(Advertisement)

US Should Pressure Israel To Act Rightly

COUNTRY HAS RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF, BUT SHOULD STOP EXPANSIONIST WAYS IN WEST BANK REGION

Posted: December 9, 2012 at 5:03 a.m.

The Middle East, riven by wars, religious intolerance, ethnic rivalries, fundamentalist ignorance, suicide bombers, and political instability, all mixed with precious oil, big money, Israel’s nuclear arsenal, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, is surely the planet’s most volatile neighborhood.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 11 on 12/09/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Freshmen Lawmakers Get Advice, Training

Rep.-elect Mark McElroy spent 20 years as Desha County judge, so he has some political experience and knows his way around the state Capitol. Still, the process of learning... Read »

Next Story »

Federal Government Needs Revenue

Ihad always believed that the easiest way to balance the budget was to freeze federal spending at the current level. Read »

You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Palestine at the same time in a realistic world. The so-called Palestinian Authority can't reign in their terrorist friends and maintaining a pacifist approach to relations with Hamas is nothing short of doing our ally dirty. There is no such nation as Palestine and we would see peace in that region if we would just let our ally off the chain to clean up their neighborhood like back in 1967.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 9, 2012 at 6:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, maybe YOU can't be pro-Israel and pro-Palestine at the same time but some of us are not such dualistic, either/or, black-and-white thinkers.
The situation is not nearly so one-sided as you seem to believe.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teach...

Posted by: Coralie

December 9, 2012 at 3:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Me, I don't care much for either one of them.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 9, 2012 at 4:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Palestine is a terrorist supporting wannabe state and Israel is our ally. There is no gray area there.

“The suicide bombers of today are the noble successors of their noble predecessors, the Lebanese suicide bombers, who taught the US Marines a tough lesson in [Lebanon]… These suicide bombers are the salt of the earth, the engines of history… They are the most honorable [people] among us…”
— Al Hayat Al Jadida (Official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper) September 11, 2001

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 10, 2012 at 2:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sounds like we should be the ones to go over there and bomb Palastine into the stone age then, not Israel.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 10, 2012 at 7:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Palestine is already almost in the stone age--like one big concentration camp.
A desperate people, some driven to acts of desperation.
It is tragic to see Israel treating the Palestinians in much the same way that Jews themselves were treated (but not to the extremes of the Final Solution).
Or as European settlers treated Native Americans.
Tank, I notice you often refuse to take a longer view and look at the context of current situations. I thought you were interested in history?
The fact is, the Jews found a homeland but this required taking over somebody else's homeland.

Posted by: Coralie

December 10, 2012 at 1:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sounds like we should be the ones to go over there and bomb Israel into the stone age, and not Palistine.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 10, 2012 at 2:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"the Jews found a homeland"

It was the Jewish homeland way before these RPG toting terrorists were subjects of the Ottomans or before Muslims hoards fanned from the Middle East to Hispania.

"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight."

- Jamal Husseini before the Security Council April 16, 1948

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League May 15, 1948

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 10, 2012 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now I don't know who to bomb, but be assured, we will bomb someone before this is over. The Air Force and bombs goes together like a horse and carrage.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 10, 2012 at 3:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Perhaps, just for a change, the U.S. should just keep its nose out of the business of the rest of the world. No one made us the boss of the world.

Posted by: Vickie55

December 11, 2012 at 8:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

100% on target, Vickie

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 11, 2012 at 9:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Vickie55,

That would be a great plan in a perfect world where no evil existed. Unfortunetly, we have the need and responsibility to do the right thing in our no-so-perfect world... lest we follow the example of Neville Chamberlain.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 11, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Recent research has revised this psychological interpretation of Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler. Instead, his willingness to accommodate the Nazis is best understood as a reflection of British imperialism’s eagerness to see an invasion of the USSR and the possible extermination of Bolshevism. Despite the secondary clashes with the Nazis over any of a number of foreign policy matters (the Sudetenland, Poland, etc.), there was an implicit understanding that Hitler was getting a green light to smash the Soviet Union."
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/201...

Posted by: Coralie

December 11, 2012 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Another point of view:
"Unfortunately, for Bush, McCain and the rest of the Right, history does not agree with their versions of appeasement, at least, according to the U.S. Army's Stratigic Studies Institute.
APPEASEMENT RECONSIDERED: INVESTIGATING THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE 1930s
Dr. Jeffrey Record takes a fresh look at appeasement within the context of the political and military environments in which British and French leaders operated during the 1930s. He examines the nature of appeasement, the factors underlying Anglo-French policies toward Hitler from 1933 to 1939, and the reasons for the failure of those policies. He finds that Anglo-French security choices were neither simple nor obvious, that hindsight has distorted judgments on those choices, that Hitler remains without equal as a state threat, and that invocations of the Munich analogy should always be closely examined.
http://lowdownsplace.blogspot.com/200...

Posted by: Coralie

December 11, 2012 at 1:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Black and white thinking is not strategic thinking.
And strategic thinking takes place in a world of greys.
From the same source as above:
"Everyone seems to forget that appeasement was our national policy toward the Soviet Union.
Fog Fact No. 3: Sometimes “appeasement” works well; it was American policy for 50 years.
After the Second World War the Soviet Union annexed the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, part of East Prussia and part of Slovakia. Then, mostly through rigged elections, it turned Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria into puppet states and used military force, when necessary, to maintain that status.
Neither the United States — nor anyone else — seriously challenged any of that.

Posted by: Coralie

December 11, 2012 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

Unfortunatley for you the majority of historians disagree with what you are trying to say. Of course the Allies wanted the NAZIs and the Soviet Union to destroy each other, as they were equally evil and equally threatening to the world, but that doesn't negate the argument against appeasment.

I have a better grasp of "strategic thinking" than you give me credit for. What pacificts and isolationists don't understand is there are "strategic" benifits to acting on selected threats at selected times, in a variety of manners.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 11, 2012 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Strategic thinking" wiped out the American Indian, killed all the Buffalo, took Texas from the Mexicans, allowed the USSR to get Cuba, and caused WW 2. Another word for "Strategic thinking" is "Greed". If we left other nations alone, then we wouldn't be involved in wars for two hundred years. Peace works great everytime its tried, problem is the USA doesn't try it near enough.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 11, 2012 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"the majority of historians disagree with what you are trying to say"
Do you know what I was trying to say?
There is more than one interpretation of Nevile Chamberlain's actions.
Other interpretations point out that Britain needed time to rearm, and that the British people did not support war. They had suffered greatly in World War I, and rearming would require heavy new taxes.
http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII_...
Other countries also did not want to be dragged into war.
"When Neville Chamberlain struck the Munich agreement with Hitler, he was widely hailed as the 'saviour of Europe'."
"The assertion that Mr Chamberlain should receive the Nobel peace prize, says the Stockholm Tidningen [newspaper], is warmly supported in all quarters in Sweden and Norway, and England. Mahmond Pasha, the prime minister of Egypt, has telegraphed Mr Chamberlain the thanks of the Egyptian government and people for averting war. The telegram concludes: "Your name will go down in history as a statesman who saved civilisation from destruction."
The Observer, 2 October 1938
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/...

Posted by: Coralie

December 11, 2012 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst, are you more than one person?
I agree with you here, Yet elsewhere you seem to say the opposite.

Posted by: Coralie

December 11, 2012 at 5:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money,

"If we left other nations alone", as you suggest, we would not exist as a nation.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 11, 2012 at 5:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

The Pasha you quoted above is the same one that declared a move for extermination of the Israelis. He is a real proponent for peace and his opinion on Chamberlain's appeasement moves is very compelling...... in revisionist history, I'm sure.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 11, 2012 at 6:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I have never indicated that I am a fan, in any way of the USA. I ecco the word of the great
Cheyenne chief, Cloud Walker; "Everything that we have ever cherished has been taken from us by the white man." He continued, "First the white man killed all our buffalo. Then the white man took our land and our freedom." Then Cloud Walker pointed to the government school and said, "The white man has even taken our children and our language. And now the white man would take away our dreams and our religion."

Coralie, now they are coming after the rest of the world and then yours.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 11, 2012 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, you constantly misunderstand me.
Let me repeat:
"Do you know what I was trying to say? [It is that]
There is more than one interpretation of Nevile Chamberlain's actions. "
""
You don't understand that history is not an exact science. It is based on interpretations.
It is not about Good and Evil.
You may be a black-and-white thinker, but I am not.
I simplly pointed out that AT THE TIME, Nevile Chamberlain's actions apparently represented the majority public opinion in England, France, and more widely.
At the time, the U.S. was strongly isolationist.
**
This is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that Chamberlain was especially concerned wtih beating back the Soviets. Still a third interpretation is the conventional one that he was a weak leader, and that appeasement is always bad (except of course when we do it, as during the Cold War).

Posted by: Coralie

December 12, 2012 at 12:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst, I shall no longer try to make sense out of your contradictory comments or answaer you.

Posted by: Coralie

December 12, 2012 at 12:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

No one ever answaers me.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 12, 2012 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"You don't understand that history is not an exact science. It is based on interpretations."

I would hope I understand it. I have a AA degree in it and will soon complete my BA in it.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 12, 2012 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

History is written by the winners.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 12, 2012 at 8:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money,

Or those that post their version on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 12, 2012 at 11:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, I can't fathom how you can be taking all those courses in history and still talking in terms of Good and Evil nations.

Posted by: Coralie

December 13, 2012 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

All nations are evil, some just more evil than others.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 13, 2012 at 5:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity."
Roy P. Basler
+++
History is not melodrama, even if it usually reads like that.
Robert Penn Warren
+++
History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten.
George Santayana
+++
"History" is a Greek word which means, literally, just "investigation."
Arnold Toynbee
+++
In mass societies, myth takes the place of history.
William Bosenbrook

Posted by: Coralie

December 17, 2012 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

""How we understand history is shaped by when we start the clock."
Roger Waters


Posted by: Coralie

December 17, 2012 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"History is an loose interpretation of made-up facts."....ME

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 17, 2012 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

History is...history. History is always truth, whether we like it or not because it is what actually happened. No one can change history, only the communicated version of it.

Distorted history is what we get when people rewrite it to fit their own agenda.

Sorry, I realize that's too deep for the liberal mind.

Posted by: patrioteer

December 17, 2012 at 10:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Distorted history is what we get when people rewrite it to fit their own agenda."
You assume that the first writing of it has no agenda.

Posted by: Coralie

December 18, 2012 at 3:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I wouldn't even have read this through if not for Moneymyst's remarks (& patrioteer). Every one's a historian when they read a couple excerpts. Israel belongs to the Jews and always will. Just watch and see.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 18, 2012 at 6:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I don't give a rat's behind who writes the first account or the hundredth account of a historical event.

My statement stands that history is truth. Good or bad, history is what actually happened.

Keep rewording it all you want, it's what you liberals do best.

And mycentworth, you are absolutely correct about Israel. Most non-Christians who have already been born will probably find out just what you mean.

Posted by: patrioteer

December 18, 2012 at 10:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Coralie, I don't give a rat's behind who writes the first account or the hundredth account of a historical event."
Of course you don't. That's one reason your posts often come across as ignorant.

RE "My statement stands that history is truth. Good or bad, history is what actually happened."
"History is written by the victors." --Winston S. Churchill

History is our record of what we think happened until we get a better idea of what happened. The historic record changes fairly frequently. History is a scientific study insofar as we are willing to revise it based in growing knowledge. Biblical history is one example.

RE "Keep rewording it all you want, it's what you liberals do best."
Remember when the Republican National Convention used an out-of-context partial quote as their theme? Talk about desperate rewording. And remember when it was as if George W. Bush had never existed? How does the most recent former president (or his vice president or senior advisor) not show up at his party's convention? Remember when Mitt Romney reversed his position at least once on almost every substantive issue in the campaign? Talk about desperate revisionism-- or was it just craven pandering?

There is less proof that rewriting history is what liberals do best than that conservatives aren't as good at it as they wish they were.

_________________________________________________

A patrioteer is no more a patriot than a musketeer is a musket.

Posted by: AlphaCat

December 19, 2012 at 1:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha, more ignorant statements. Are you off your medications again?

Posted by: patrioteer

December 19, 2012 at 11:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

C'mon patrioteer, you can do better than that.
+++
mycentworth says "Israel belongs to the Jews."
Yes, and the United States belongs to the European settlers who took it away from its original inhabitants.
As the Bible says, "Might makes right."
(no chapter or verse)

Posted by: Coralie

December 19, 2012 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Alpha, more ignorant statements."
How so?
_________________________________________________

A patrioteer is no more a patriot than a musketeer is a musket.

Posted by: AlphaCat

December 19, 2012 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If ya wanna see who Israel belongs to just go over there, buy some property, don't pay taxes, and just see who shows up to take it from you. Hint: Coralie----Star of David

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 19, 2012 at 3:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst - You have a fan. Don't always agree with you, but you make me laugh.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 19, 2012 at 5:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Whereas I don't even get the joke.
It's more of a distraction.
Trying to make a sensible discussion impossible.
Is that what they mean by a "troll"?

Posted by: Coralie

December 19, 2012 at 5:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I had an argument with myself last week and lost both of them. I am not a "troll" but am married to one. "If you don't get the joke, the joke just might be on you so laugh anyway."......ME

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 19, 2012 at 5:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It might be just me, but quoting sources is just boring and keeps going on and on. I like original thought - ME.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 19, 2012 at 6:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, would you please give us an example of one of your original thoughts?
I seem to have missed them.
Or maybe we should give up trying to discuss anything and just turn this into the comedy hour.

Posted by: Coralie

December 20, 2012 at 6:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Having no original thought is better than quoting others and then pass them off as some sort of authoritive source.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 20, 2012 at 9:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ever notice how no one quotes you Coralie. There is a reason for that. Think about it.

Posted by: Moneymyst

December 20, 2012 at 11:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )