Maybe it was a different Suzanne but I don’t recall what I said about Obama not supporting Israel if Israel attacks Iran. But I don’t think the US has to get involved if Israel acts unilaterally against our ( and Israel’s own , not to mention the region’s) interests.

It may be that the administration here in the US is using Israel as the “bad cop” to soften Iran, psychologically speaking, in a game of brinksmanship. In reality though, an attack on Iran by Israel would be a horrible thing for both countries and the region, from what I have read about the probabilities of what would ensue.

I think that the US should have a security treaty with Israel in case Israel is attacked. That would be a form of deterrence. Israel seems to be doing quite well militarily. I don’t think, though, that being armed to the teeth and being at war (or not having a formal peace) with Palestinians and surrounding neighbors are helping Israel’s security. Also pumping weapons into Israel has a point of diminishing returns. Israel becomes a fortress and does not feel such urgency to make peace. I think this is so now.

I don’t recall saying I have read your comments.

Maimonides? You’re going to give me Maimonides? Again you trot off examples of arab antipathy through the ages. If you keep going back like that you reach the indigenous tribes of the region slaughtered by Jewish invaders. I mean it’s in the Book, there’s no getting away from it. So what’s the point? We’re talking about the justice of living memory, of the rights of occupying powers to impose settlements on the occupied. Trying to find a way forward so that people can live in security which means understanding things from another’s perspective. Not seeing them as relentless bloodthirsty monsters.

I find it strange that you, a Westerner, instead of championing the creation of a free state for Jews, instead support their Islamic oppressors

You do know that Israel are currently the oppressors right? Tell me that you realise at least that much. Again you accuse me of something without foundation, supporting arab thieves. It would be nice if the Islamic world had a more progressive European approach to religion but unfortunately that is hampered by the view that Europe (and the US) imposed the humiliation of Israel upon them. Resolving this issue would likely see some changes in the region as far as religion is concerned.

And this notion that the term ‘Palestinian’ is some kind of propaganda ploy. If everyone was Palestinian and then the Jews became Israel, aren’t the arabs Palestinian by default? Not that there’s any genetic difference between the people of the region.

So have the last word Charlotte, I’m done with this thread. I’m sure we’ll pick it up again elsewhere.

“..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us…Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they…”

Nothing has changed in the Arab world. Of course I know there have always been people of goodwill who seek peace, but they are powerless – especially in the Arab world. You mentioned Albanian Muslims, but their form of Europeanized Islam is different from that of Arabs – Wiki: “The country won its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1912….. Islam underwent radical changes. In 1923, following the government program, the Albanian Muslim congress convened at Tirana decided to break with the Caliphate, established a new form of prayer (standing, instead of the traditional salah ritual), banished polygamy and the mandatory use of veil (hijab) by women in public, practices forced on the urban population by the Ottomans.”

As for your twaddle about “Palestinians” being “disenfranchised” by the creation of Israel. According to British statistics, more than 70 percent of the land in what would become Israel was not owned by Arab farmers, it belonged to the mandatory government. Those lands reverted to Israeli control after the departure of the British. Nearly 9 percent of the land was owned by Jews and about 3 percent by Arabs who became citizens of Israel. That means only about 18 percent belonged to Arabs who left the country before and after the Arab invasion of Israel.

The Arabs were never interested in creating a “Palestinian” state for themselves. They were only interested in destroying an infidel Jewish state:

Arafat, an Egyptian, is recorded as saying to the UN Security Council on 31 May 1956: “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria. Article 24 of the 1964 PLO Charter: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, (or) on the Gaza Strip….”

“The idea that no-one is entitled to a piece of land unless they legally own it is hardly a radical idea..”
Your western idea legal of entitlement is not shared by Arabs who take ownership by force – as their religion instructs – they do not worry about who they steal from as it is “God’s” will. You accuse Jews of being theives, but you defend Arab theives:

Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha on the Partition Plan (16 September 1947):

“The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It’s likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won’t get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we’ll succeed, but we’ll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it’s too late to talk of peaceful solutions.”

Were the Arab conquerors “entitled” to Spain and Persia? Or the Middle East? Were the Arabs “entitled” to slaughter and oppress Jews (and Christians)? I think the Jews had every right to claim back their own territory from their oppressors. Because, contrary to popular misconception, nearly half the Jewish population of Israel are not European “colonisers” but “indigenous” Middle Eastern Jews who have “every right” to live in their own Middle Eastern State free of Muslim persecution and and dhimmification.
I find it strange that you, a Westerner, instead of championing the creation of a free state for Jews, instead support their Islamic oppressors. But then you know what they say about the last one the crocodile eats.

Digging up endless selected quotes from Arabs who’ve hated Jews has limited usefulness Charlotte, especially ones that are 50, 60 and especially over 200 years old. Churchill’s views on the Germans aren’t really relevant today and Wellington’s views on the French even less so. The Nazis had many allies and many Arabs fought against them (see here). Muslims in countries like Albania helped shelter Jews escaping the holocaust and several Arab states signed up with allies, including Saudi Arabia, albeit in 1945. There are people like you on both sides and there are people like Gershom Gorenberg on both sides. Historical perspective is important but you seem to see only one side of it. Clearly understanding the other side’s narrative is not for you.

Maybe I should have also said the UN shouldn’t have tried to disenfranchise the Palestinians (which I’m sure you’re aware is commonly used as a shorthand for the Arab population of Palestine) from their lands by imposing a partition. I was just giving a few examples. If the UN proposed a partition giving independence to an Arab community inside Israel would you support it? The were quite right to refuse to go along with the partition if that’s the way they felt. Who gave the occupying power the right to establish a Jewish State? Who gave the Jews the right to a homeland in Israel, God? I thought you didn’t believe in revealed religion. It follows therefore that you believe you deserve something if you can take it by force. Why should I respect that point of view or the person who espouses it?

The idea that no-one is entitled to a piece of land unless they legally own it is hardly a radical idea but one that seems to enjoy some kind of consensus in the world.

Given the persecution the Palestinian Arabs have suffered it is little wonder hostile statements are made towards the persecutor. But that’s the point isn’t it. Push people to the edge and when you get a reaction wave the red flag and use it to justify more persecution.

“As long as you can strip away feelings of Biblical entitlement it should be possible to arrive at a common set of values…”

I don’t know who the “you” is that you postulate here – yourself perhaps? How are you going to “strip away feelings of Biblical entitlement” from Jews? How are you going to “strip away” feelings of Islamic ummah entitlement from Muslim Arabs?
Seems to me from this and your past comments that it’s always your own set of values and viewpoint that you think is the correct one and that must be imposed on others.Obviously they don’t agree with you and will fight you to the death, because their own principles are as important to them as yours are to you. That is human nature and the way of the world.

The Partition Plan of 29 November 1947 created an Arab state and a Jewish State, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under the UN. Arabs and Jews had a window of a year to relocate to their respective state if they wished, but had full and equal citizenship rights in the state where they resided if they chose to stay put. The two states were to have economic union and share other services.

The Jews accepted, the Arabs refused and declared war on the Jews.

“Israel should not have declared independence…”
Israel had no choice but to declare independence. The Partition Plan confirmed Britain’s withdrawal on 1 August 1948. The Jews had to organise themselves and defend themselves against the Arabs’ intention to slaughter them. This is recorded in British documents available to view online.

“The Palestinians of the 1940s were not responsible for the Jewish expulsion from their historic lands or the holocaust in WWII…”
There was no group of Arabs who identified themselves as “Palestinian” Arabs until 1964, one of Arafat’s propaganda ploys.
I suggest you read the genocidal exploits of the Mufti of Jerusalem and his Hanzers in Bosnia Herzogovina in WWII, and his plans to continue Hitler’s Final Solution by building an extermination camp in Nablus. Here are a few details:

1943 Amin Al-Husseini creates the Hanzar Division of Nazi Muslim Soldiers in Bosnia. It becomes the largest division of Third Reich and participates actively in the genocide of Serbian, Gypsy, and Jewish populations. Over three hundred thousand men, women and children murdered. Amin Al-Husseini refers to them as the ‘Cream of Islam’.
min Al-Husseini is made Prime Minister of Pan-Arab Government by Nazi regime. His headquarters are in Berlin.
He plans construction of concentration camp in Nablus (Palestine) to implement the “final solution” in Palestine to exterminate the Jews there, as an extension of Hitler’s plan.
Al Husseini is one of the founders of the Arab League

1948 Arab League (Amin Al Husseini) immediately declares Jihad (Holy War) against Israel. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan immediately declare war on the new Jewish state and invade Israel.
Secretary General of Arab League Azzam Pasha: “This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre.”

Secretary General of Arab League Azzam Pasha: “This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre.”

Radical Islamic Jihad and pan-Arabism in its violent form find a common root in Amin Al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He is the vector of European fascism into the modern Islamic world, both religious and secular. One cannot understand today’s turbulent world without this information.
“If Israel….refuses to engage in this process of reconciliation…”

I suggest you return from planet Zog where you appear to reside and read up on Fatah’s recent shindig in which they put in a claim for a Judenrein Jerusalem, both East and West and airbrush Jews from Jerusalem’s history. Try Palestinian Media Watch for info.

I also suggest that before pontificating on the causes and solutions of the Arab/Israeli conflict you study some historical facts.

Understanding the narrative of ‘the other side’ is important to try and acheive a shared narrative for a peaceful future. It’s like unravelling any argument, you need to find out where you went wrong and where the other party went wrong and in order to do that you have to understand both sides. As long as you can strip away feelings of Biblical entitlement it should be possible to arrive at a common set of values with which to pick apart the injustices of this ghastly episode. That is if Israel leaves anyone alive to negotiate with.

The Palestinians of the 1940s were not responsible for the Jewish expulsion from their historic lands or the holocaust in WWII. Israel should not have declared independence and expected the Palestinians to accept it, but they had the right to defend themselves when attacked. Palestinians may well have left some homes, some were stolen, but none of those people relinquished the right to their land. Palestinians are not responsible for the expulsion of Jews from other Arab states.

If Israel, if I can just speak generally, refuses to engage in this process of reconciliation then it shouldn’t expect sympathy from the rest of the world. If Israel is to be a project of conquest, bloodshed, theft and persecution, then why should the rest of the world, where for the most part Jews live in peace and security, feel obligated to care if this project ends in disaster? Virtually no-one alive today took part in the holocaust and with every passing year the memory fades and the waving around of Nazi pictures and general flag-waving about that period has less impact and looks more ridiculous. In fact if it is a simply to be a fight, then let it be a fair fight could be the growing consensus in the world. Given that Israel is maintained by foreign aid this should be a concern for its citizens.