard to defend that.
> I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
> extra land.
sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
favor of israel. that was just wrong.
--
"My greatest delight is to mark my enemy,
avenge myself thoroughly, then go to sleep".
- Josef Stalin
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097632 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 14:14 |
|
Thomas Shepherd is getting reprieve from the heat in the frozen food
section:
> "The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
> news:2potb25mg5ts97qfe3mpipim6dskorcdt6 [at] 4ax.com...
> > I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
> > extra land.
> Yea that's it. Screw the people living there -and fuck any
> promises made to them when their help was needed- and
> make way for a mass exodus of people who've been
> recently displaced because of war.
> > At this point, the only bigger mistake would be the reward of
> > terrorism as a political tactic.
> Perhaps it would be best just to round up all the potential terrorist
> and send them to some remote camp, until this whole war thingy
> blows over.
They already have. It's called the "Palestinian Authority." The UN
has seen to that.
-Tom Enright
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097672 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 16:21 |
|
stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
> rich hammett wrote:
>> Minun olisi pit?nyt tiet??, olisi pit?nyt tiet??,
>> olisi pit?nyt tiet?? KUKA SIN? OLET, stephenj:
>>
>>>xyzzy wrote:
>>>
>>>>TimV wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>>>
>>>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>>
>>
>>>>Registration required. rfsck that.
>>
>>
>>
>>>ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>>
>>
>>>"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
>>>Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
>>>mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
>>>creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
>>>Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
>>>we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
>>>south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
>>
>>
>>>This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
>>>Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
>>>is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
>>
>>
>>>r. cohen.
>>
>>
>> I think this comes close to denying the actual state of life
>> on the ground in the 19th and 20th centuries in that area. He
>> comes REAL close to denying that there was a continuous Jewish
>> presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
>> Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
>
> that's not saying much. the UN partition plan seems to have been clearly
> biased in favor of israel. according to the wikipedia article, the
> plan's "arab state" was 99% arab, 1% jewish. in contrast, the "jewish
> state" was 55% jewish, 45% arab.
>
> thus, when the UN partioned the land, they gerrymandered it to give just
> about the max amount possible to the jews (i.e., give the jews as much
> land as possible and still have a jewish majority). hard to defend that.
Jews owned 7% of the land pre-partition and Israel was given 55% of the land
involved in the partition.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097673 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 16:22 |
|
The Grand Beckoning <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:01:22 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>rich hammett wrote:
>>> Minun olisi pit?nyt tiet??, olisi pit?nyt tiet??,
>>> olisi pit?nyt tiet?? KUKA SIN? OLET, stephenj:
>>>
>>>>xyzzy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>TimV wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:J2MorD.6My [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>.. latest column, Israel was a mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>hard to argue with ..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where's our URL, pla?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--Ralph Kennedy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Washington Post opinion section.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Registration required. rfsck that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ok, here's the opening of the piece:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that
>>>>Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
>>>>mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of
>>>>creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
>>>>Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort
>>>>we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the
>>>>south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the
>>>>Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It
>>>>is why the conflict mutates and festers..."
>>>
>>>
>>>>r. cohen.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this comes close to denying the actual state of life
>>> on the ground in the 19th and 20th centuries in that area. He
>>> comes REAL close to denying that there was a continuous Jewish
>>> presence there, and outright seems to deny that there was a
>>> Jewish majority in the area long before the state was established.
>>
>>that's not saying much. the UN partition plan seems to have been clearly
>>biased in favor of israel. according to the wikipedia article, the
>>plan's "arab state" was 99% arab, 1% jewish. in contrast, the "jewish
>>state" was 55% jewish, 45% arab.
>>
>>thus, when the UN partioned the land, they gerrymandered it to give just
>>about the max amount possible to the jews (i.e., give the jews as much
>>land as possible and still have a jewish majority). hard to defend that.
>
> I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
> extra land.
>
> At this point, the only bigger mistake would be the reward of
> terrorism as a political tactic.
You mean "the reward of terrorism as a political tactic" again.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097675 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 16:24 |
|
Ralph Kennedy <kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu> wrote:
> <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> writes:
>>
>> There was no Jewish majority. At the time of partition
>> Jews comprised ~45% of the population.
>
> Composed, not comprised. The population
> comprised 45% Jews. The parts compose the whole,
> and the whole comprises the parts. And "is
> comprised of" is never, ever correct, despite
> any old Jimmy Carter quotes you might have.
>
> Sorry, pet peeve.
Thanks... I usually don't hose that one up, and like to be corrected when I
make idiot usage mistake.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097718 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 18:08 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:52:26 GMT, "Thomas Shepherd"
<tshepherd [at] 'fuckoffspam'verizon.net> wrote:
>> I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>> extra land.
>
>Yea that's it. Screw the people living there -and fuck any promises made to
>them when their help was needed- and make way for a mass exodus of people
>who've been recently displaced because of war.
Yeah, and screw the promises made to those damned Jews, while you're
at it.
BTW, these indigenous Arabs you speak of became modern day terrorists.
In hindsight, they deserve screwing.
>
>>
>> At this point, the only bigger mistake would be the reward of
>> terrorism as a political tactic.
>
>Perhaps it would be best just to round up all the potential terrorist and
>send them to some remote camp, until this whole war thingy blows over.
>
And if you did, terrorism in Israel would end. Funny how that works
out.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097720 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 18:10 |
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>> I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>> extra land.
>
>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
>
>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right. And
when you consider Arab complicity with the Nazis, they deserve any
screwing they got.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097732 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 18:45 |
|
The Grand Beckoning wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>>>extra land.
>>
>>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
>>
>>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
>>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
>>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
>
>
>
> When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right.
the holocaust occurs in europe, and then europeans draw up a plan that
has arabs in the middle east pay for it? comical if it wasn't tragic.
the plan was obviously biased in favor of israel - no use denying it.
--
the terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides,
turning a disaster into an epic.
- philip roth
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097813 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 22:08 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:45:19 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>>>>extra land.
>>>
>>>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
>>>
>>>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
>>>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
>>>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right.
>
>the holocaust occurs in europe, and then europeans draw up a plan that
>has arabs in the middle east pay for it? comical if it wasn't tragic.
The Arabs sided with the Nazis. Are you denying that?
>
>the plan was obviously biased in favor of israel - no use denying it.
Who cares who drew it up. It was passed by the UN, so it was the will
of most of the (member) world at that time.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097816 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 22:28 |
|
stephenj wrote:
> The Grand Beckoning wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
> >>>extra land.
> >>
> >>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
> >>
> >>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
> >>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
> >>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right.
>
> the holocaust occurs in europe, and then europeans draw up a plan that
> has arabs in the middle east pay for it? comical if it wasn't tragic.
What SHOULD have happened was for those Jewish refugees to come here to
the USA. This country could have easily absorbed the immigration of
these highly educated and productive people and as a nation matched
European Jewish values more than any middle eastern desert hellhole did
then.
However the USA had its own strain of anti-semitism back then and
turned away Jewish refugees, so they had to go to the middle east and
carve out a nation in the middle of a bunch of Arabs who were (and are)
justified for being pissed at how it happened. If the US had welcomed
them in the 1940's there never would have been an Israel, or a need for
one IMO.
THAT is the mistake of Israel IMO.
So given that history the US does have an obligation to support Israel
IMO. Because of what happened in WWII European nations have even more
of an obligation to do so but the fact that they don't doesn't excuse
our obligation.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097821 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 23:01 |
|
"The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
news:hdovb2h5tupp0njiuoasfrnvu6cb44vps3 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:45:19 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>>>>>extra land.
>>>>
>>>>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
>>>>
>>>>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
>>>>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
>>>>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right.
>>
>>the holocaust occurs in europe, and then europeans draw up a plan that
>>has arabs in the middle east pay for it? comical if it wasn't tragic.
>
> The Arabs sided with the Nazis. Are you denying that?
Typical crap from you. Arabs are not a singular people. Many of the Arab
countries sided with the allies. There were some that didn't. Many Arabs
fought alongside allied forces. Saudi Arabian oil was critical to our war
efforts.
In your zeal to condemn Arabs, did you forget the Jewish terrorist groups
that were bombing British and Arab targets even during the war? The great
Menachem Begin as leader of the Irgun was responsible for that, including
executing two British soldiers they had captured. After the war, they bombed
a hotel housing the British civilian administration and killed nearly 100
people (ordered by another future Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion).
Frankly, everyone involved in the area has blood on their hands. There
really are no "good guys" as they've all resorted to terrorism. Stop
drinking the kool-aid.
T
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097824 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 22:48 |
|
On 20 Jul 2006 13:28:59 -0700, "xyzzy" <xyzzy.dude [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>stephenj wrote:
>> The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>> >>>extra land.
>> >>
>> >>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
>> >>
>> >>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
>> >>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
>> >>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right.
>>
>> the holocaust occurs in europe, and then europeans draw up a plan that
>> has arabs in the middle east pay for it? comical if it wasn't tragic.
>
>What SHOULD have happened was for those Jewish refugees to come here to
>the USA. This country could have easily absorbed the immigration of
>these highly educated and productive people and as a nation matched
>European Jewish values more than any middle eastern desert hellhole did
>then.
>
>However the USA had its own strain of anti-semitism back then and
>turned away Jewish refugees, so they had to go to the middle east and
>carve out a nation in the middle of a bunch of Arabs who were (and are)
>justified for being pissed at how it happened. If the US had welcomed
>them in the 1940's there never would have been an Israel, or a need for
>one IMO.
>
>THAT is the mistake of Israel IMO.
>
>So given that history the US does have an obligation to support Israel
>IMO. Because of what happened in WWII European nations have even more
>of an obligation to do so but the fact that they don't doesn't excuse
>our obligation.
FDR: Anti-Semite.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097835 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 23:23 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:01:04 GMT, "TimV"
<tvanwagoner_yourknickers_ [at] ou.edu> wrote:
>
>"The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>news:hdovb2h5tupp0njiuoasfrnvu6cb44vps3 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:45:19 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>>>>>>extra land.
>>>>>
>>>>>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
>>>>>
>>>>>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
>>>>>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
>>>>>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right.
>>>
>>>the holocaust occurs in europe, and then europeans draw up a plan that
>>>has arabs in the middle east pay for it? comical if it wasn't tragic.
>>
>> The Arabs sided with the Nazis. Are you denying that?
>
>Typical crap from you. Arabs are not a singular people. Many of the Arab
>countries sided with the allies. There were some that didn't. Many Arabs
>fought alongside allied forces. Saudi Arabian oil was critical to our war
>efforts.
Those in Palestine sided with the Nazis.
>
>In your zeal to condemn Arabs, did you forget the Jewish terrorist groups
>that were bombing British and Arab targets even during the war? The great
>Menachem Begin as leader of the Irgun was responsible for that, including
>executing two British soldiers they had captured. After the war, they bombed
>a hotel housing the British civilian administration and killed nearly 100
>people (ordered by another future Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion).
>
>Frankly, everyone involved in the area has blood on their hands. There
>really are no "good guys" as they've all resorted to terrorism. Stop
>drinking the kool-aid.
>
>T
>
Now that is about the dumbed thing you could have said. Going back
that far to nitpick about Irgun versus Arafat blowing up buses with
school kids a few years ago is off the scale. The one drinking the
Kook Aid is you.
At least be contemporary and stay within the bounds of 1967 when it
comes to specific incidents. In my "zeal" I didn't go back as far as
WWII (except Arabs siding with Nazis which is unforgiveable and
infinitely revealing), but somehow without zeal to condemn the Jews
you DID.
People who wash their hands and say both sides are bad are either
stupid or anti-Semitic. The evil of the Arabs in the last 40 years is
obvious.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097847 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 00:10 |
|
--
Remove _yourknickers_ to reply
"The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
news:4fsvb29gngftdu83rv622msg7t4o2vnd4f [at] 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:01:04 GMT, "TimV"
> <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_ [at] ou.edu> wrote:
>>
>>"The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>>news:hdovb2h5tupp0njiuoasfrnvu6cb44vps3 [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:45:19 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>>>>>>>extra land.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
>>>>>>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
>>>>>>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right.
>>>>
>>>>the holocaust occurs in europe, and then europeans draw up a plan that
>>>>has arabs in the middle east pay for it? comical if it wasn't tragic.
>>>
>>> The Arabs sided with the Nazis. Are you denying that?
>>
>>Typical crap from you. Arabs are not a singular people. Many of the Arab
>>countries sided with the allies. There were some that didn't. Many Arabs
>>fought alongside allied forces. Saudi Arabian oil was critical to our war
>>efforts.
>
> Those in Palestine sided with the Nazis.
>
Some, not all. Some Zionist groups (the Lehi in particular) proposed an
alliance with the Nazis to fight against the British; the Nazis turned them
down. See the problem with painting with such a broad brush?
>>
>>In your zeal to condemn Arabs, did you forget the Jewish terrorist groups
>>that were bombing British and Arab targets even during the war? The great
>>Menachem Begin as leader of the Irgun was responsible for that, including
>>executing two British soldiers they had captured. After the war, they
>>bombed
>>a hotel housing the British civilian administration and killed nearly 100
>>people (ordered by another future Israeli prime minister David Ben
>>Gurion).
>>
>>Frankly, everyone involved in the area has blood on their hands. There
>>really are no "good guys" as they've all resorted to terrorism. Stop
>>drinking the kool-aid.
>>
>>T
>>
>
> Now that is about the dumbed thing you could have said. Going back
> that far to nitpick about Irgun versus Arafat blowing up buses with
> school kids a few years ago is off the scale. The one drinking the
> Kook Aid is you.
>
> At least be contemporary and stay within the bounds of 1967 when it
> comes to specific incidents. In my "zeal" I didn't go back as far as
> WWII (except Arabs siding with Nazis which is unforgiveable and
> infinitely revealing), but somehow without zeal to condemn the Jews
> you DID.
You cannot get over the fact that both groups have resorted to terrorism to
achieve their goals. Your selectivity to post-1967 events is completely
biased. The fact that the Israelis no longer resort to terrorism is because
they no longer have to. The Palestinians certainly have taken it to a
grotesque level, but that's because they've been oppressed for 50 years.
>
> People who wash their hands and say both sides are bad are either
> stupid or anti-Semitic. The evil of the Arabs in the last 40 years is
> obvious.
>
Cute, the race-card. It would be more appropriate to call you a racist, but
I won't. Frankly, you should quit referring to the actions of Palestinians
as the actions of Arabs as a whole. Not all Arabs or Palestinians support
the terrorism. Most probably support armed insurrection against Israeli
troops, but that doesn't constitute terrorism and frankly is the right of
any occupied people (we wouldn't have the good 'ole USA if not for it). I
hope Israel crushes Hamas and Hezbollah. Yet when they do, they also have to
realize it is time to stop isolating the Palestinian people, to stop
stealing more of their land, and to stop collective punishments or they risk
breeding a new set of extremists. They have a real opportunity here to crush
their enemies and then be magnanimous. We'll see if they are capable.
T
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097862 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 01:19 |
|
"The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
news:4fsvb29gngftdu83rv622msg7t4o2vnd4f [at] 4ax.com...
>
> At least be contemporary and stay within the bounds of 1967 when it
> comes to specific incidents. In my "zeal" I didn't go back as far as
> WWII (except Arabs siding with Nazis which is unforgiveable and
> infinitely revealing), but somehow without zeal to condemn the Jews
> you DID.
>
> People who wash their hands and say both sides are bad are either
> stupid or anti-Semitic. The evil of the Arabs in the last 40 years is
> obvious.
That has to be the dumbest two paragraphs ever written in the history of
usernet. Quite possibly the dumbest two paragraphs written in the history
of man. Fucking amazing, really.
It's not just the level of ignorance these two paragraphs revel, its the
mind numbingly faulty logic, which makes them so special.
Sabra and Shatila....Lehi....Shamir...Sharon....mass displacement
....both sides have had their cause furthered and undermined, via terrorism.
To condemn one side for these actions and apologize for the other, is well,
ludicrous.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097864 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 01:31 |
|
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_ [at] ou.edu> wrote in message
news:kaSvg.174740$F_3.79100 [at] newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
> news:hdovb2h5tupp0njiuoasfrnvu6cb44vps3 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:45:19 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>>>>>>extra land.
>>>>>
>>>>>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
>>>>>
>>>>>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
>>>>>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
>>>>>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right.
>>>
>>>the holocaust occurs in europe, and then europeans draw up a plan that
>>>has arabs in the middle east pay for it? comical if it wasn't tragic.
>>
>> The Arabs sided with the Nazis. Are you denying that?
>
> Typical crap from you. Arabs are not a singular people. Many of the Arab
> countries sided with the allies. There were some that didn't. Many Arabs
> fought alongside allied forces. Saudi Arabian oil was critical to our war
> efforts.
>
> In your zeal to condemn Arabs, did you forget the Jewish terrorist groups
> that were bombing British and Arab targets even during the war? The great
> Menachem Begin as leader of the Irgun was responsible for that, including
> executing two British soldiers they had captured. After the war, they
> bombed a hotel housing the British civilian administration and killed
> nearly 100 people (ordered by another future Israeli prime minister David
> Ben Gurion).
>
> Frankly, everyone involved in the area has blood on their hands. There
> really are no "good guys" as they've all resorted to terrorism. Stop
> drinking the kool-aid.
I'll never forget discussing this with a history professor after reading a
book or two that had enlightened me to the actions taken by both sides, and
the beliefs that fueled them. I proudly stated to this learned fellow, "It
seems like both sides are right." To which he replied, "and/or, both sides
are wrong. It's really a matter of perspective."
At which point I gave up History for nihilist philosophy.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097875 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 01:49 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:19:43 GMT, "Thomas Shepherd"
<tshepherd [at] 'fuckoffspam'verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>news:4fsvb29gngftdu83rv622msg7t4o2vnd4f [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>> At least be contemporary and stay within the bounds of 1967 when it
>> comes to specific incidents. In my "zeal" I didn't go back as far as
>> WWII (except Arabs siding with Nazis which is unforgiveable and
>> infinitely revealing), but somehow without zeal to condemn the Jews
>> you DID.
>>
>> People who wash their hands and say both sides are bad are either
>> stupid or anti-Semitic. The evil of the Arabs in the last 40 years is
>> obvious.
>
>That has to be the dumbest two paragraphs ever written in the history of
>usernet. Quite possibly the dumbest two paragraphs written in the history
>of man. Fucking amazing, really.
>
>It's not just the level of ignorance these two paragraphs revel, its the
>mind numbingly faulty logic, which makes them so special.
>
>Sabra and Shatila....Lehi....Shamir...Sharon....mass displacement
>
>...both sides have had their cause furthered and undermined, via terrorism.
>To condemn one side for these actions and apologize for the other, is well,
>ludicrous.
>
What is mind-numbingly stupid is for people to justify current events
in the context of ancient history, as if Jewish terrorist acts in the
1920s against British police justifies blowing up Jewish school buses
today.
Any adult who watches the news can easily tell the cycles of violence
have been controlled and started by the Palestinians in this conflict
for the past 40 years, during which time the Israelis have shown
amazing restraint (even in the face of blatant anti-Semitism.)
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097877 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 01:44 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:10:34 GMT, "TimV"
<tvanwagoner_yourknickers_ [at] ou.edu> wrote:
>
>
>--
>Remove _yourknickers_ to reply
>"The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>news:4fsvb29gngftdu83rv622msg7t4o2vnd4f [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:01:04 GMT, "TimV"
>> <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_ [at] ou.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>"The Grand Beckoning" <the [at] gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hdovb2h5tupp0njiuoasfrnvu6cb44vps3 [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:45:19 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>>>>>>>>extra land.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
>>>>>>>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
>>>>>>>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right.
>>>>>
>>>>>the holocaust occurs in europe, and then europeans draw up a plan that
>>>>>has arabs in the middle east pay for it? comical if it wasn't tragic.
>>>>
>>>> The Arabs sided with the Nazis. Are you denying that?
>>>
>>>Typical crap from you. Arabs are not a singular people. Many of the Arab
>>>countries sided with the allies. There were some that didn't. Many Arabs
>>>fought alongside allied forces. Saudi Arabian oil was critical to our war
>>>efforts.
>>
>> Those in Palestine sided with the Nazis.
>>
>
>Some, not all. Some Zionist groups (the Lehi in particular) proposed an
>alliance with the Nazis to fight against the British; the Nazis turned them
>down. See the problem with painting with such a broad brush?
All I see is the problem with an imbecile misunderstanding the most
salient part of 20th century history.
>
>>>
>>>In your zeal to condemn Arabs, did you forget the Jewish terrorist groups
>>>that were bombing British and Arab targets even during the war? The great
>>>Menachem Begin as leader of the Irgun was responsible for that, including
>>>executing two British soldiers they had captured. After the war, they
>>>bombed
>>>a hotel housing the British civilian administration and killed nearly 100
>>>people (ordered by another future Israeli prime minister David Ben
>>>Gurion).
>>>
>>>Frankly, everyone involved in the area has blood on their hands. There
>>>really are no "good guys" as they've all resorted to terrorism. Stop
>>>drinking the kool-aid.
>>>
>>>T
>>>
>>
>> Now that is about the dumbed thing you could have said. Going back
>> that far to nitpick about Irgun versus Arafat blowing up buses with
>> school kids a few years ago is off the scale. The one drinking the
>> Kook Aid is you.
>>
>> At least be contemporary and stay within the bounds of 1967 when it
>> comes to specific incidents. In my "zeal" I didn't go back as far as
>> WWII (except Arabs siding with Nazis which is unforgiveable and
>> infinitely revealing), but somehow without zeal to condemn the Jews
>> you DID.
>
>
>You cannot get over the fact that both groups have resorted to terrorism to
Wrong. I can not get over the fact that not only is it still being
used, but that said users have defenders such as yourself.
>achieve their goals. Your selectivity to post-1967 events is completely
>biased. The fact that the Israelis no longer resort to terrorism is because
>they no longer have to. The Palestinians certainly have taken it to a
>grotesque level, but that's because they've been oppressed for 50 years.
Oh, well as long as any people have an excuse to resort to barbarism,
why not extend that same free pass to all of history? I'm sure the
Nazis, Pol Pot, etc, can come up with equally convenient excuses.
>> People who wash their hands and say both sides are bad are either
>> stupid or anti-Semitic. The evil of the Arabs in the last 40 years is
>> obvious.
>>
>
>Cute, the race-card. It would be more appropriate to call you a racist, but
>I won't. Frankly, you should quit referring to the actions of Palestinians
>as the actions of Arabs as a whole. Not all Arabs or Palestinians support
>the terrorism.
Pretty near all of them do.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097878 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 02:06 |
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:20:47 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>
>Israel itself is a mistake
What kind of idot classifies extremely complex historical processes as
"mistakes" ?
Was Columbus a "mistake" ?
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097879 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 02:08 |
|
The Grand Beckoning wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:45:19 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>
>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:01:25 -0500, stephenj <sjek [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I'm sure they factored in immigration from Europe and the need for
>>>>>extra land.
>>>>
>>>>sure, so just take it away from the arabs. lol.
>>>>
>>>>it looks like the UN thought of everything they possibly could to give
>>>>israel the most land possible, the net result being clearly biased in
>>>>favor of israel. that was just wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>When weighed against the cost of the Holocaust, it was right.
>>
>>the holocaust occurs in europe, and then europeans draw up a plan that
>>has arabs in the middle east pay for it? comical if it wasn't tragic.
>
>
> The Arabs sided with the Nazis. Are you denying that?
why would i either deny it or not deny it? has nothing to do with the UN
partition plan being biased towards israel.
>>the plan was obviously biased in favor of israel - no use denying it.
>
>
> Who cares who drew it up. It was passed by the UN, so it was the will
> of most of the (member) world at that time.
who doubts that? that doesn't change the fact that "the member world"
drew up a very biased plan.
--
9 times out of 10, when a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault.
- gillian boardman
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097880 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 01:50 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:31:07 GMT, "Thomas Shepherd"
<tshepherd [at] 'fuckoffspam'verizon.net> wrote:
>I'll never forget discussing this with a history professor after reading a
>book or two that had enlightened me to the actions taken by both sides, and
>the beliefs that fueled them. I proudly stated to this learned fellow, "It
>seems like both sides are right." To which he replied, "and/or, both sides
>are wrong. It's really a matter of perspective."
>
>At which point I gave up History for nihilist philosophy.
Then you've gone from Shepherd to Sheep.
|
|
|
| Re: according to Richard Cohen's .. [message #1097881 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 02:10 |
|
On 19 Jul 2006 19:49:00 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>He's wrong. The UN members who came up with and propogated the stupid
>partition plan are culpable.
The British would have left with or without a UN plan.
The Arabs would have attacked in any case, and they would have lost.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 22:15:38 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.20665 Sekunden |
