From US Embassy

[Guest lvdkeyes]

I received this e mail from the US Embassy today:

 

January 12, 2009

 

This warden message alerts U.S. Citizens traveling to and residing in

Thailand that tomorrow, January 13, 2009, at approximately 9:00am, a

large gathering of demonstrators protesting Israeli and U.S. policies

related to the ongoing situation in Gaza is expected to march from

Lumpini Park to the U.S. Embassy on Wireless Road. The demonstration is

expected to conclude at approximately noon.

 

[Guest GaySacGuy]

That's a protest march that I could join. I think they are right...Israel has had too much pampering by the US for way too long.

[PattayaMale]

I agree. I hope the next administration is more open to a country that is occupied by Israel and treated very badly.

[Guest shebavon]

I agree. I hope the next administration is more open to a country that is occupied by Israel and treated very badly.

When in the last two thousand years did the Palestinian Arabs ever have their own country? Romans, Turks, English. When?

 

Other than for a few months after the UN Partition, I cannot think of any such period. After the first war with Israel, Egypt gobbled up Gaza while Jordan took the West Bank. Too bad they did nothing for the Palestinian people when they were in control.

 

It is too bad for the Palestinian people that their leaders have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

 

Do you really expect Israel to allow a terrorist state to lob missiles from the South? Obama certainly does not.

 

Stop drinking the Kool Aid.

[Guest fountainhall]

When in the last two thousand years did the Palestinian Arabs ever have their own country? Romans, Turks, English. When?

 

Why go back only 2,000 years, when other countries claim their origins well beyond that date? My history of the Middle East is dependent to a great extent on google, but it seems the Jews arrived first around 1,000 BC, displacing the Arabs who had been living there for several millenia. So whose land is it? The Jews themselves were then displaced for most of the last 2,500 years. The state of Israel was only established in 1948.

 

The Jewish claim on Israel is based on ancient texts, the validity of which must, as with all such texts, be questionable. The Palestinian claim is that they were there for thousands of years before the Jews appeared on the scene. So who is right? In my view, at such an historical distance and given its subsequent occupation by so many other powers, probably neither.

 

What is more important is that most now agree Palestine and Israel have to exist side by side as two independent states. In the 1950's, '60s and '70s Israel increased its land area by more than 50% by gobbling up much of its neighbours' land. Whose land is that? In many dozens of resolutions, the United Nations has called on Israel to give that land back, which it will not do. If it were to accede to world opinion, I believe living in harmony with the Palestinians would finally become possible.

 

[Guest MonkeySee]

Israel increased its land area by more than 50% by gobbling up much of its neighbours' land. Whose land is that? In many dozens of resolutions, the United Nations has called on Israel to give that land back, which it will not do. If it were to accede to world opinion, I believe living in harmony with the Palestinians would finally become possible.

That is interesting. I guess the US should give back California and most of the southwest to Mexico? Let us not talk about the lines way the lines should be drawn in Europe.

 

[Guest fountainhall]

That is interesting. I guess the US should give back California and most of the southwest to Mexico?

 

Not a valid comparison. The colonial era was one big land grab. Times thankfully have changed. The UN only came into being after World War 2. Besides, Israel did return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt after the Carter agreement. Why not the West Bank to Jordan?

[Guest shebavon]

Not a valid comparison. The colonial era was one big land grab. Times thankfully have changed. The UN only came into being after World War 2. Besides, Israel did return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt after the Carter agreement. Why not the West Bank to Jordan?

 

 

I believe the comparison is quite valid.

 

As for the 2000 year short history, it was just to make the point that the area had not been self governed for a long time.

 

The British, you know those guys that last mismanaged an empire, inherited Palestine by mandate of the League of Nations. After WWII, and after promising a Jewish State in the Balfour Declaration (during WWII); the British through the contentious issue of what to do with Palestine to the United Nations. The UN came up with a 2 state solution. Under that map, Israel was but 1 mile wide at it's most narrow point.

 

These borders were as arbitrarily drawn by former colonial masters, as were any others on the planet.

 

That was not good enough for the surrounding Arab states, and following Britain pulling out, the combined might of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinians attacked. Israel won that war, there were population transfers in both directions, and Israel widened itself a bit. Jordan seized the West Bank, Egypt took Gaza. No Palestinian state created.

 

In 56 Israel was part of the Suez Canal War, and sided with Britain and France over access to the canal, seized the Sinai, and under pressure from the US and UN gave it back in exchange for guaranteed canal access.

 

Flash forward to 67. Major exodus of Jewish families from all the Arab states, with many settling in Israel, others elsewhere. Palestinians kept in camps by Egypt and Jordan. Still no Palestinian state as the UN had envisioned. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq attack. Israel wins and occupies Sinai, Gaza,Golan Heights, and the West Bank. Wins again when attacked in 73.

 

Made peace with Egypt with Jimmy Carter and gave back Sinai. Egypt did not even want Gaza.

 

Fast forward to today, Palestinians left in pretty grim conditions. On the West Bank you have the Palestinian Authority, who have embraced the 2 state solution. In Gaza, the people elected Hamas, who start with a one-state solution. The Islamic State of Palestine. They provoked this latest round through the rocket attacks on Southern Israel. They hide arms in Mosques, Schools, hospitals, and residential areas. They do not evacuate their citizenry, rather hide with them held as human shields; blaming Israel for the casualties. They manage to obtain missiles to shoot, but not enough food to feed? Spend their resources on arms but not roads?

 

Israel wants a 2 state solution, the problem is with this reality how do you get there.

 

In the meantime, they are perfectly justified to do what it takes to stop the missile attacks.

[Guest fountainhall]

]Israel wants a 2 state solution, the problem is with this reality how do you get there

 

I agree on the problem. However, I don't seem to have seen much effort by Israel to move towards a two state solution. Indeed their actions seem to suggest otherwise.

 

In the meantime, they are perfectly justified to do what it takes to stop the missile attacks.

 

As said before, I agree the country is perfectly justified in taking appropriate action to stop missile attacks. The problem is the definition of the word "appropriate". But I will not extend the discussion since we clearly do not agree on this.

 

Re history, I also agree that the British left a total mess of border issues in many parts of the world. But that does not alter the fact that we are in a post-colonial era, nor that the world powers have delegated a lot of decision-making to the United Nations. Israel unilaterally does not abide by many UN resolutions. If you agree it is right for Israel to snub world opinion and grab whatever land it wants in order to justify alleged historical wrongs, you presumably agree to what will be war between the nuclear powers of India and Pakistan if similar land grabs take place between their disputed borders, and goodness knows what other conflicts in vast swathes of Europe and Russia.

 

In other words, rightly or wrongly, we have to live in the reality of the 21st century.

[PattayaMale]

"Fast forward to today, Palestinians left in pretty grim conditions. On the West Bank you have the Palestinian Authority, who have embraced the 2 state solution. In Gaza, the people elected Hamas, who start with a one-state solution. The Islamic State of Palestine. They provoked this latest round through the rocket attacks on Southern Israel. They hide arms in Mosques, Schools, hospitals, and residential areas. They do not evacuate their citizenry, rather hide with them held as human shields; blaming Israel for the casualties. They manage to obtain missiles to shoot, but not enough food to feed? Spend their resources on arms but not roads?"

 

The above is a well western publicized view. But it certainly is not really correct I feel.

 

If the United States would have given the billions in aid to the Palestinians instead of Israelis. How would that area look like now?

 

It is too easy to say spend money on food not on self defense when a big power like the United States is paying for weapons and aid to the Israelis. You seem to be very well versed in this area. I am not. But to your knowledge how much total aid is given to each country?

 

Why does the US spend so much on Israel? If you were a Palestinian, is it possible that you would feel the way you do?

 

Religion in my view is the most destructive force. Look at the south of Thailand. Is it religious views that are causing the problem?

[Guest fountainhall]

Religion in my view is the most destructive force.

 

Glory! Hallelujah!

 

I have no statistics, but I am certain that more blood has been shed throughout history in the name of religion than for any other reason.

 

But getting back to Israel and Palestine, as the seemingly unending and insoluble 'troubles' in Northern Ireland showed, two intractably opposed sides can indeed compromise and can create a viable, on-going peace. One surprising thing is that one architect of that peace process was none other than Bush's poodle Blair, whose achievements in 18 months as a Middle East envoy seems to have achieved less than zero.

[Guest slackersam]

What's really bizarre is that the three religions in the middle east - Judaism, Islam and Christianity have more in common than they have differences.

 

It's like three brothers arguing over the same book.

[Guest shebavon]

I agree on the problem. However, I don't seem to have seen much effort by Israel to move towards a two state solution. Indeed their actions seem to suggest otherwise.

As said before, I agree the country is perfectly justified in taking appropriate action to stop missile attacks. The problem is the definition of the word "appropriate". But I will not extend the discussion since we clearly do not agree on this.

 

Re history, I also agree that the British left a total mess of border issues in many parts of the world. But that does not alter the fact that we are in a post-colonial era, nor that the world powers have delegated a lot of decision-making to the United Nations. Israel unilaterally does not abide by many UN resolutions. If you agree it is right for Israel to snub world opinion and grab whatever land it wants in order to justify alleged historical wrongs, you presumably agree to what will be war between the nuclear powers of India and Pakistan if similar land grabs take place between their disputed borders, and goodness knows what other conflicts in vast swathes of Europe and Russia.

 

In other words, rightly or wrongly, we have to live in the reality of the 21st century.

 

 

I believe any rational analysis of the Middle East history shows consistent attempts by Israel to exchange land for peace. To wit: Return of Sinai to Egypt, withdrawals from W. Bank and Gaza. Treaties with Jordan and Egypt.

 

At some time perhaps Hamas will become a reliable partner to negotiate. At this point they show no inclination to do so. Both Hamas and Israel rejected the UN's latest ceasefire request.

 

You are right, we all have to live in the reality of the 21st century, and I can only pray that it doesn't become more bloody than the 20th.

[Guest slackersam]

I suspect that if Israel was willing to get rid of the insane settlers things would be easy for everyone.

 

These people don't represent mainstream Israel and cause a lot of grief for everyone.

[Guest shebavon]

What's really bizarre is that the three religions in the middle east - Judaism, Islam and Christianity have more in common than they have differences.

 

It's like three brothers arguing over the same book.

 

 

Start a conversation with"My God is better than your God", and just watch the bullets start flying.

 

It does seem though, that Islam has more of a problem coexisting with competition than the other major religions do, at least at the present point of history.

 

The South of Thailand, India and Pakistan, Serbia and Bosnia, Israel and the Palestinians, many conflicts in Africa, are all examples of this. And many have been all to bloody.

[Guest slackersam]

I suspect that Islam's problems with co-existing with the other two Western faiths comes from the fact that it is the youngest of the three.

 

Lord knows the Christians had trouble getting along with other faiths several hundred years ago and the Jews had problems hundreds of years before that.

 

I suspect that as the religion matures it will become more tolerant. Of course, that could take several hundred years.

[Guest shebavon]

I suspect that if Israel was willing to get rid of the insane settlers things would be easy for everyone.

 

These people don't represent mainstream Israel and cause a lot of grief for everyone.

 

 

The settlers were, often with Israeli force, relocated from Gaza in it's entirety, and from the West Bank as per the last accord.

 

And yes, many were on the right fringe of Israeli politics. Again, too much religion.

[Guest slackersam]

I keep reading though that many have ignored the accord and/or come back.

 

It's like if we suddenly had Christian convervatives "settling" in Southern Canada and/or Tiajuana and trying to impose their religious views on the area.

 

 

[Guest shebavon]

I keep reading though that many have ignored the accord and/or come back.

 

It's like if we suddenly had Christian convervatives "settling" in Southern Canada and/or Tiajuana and trying to impose their religious views on the area.

I would love to know what your "sources" are.

 

What is like having Christian convervatives "settling" in Southern Canada and/or Tiajuana and trying to impose their religious views on the area?

[Guest slackersam]

La Monde, The International Herald Tribune and The Washington Post.

 

And yes, radical right wing Jewish settlers going into traditional Arab land, kicking out the natives and setting up radical Jewish enclaves is no different than if Christian conservatives wanted to do the same thing in American border countries.

 

These are not normal, sane Israelis. These are nut jobs who think that guys like us who like guys are going to hell.

[Guest fountainhall]

I suspect that Islam's problems with co-existing with the other two Western faiths comes from the fact that it is the youngest of the three.

 

Yet after Islam had spread so quickly through much of the Middle East, Africa and part of southern Europe, for hundreds of years it was acknowledged as the most progressive and tolerant of all religions. Certainly in Spain and in the 'Holy Land', the Muslim majority lived harmoniously alongside both Jews and Christians. It also was responsible for many major advances in science, medicine and art. Just look at the extraordinary beauty of the old Palaces like the Alhambra in Granada and the Alcazar in Seville

 

Then compare that with the treatment meted out by the Christian crusaders when they reached Jerusalem at the end of the 11th century. Blood ran through the streets for days following the mass slaughter of Jews and Muslims. One history of the Crusades ("The Crusaders: Warriors of God") adds: "Such barbarous and savage behaviour shocked the entire Middle East and made an impression that would never be forgotten."

 

I believe most historians agree that this "tragic and destructive episode" (Stephen Runciman) marks the start of the hatred between some adherents of all 3 monotheistic religions.

[Guest slackersam]

Agreed.

 

I was trying to make it clear in my post that all three religions have been guilty of horrible things in the name of god.

 

The Crusades were horrible, and the Inquisition makes the shit that happens in Saudi Arabia look like child's play.

[Gaybutton]

Here we go again. A thread that began as an announcement about a demonstration in Bangkok is now a thread debating about Israel and Gaza. That's why the thread has been moved to the "Beer Bar" forum.

[Guest slackersam]

I have no problem with the thread being moved, but I would note that the very first comment was about Israel and Gaza (not a comment left by me) so, really, the entire thread was about that to begin with.

 

I can't think you can fault people for responding to the very first comment!

[Guest shebavon]

Yet after Islam had spread so quickly through much of the Middle East, Africa and part of southern Europe, for hundreds of years it was acknowledged as the most progressive and tolerant of all religions. Certainly in Spain and in the 'Holy Land', the Muslim majority lived harmoniously alongside both Jews and Christians. It also was responsible for many major advances in science, medicine and art. Just look at the extraordinary beauty of the old Palaces like the Alhambra in Granada and the Alcazar in Seville

 

Then compare that with the treatment meted out by the Christian crusaders when they reached Jerusalem at the end of the 11th century. Blood ran through the streets for days following the mass slaughter of Jews and Muslims. One history of the Crusades ("The Crusaders: Warriors of God") adds: "Such barbarous and savage behaviour shocked the entire Middle East and made an impression that would never be forgotten."

 

I believe most historians agree that this "tragic and destructive episode" (Stephen Runciman) marks the start of the hatred between some adherents of all 3 monotheistic religions.

Right on Bro!

 

Add the beauty of the Taj Mahal to the list. And how about the religious horrors of the 20th and 21st centuries. The Holocaust, breakup of Yugoslavia, and the current African wars between Muslim and Christian countrymen.

 

If our leaders do not somehow get this thing right we will soon be in a nuclear confrontation between armed to the teeth Islamic Republics gleefully ready to end life as we know it in the west.