Christiane Amanpour's God's Warriors, "the Jews," and "the Occupied Territories": Is this for Real?
Christiane Amanpour in her "God's Warriors: The Jews" broadcast on CNN this weekend - aside from giving voice to as many anti-Israel and anti-"settlement" critics as one might imagine and almost no "Jewish" (really?) God's Warriors, except to portray them in the most trivialized manner - must have used the term "Occupied Territories" an endless number of times at every juncture in her narrative from start to finish, so much so that one could be left in no doubt that this was a critique of Israel's or "the Jews"' pre-sence in them (whatever one might mean by "them") and not about supposedly "Jewish" "Warriors for God" at all.
But it was an altogether too-easy victory. If you start by assuming what in the end you wish to prove, then you have really only indulged in an endless propaganda exercise ostensibly dealing with concepts you haven't really seriously investigated at all. A case in point - the highpoint of her investigation was clearly a revelation of a supposedly secret Israeli legal memorandum written by someone identified as a "legal adviser" alerting the then 1967 Government to the "illegality" of settlements and their potential violation of the Geneva Conventions and an actual interview (on the streets of London) with the now evidently-retired lawyerly Jewish author some forty years later (had he retired to London?) verifying, though a little more hesitatingly, that he still held the same view today.
That was all Amanpour needed. She then proceeded to run on with a series of cut-ins from a Jimmy Carter interview - as if he with his callow sophistries about Israeli "Apartheid" were some sort of expert too - interspersed with some "B-roll" of shots of James Baker and his Carlyle Group partner George Bush Sr., even the long-vanished Chuck Percy of Illinois! But where was the counter-indicative position stated in any depth to what was after all just another "legal opinion" (though in the sensationalist manner in which she was presenting it to a presumably legally-unsophisticated and unsuspecting public it was being given the appearance of the force of "a finding" or "a legal fact")? There was none.
Nor was there any serious background to how one came to the Six-Day War as if that was the be-all and end-all of the political situation. History began in 1967 - period. Or, for instance, of the Ottoman Empire previously or the British Mandate, or even the results of the Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank in the early 1950's, transforming what was once the British-named "Transjordan" (with obvious implications) into "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan," i.e., "Jordan" on both sides of the River. No nothing - just bald statements nurturing present propagandistic fantasies.
"The Occupied Territories" -- let us start with that. When was the legal status of the territory in between the present territory of Jordan (now back on the other side of the River where it began) ever resolved? This is a good term for popular journalism or congenial conversation. Afterall, people must communicate, but it has no real presence in legal fact. That is what we meant by saying Ms. Amanpour achieved an all-too-easy victory on this point - from the beginning assuming what she had set out to prove, but the language you use from the beginning and throughout cannot contain the seeds of what you are going to conclude. You must give all sides to an argument or legal discussion a hearing.
In the first place, in Ottoman times, this whole area was part of the "Wilayet" or "Province of Damascus." There was never a "Province" called "Palestine," a name which like "Iraq" (i.e., the newly-discovered archaeological "Uruk") came from the British love of classics - in this instance, their love of classical literature which their professional bureaucrats learned at elite "Public Schools" and which was the legally-designated Roman term for the area after the Jewish presence had been largely eradicated following two Uprisings in 66-70 and 136 CE (interestingly enough, this was based on the Biblical term "Philistia" - the "Mycenaean" or "Greek" area of the Coast occupied by "the Philistines" which even modern Arabic has picked up for the name for its present-day extension - "the Philistinin"/"the Palestinians", the implications of which should be clear even though these aren't "Philistines," or are they?).
Jerusalem only became a separate quasi-administrative entity within this 'Wilayet" as Western Christian tourism and pilgrimage picked up during the Nineteenth Century and the Ottomans had to deal with Western Consulates that had started to grow up in it. There was never a "Palestine" per se except in late Roman times and there was never one again until the British came in 1917-18.
So it is best to start here with the First World War and its aftermath. The "Mandate" for Palestine and other "Mandates" were awarded to Britain and France by the League of Nations (basically as spoils of war) from the decomposing Ottoman Empire and German colonial possessions in Africa after the Conference of San Remo in 1920 and the Peace Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. This has to be considered the first "legal" building block if one wants to start with anything - whether colonial-minded or non-colonially-minded depending on the observer is besides the point.
Palestine was a "Class B" Mandate meaning, unlike some others ("Iraq" and "Syria" for Instance), its eventual independence was considered to be a ways off in the future. Whether one likes it or not, the fabled "Balfour Declaration" was appended to the Mandate for Palestine as a preamble. It is too bad it was never really observed, not even in spirit, because if it had been, history's first recorded "Holocaust" (or perhaps its second if one considers the Armenians and Turks) in which some six million were systematically annihilated might never have occurred. But, never mind, this is merely 'water over the dam' as it were.
It was at this point that all these results or positions were incorporated into the Palestine-Order-in-Council of 1922, which set forth the legal structure of the new "Mandate" absorbing all previous law including the League of Nations' Mandate and its controversial rider, "The Balfour Declaration." I needn't go into the terms of these. They are pretty obvious. By contrast "Transjordan" (as it was called) received an "Organic Law" after the British unilaterally cut away about two-thirds of the Mandate which originally applied to both sides of the river and gave it, presumably for 'services rendered,' to the Hashemite family of Mecca which coincidentally or otherwise was itself being thrown out of the Arabian Peninsula by "the House of Saud" - a dislodgement which had to do with "Arabian" legal affairs and nothing to do with "Palestinian" at all.
Moreover, it is hard to say if this was ever legally recognized by anyone but it didn't matter, as legal Mandatee, Britain presumably had the right to do this. In any event this threw the whole "Jewish-Palestinian" problem onto the Western Side of the Jordan River while at the same time making the eventual emergence of "Three States" (now possibly "Four") from the old Mandated Territory inevitable. Be this as it may, events eventually overtook this as well, though the establishment of "The Kingdom of Jordan" out of the old Palestine Mandate became more-or-less an unquestioned legal "fact" over the next 80 years.
Responding to various "Arab" uprisings in the Nineteen Twenties and Thirties (to some extent themselves responding to the rise of Nazism on continental Europe and elsewhere - the Baath Party in Syria, for instance, and further East), the British Administration in Palestine ("the man on the spot" as it was often called) became more and more anti-Jewish immigration - in contradistinction to the terms of the Balfour Declaration which in the end became more or less a dead letter - and came up with various "Partition" plans and finally "The White Paper" of 1939 which cut off Jewish immigration in Palestine (of course, just when it was most needed!).
In any event, after the Second World War and all the horrific events everyone is familiar with in connection with that, the legal question of "Palestine" ( though not of "Jordan" which had become an established "fact" as already explained) was once again 'on the table' of the heir of this League of Nations - the illustrious, still-functioning "United Nations." A version of one of these "Partition" plans was eventually adopted in 1947 but was immediately rejected by all of the surrounding "Arab States" by then themselves (several formerly "Class A Mandates") all independent: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. - only Lebanon does not seem to have been legally clearly regulated, nor does it seem to be today (let's leave present-day "Iraq" aside) - who immediately invaded looking forward to an easy victory.
What followed was the so-called Israeli "War of Independence," whose "Cease-Fire Lines" became the eventually demarcations of the 20-year "Truce" that then descended - the official name of which dropped into popular parlance as "the Old Green Lines." But where was the legal or "official" regulation here? There was none. What followed too was the eventual annexation of "the West Bank" (Jordanian parlance meaning the west bank of their Jordan River) in 1951 by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan making it "Jordan" on both sides of the River. But where was the legal outcry here? There was none. But equally, where was the legal recognition or basis in international jurispru-dence? There was none - no more than the annexation by Israel of the City of Jerusalem and its surroundings after the Six-Day War in 1967 fifteen years later.
In other words, the status of the area in between Israel and Jordan, which had been part of the original Mandate for Palestine which had been legally recognized, was in a kind of legal limbo and was still to be regulated. This has to be done by Treaty and negotiations. Two such negotiations have occurred for better or for worse between Israel and Egypt and Jordan in the 1970's and 1990's. Ok, those situations are more or less legally defined and regulated whether rightly or wrongly.
But what of "the Occupied Territories"? These have not been defined in any legal sense and not even the famous Resolution 242 after the Six Day War in 1967 which called upon the Israelis to "withdraw from territories" in exchange for Peace drew back from doing this and did not - and this apparently purposefully - define which "territories" were to be so regarded and to what extent. This again was to be resolved by negotiations, but these "negotiations" are what are supposedly taking or not taking place; and, in any event have been marred by violence (from whatever the direction or from whosever's point-of-view) on a continuing basis.
Nevertheless, the term "Occupied Territories" itself would appear to be a misnomer, however it is used in fact, since it is difficult to "occupy" a "territory" which has no legal status to begin with - except that conferred on it perhaps by the illegal annexation by Jordan - and, therefore, it is difficult to see how the Geneva Conventions should apply to it anymore than they earlier did to Jordan (are all Jordanian-constructed buildings, et. al., therefore, "illegal"?). This is especially true in the light of a finding that "settlement" activity on the part "Jews" (if not "Israelis") in such areas was permissible - in fact, "looked upon with favor" according to the first officially-recognized legal entity, the Balfour Declaration.
However these things may be, the terms of all such legally-binding resolutions or enactments have been systematically violated by all either responsible for or a legal party to them from the beginning up to the present day. The British violated the terms of the Balfour Declaration which had been appended to their "Mandate for Palestine" from the beginning, in effect, doing away with it from two-thirds of the territory appertaining to it in a unilateral manner as early as 1920-21 or thereabouts (no protests here) and abolishing it altogether in 1939. The Jordanians also violated the terms of this Declaration, prima facie (and, as a result therefore, the Mandate for Palestine) allowing no "Jewish Settlement" - which they would have seen as a contradiction in terms - on the territory allotted to them from the beginning on up to the present day. As a footnote to this, it should be observed that even "Palestinian" groups like "Black September" opposed the kind of sovereignty these Authorities were exercising on whatever side of the Jordan.
The British also violated the terms of the Mandate for Palestine by the various unilateral actions they took already enumerated above. All so-called "Arab States," such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan (many - the last three the beneficiaries of "Class A Mandates" - whose independence had already been consolidated as already explained), absolutely rejected the internationally-adopted "Partition of Palestine," making this crystal clear by their immediate invasion. And even those who did not invade like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, etc. supported this rejection and invasion in no uncertain terms. Even the so-called "Palestinians" themselves rejected this, rendering it too a dead letter - many making this clear by their flight whether by choice or involuntary (however one views this and whatever the claims involved) and even more so by their "National Charter" which unequivocally rejects it even to the present day.
So what is, therefore, the legal status of the so-called "Occupied Territories" and what is their extent? There is none. They are in a kind of legal limbo, that is, they are, strictly speaking, legally unrecognized and who knows their extent? This has yet to be determined by negotiation and, like most of the arguments one usually hears (including those on Amanpour's program), superficial. So how can the Geneva Conventions supposedly be applied to an area whose legal status was never legally or rightfully determined in any meaningful way in the first place, except for the Mandate for Palestine in 1920-23 by the League of Nations and manhandled ever since by all legal parties concerned but still rightfully recognizing a Jewish right of settlement all the way up to the Jordan River and, if the truth were told, beyond? This is one legal nicety which has never been gainsaid, whether one likes it or does not like it.
In any event, "Settlement" has to do with 'Lands" - "Dead Lands" as they were called in the Ottoman Empire previously, "Mewat." As in the American West and something in the manner of "Homesteading," these were and are (Ottoman Land Law having been absorbed into both Israel and Jordan Law) lands outside of cities and public spaces connected to cities whose title according to the Ottoman Land Law of 1856 (and, in fact, strict Islamic legal theory and customary practice upon which it was based) had never either been determined or registered by anyone, but which carried with it a right of "Vivification," that is, if you fenced off an uninhabited area of this kind with no registered legal title and cultivated it for three years continuously, you had the right to register it as "mulk" - freehold property. Anyhow, these are legal complexities for which the reader might wish to look at my book: Islamic Law in Palestine and Israel: A History of the Survival of Tanzimat and Shari'a in the British Mandate and the Jewish State, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1978.
Another point, which perhaps should be emphasized for the unsuspecting reader - to call these "towns" or 'bedroom suburbs," which have been founded or mainly grown up on such lands ("Palestine," "the Wilayet of Damascus," "Transjordan," or whatever you want to call it being comprised of large swaths of such lands), "Settlements" at this point is also a misnomer - as any clear-eyed observer who has seen them might be able to understand - of immense and tendentious proportions whose basic purpose is to delegitimatize them (as clearly Christiane Amanpour was intent upon doing whether intentionally or otherwise) before their legal status even comes under consideration or is negotiated. She like many of her colleagues and confreres just seem to facilely assume these things are obvious without any in-depth examination - forgetting the ancient proverb that "the unexamined life is not worth living."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
" ...scienti
Um, YukonJack. Not to pick nits but - didn't the Arabs invent, um Algebra? And our numeric system? And um, other good stuff too?
I thought it was at least different to see the Zionists portrayed as they are - predatory. And all of the pro-Zionist people that own and control our government and media feed us nothing but "oh the poor Jews" day in and day out. Showing how predatory they are, and how unjustly the Palestinians are being treated, was nice for a change. I'm sure the average Zionist would disagree. But then consider the source.
Why is it politically incorrect to say the Palestinian people are living under apartheid when clearly it is true? My issue with Israel has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with right vs wrong. The jewish religion is a beautiful religion and that has nothing to do with most critiques of the Israeli govt.
Most Palestinians ( including their children) are being punished and oppressed b/c of the actions of a few.
Though there was much hand-wringing over the term "Occupied Territories", Israel uses its own verbal slight-of-hand in referring to them as the "Disputed Territorie
Israel is an apartheid state because it wants to remove the inhabitants from their land and subjects them to a two-tiered system of justice.
The media has long given Americans a biased and unbalanced view of the conflict. Its time we learned the truth, and time that Israel engages in its conflict on its own dime. No more military aid for Israel.
Guess What? Jews are also Arabs. The hatred they have evoked is solely based on religion and the fact that their own story is based on being men without a country. They have one now that was given to them so that the Christians, who were often anti-Semites after the war, did not want them staying in their countries.
The Palestenians were not nearly as organized were exploited and struck out at the land grab. They continue to not operate in their best interest.
Both sides do have an opportunity to stop hating their brothers, face up to misdeeds and learn to coexist outside of their religious violent fervor and historical grudges. Will it ever happen?
Northern Ireland is a much more peaceful place since the theological wind finally blew out of their arguments. If it does it won't be because of God, Jesus or Allah wants it to happen. It will take benevolent hearts not listening to anyone who continues to have spiritual tunnel vision.
I don't think that "God's Warriors" was flattering to any of the extremist groups it covered, so I don't view the Jewish side of the story any worse than the others.
As far as who has the right to the land in Israel, I suppose Americans could cite the fact that numerous Native American tribes were exterpted in order for America to be settled and that is generally the case when two cultures clash ... the dominant survives the weak dissipates. Is it fair? Well, historically what's fair doesn't matter ... Man isn't as civilized a creature as he likes to think he is.
The main thing I took away from "God's Warriors" is as long as Man allows archaic religious fantasies frame his World view his future is in jeopardy.
What I've seen of her report is that doesn't really cover much that is new.
What the bottom line is is that Palestinians and Jews don't know really what they want or they want an all or nothing solution, they'll have to really pray to their god, THINK and quit talking at/over each other and show a little compassion, leadership and statesmanship, unfortunately most of all of that seems to be lacking right now.
The Amanpour report has the unfortunate distinction of being one of a very few items critical of Israel that ever reaches light of day in our media. And because it's standing in that light all by itself, it makes an easy target for polemical revisionist history-mongers, who cannot let such remarks pass without attempting to defame its maker.
Jimmy Carter won a peace from Egypt for Israel that still stands today, albeit at some monetary cost to ourselves, which means that billions that might have been spent securing the border between the two countries could be spent elsewhere, like on "unauthorized" settler communities. And then Carter has the temerity to make noises about Israel's doings in the Territories. What came next, from her tireless defenders everywhere, was a terrible noise that sounded nothing like gratitude.
Israel holds its land by force alone, theirs and that of its major sponsor, ourselves, and over time, may not be able to keep it. It's the last European colony in Africa, surrounded by hostile neighbors with little appreciation for its legalisms, historical fictions or ever-more-bristling militarism.
There is not nor has there ever been an ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
There are more Paleos now than ever before.
Even though it is questionable, we must not forget the atrocities of the Israeli army along with the Lebanese falange that massacred of Sabra and Chatila 1982 where more than 5000 civilians were killed for the simple fact of being Palestinian.
Well, the great 'peace maker' of Sharon was found guilty of crimes against humanity.
The issue is again human rights for the Palestinians living under occupation.
Your figure of 5,000 civilians massacred is wildly inflated, as it is approximately triple the HIGHEST estimate made, and more than six times the BBC's estimate -- which included civilians and combatants. Of course, the massacre was perpetrated by Lebanese Christians, led by a man who shortly after the massacre openly pledged his loyalty to Syria, and became a Lebanese cabinet minister in the 1990's.
The massacre of any number of civilians is hideous and to be strongly condemned. But why lie about the numbers and who the perpetrators were?
Note: Sharon was never found guilty of crimes against humanity.
And there is a Santa Claus who gives toys to good children.
Eastern European Ashkenazi Jews are inhabiting Arab lands that they have no Claim, historical or ancestral, to. But the Olive Tree has born fruit, and this is the generation, that will have front row seats, on this 40 year anniversary, a generation later, that will see the return.
Yes, and Western European jews, and European jews of Portuguese and Spanish descent. And jews from Turkey and the Middle East. And Indian jews. And jews from Ethiopia, and Yemen. And, yes, they have claims, historical and ancestral. They are semites, just like Arabs are semites. And jews who have always lived in what is now Israel.
If you've actually been to Israel, it's very clear, the Israelis aren't just putting up a few doublewides in the occupied lands or whatever you want to call them. They are building housing developments, apartment buildings and more. They clearly have no plan to vacate ever. And that is the take-home message local Palestinians see every day. And the obscene wall the Israelis decided to build just exacerbates an already horrible situation. Is it any wonder Palestinians are pissed off?
So, no Jews in the Territories? Since you are advocating the removal of Jews from the Territories are you also advocating the relocation of Arabs from Israel? If one supports the first and does not support the latter then one is a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest.
wtf?
mrliberal53 ... we'll leave the hypocracy and intellectually dishonesty to your kind.
massimo1, you are exactly right.
While you are correct about the settlements, you are wrong about the wall.
If the Palestinians want the wall to come down, they need to get serious about ending suicide bombings. It is not Israel's responsibility to provide jobs shopping to the Palestinians, but it is their responsibility to protect their own population from children who go "boom," and the wall has done a bang-up job of it.
The Berlin wall worked for awhile too. But - in the end it failed. Walls always fail in the end. Even the Warsaw Ghetto failed in the end.
No, Israelis do not have a plan to vacate Israel. It is their land. And the *Palestinians* have Jordan and Gaza, and are everywhere else. Israeli Arabs are in the Knesset. Are there any jews in the Jordanian government? Now, I bought a house in The Netherlands, some fifty years ago. My whole family at one side is Dutch. My roots go back there, on that side, for centuries. I sold that house some fourty years ago. However, I did live there, and it was mine. Let us say I want to go back there. Should the present *occupier* of my home vacate it for me? After all, I used to live there. For all I know the person now living there is a Morrocan, good chance, and he certainly is NOT from The Netherlands. So, should I build a hut opposite my former house and sit there in the dust, ad infinitem, complaining? Well, like *da Palestinians* I have lived abroad, and not in The Netherlands, for decades, yet, that does not matter does it? Nor does it matter that the present *occupiers* improved the premises, paid taxes for decades sothat streets and schools could be built there. No. All of it belongs to me. And, yes, the present *occupiers* bought the house, but, of course not for what it is worth today. They tricked me(?). Yeah? Now, I am *pissed off* at the present *occupier*, and want to kill him. I even train my kids to put on weapons and blow themselves up. And guess what, to keep me out, and as a safeguard, he had the temerity to build a wall around his property. Well, I DO DECLARE! I HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT *TAKE HOME MESSAGE EVERY DAY*! And why is that? I will not move on with my life. I have decided someone else owes me a living?
It always amazes me how much hostility always gets directed at Israel whenever it is discussed. Not that Israel is an innocent, but, it appears at least half of the folks posting here didn't even bother to read what Mr. Eisenman wrote. To many on the left, Israel is by definition "evil" and should be abolished (kind of like Bush from day one).
At the time of even the '67 and '73 wars, there weren't anywhere near as many so-called Palestinians as there are now (by a factor of at least 4 or 5). There was no difference in any genetic or racial manner between the folks living on the West Bank of the Jordan and those on the East Bank. There are Christian Palestinains, Arabic Jews, and Israeli Arabs in abundance.
It was the actions of the Arab governments that made those that left Israel and the West Bank into refugees, as the Arabs moved to keep them separate from thier own populations (at least Jordan has moved away from this activity) so as to have a cause with which to focus Arab opinion on hating the evil Jews (verses revolting against thier own corrupt, oppressive governments).
It was also the actions of those who remained behind who, instead of trying to find a way to integrate themselves into the Arab population of Israel (which is quite large and growing and much wealthier by any standard than almost any other non-Royal Arabic group in all the world), have gone over into constant warfare against "the occupation".
Now Israel's often over-reaction and occasional racism agaisnt the "Palestinians" hasn't helped their cause at all and certainly has played inot the hands of those who have been working so adroitly to rewrite history in such a way as to aid in the goal of obliterating Israel from the map of their Earth (along with just about every one of its inhabitants).
When somebody moves into my house and tells me God gave it to him I am going to be mad. Why wouldn't I try to kick out the invader? The whole of Europe kicked out the Germans and the Japanese were kicked out of the places they had occupied.
I am not a fan of the Mahdi Shahids.
I AM The MAHDI SHAHIDS!
Dragonlizard, How can anything be legally, culturally, & historically bound to anything let alone the 'Palestinains'.
There is no Palestinian language. Palestinian culture & history consists of suicide bombers.
The term Palestinian in its present context entered the leftist vocabulary in late 1967.
Before then nobody had ever heard of these people.
During the British Mandate: The Brits set up the Palestinian Police Forces. Commanded by British officers, leading both Arabs and Jews.
So I guess a Palestinian was some one who lived in a geo-political sub-unit known as Palestine.
The Romans named the same general area Palestine, mostly as an insult to the Jews that lived there. Then Romans, Greeks, and Jews lived in those areas.
The Romans corrupted the term Philistines into Palestine. The Philistines were a group previously known as the Sea Peoples, who were of Celtic origin.
The Philistines were absorbed into the surrounding peoples, they did not evolve into the Palestinians. The Philistines had become into various groups that became Christian, not Moslem.
There is a very small possibility that the Philistines became Palestinians. The similar cultural trait is that the Philistines were barbarians and savages and the Palestinians are barbarians and savages.
what I find laughable about your racist, ignorant comment is that you state this: "Philistines were barbarians and savages and the Palestinians are barbarians and savages".
The reason its laughable is that you're a jewish zionist attempting to degrade and dehumanize Palestinians however the Phillistines that you claim to be barbaric and savage were Jewish.
Yes, I thought the philistines were the jews too.
Have you forgotten the Canaanites? They were the ones ruling over Jerusalem for millenia till the Israelites' first land grab. The land never belonged to the Jews, and it still doesn't, specially not to the European Ashkenazi Jews.
you are exactly right depaul.
The Philistines weren't savages and barbarians. They were actually a high civilization compared to the goat herder jews they allowed to live next to them. I don't think it has much relevance to the situation we have today but let's not berate a fine people like the Philistines.
Wow. Goebbels couldn't have said it better.
Whatever.. The palastinians are going nowhere. Whether you think Israel stole the land or not, palastinians had 50 years to build decent hospitals, roads, power plants, industry, schools, running water, etc. They've done none of this. All they've done is sit around in those dusty huts and complain that the land they have now is not enough.
And send over a few human grenades to kill people every so often.
But this would all change suddenly if they got Jerusalem and the surrounding arab nations got their "occupied territories" back?
Gator...ev
Nothing will change until Israel stops bombing, killing, attacking and destroying its neighbours.
The most accurate statement is this: Its been 50 years of the Palestinians rebuilding and the israelis destroying.
Lets use the facts to construct our opinions, shall we.
Gator; They are not allowed to even dig wells. One farmer built a cistern above his house. The settlers kept shooting it so the water leaked out. The farmer left eventually. Sometimes a farmer is hot trying to harvest a crop. After awhile planting seems to be a waste of time. Just look at the water resources which Israelis have tapped. Look at the swimming pools of the settlers. The only way to earn a living is by building something for the Israelis. Not much money left for food much less anything else. If you think the Arabs are backwards you should read about the Jews in Russia. Now those were real peasants. No concept of sanitation and utterly illiterate. The Arabs "gave" us the basis of our civilization. Algebra is an Arab word. Try not to be so ignorant.
I meant to add that I always thought Christianne Amanpour was kind of hot.
As some have pointed out, Israel's American cohorts have national debate on our policy toward Israel completely under their heel. Any dissent is countered with a more deadly accusation than racism: ANTI-SEMITISM. Anti-Semitism is more deplorable than garden variety racism because it is against Jews.
We, especially those of us on the Right (which would be just me), need to overcome this fear of being labeled racist. (Unjustifi
The last thing Israel wants is a reasoned rational debate on our relationship. It must be tinged with superstition, emotionalism, paranoia and the myth that they are somehow actively furthering our interests in the region.
So far we have paid them billions upon billions to spy on us, snub us, attack our Navy and generally be arrogant to us, their primary benefactor.
I love America. We haven't come through 200 plus years of change, turmoil, and war to be Israel's lap dog.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
