U.S. Will Withhold Funds For U.N. Agency After Vote to Grant Membership to Palestinia [Archive]

Eki

31st October 2011, 22:47

U.S. Will Withhold Funds For U.N. Agency After Vote To Grant Membership To Palestinians | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/31/us-could-withhold-funds-to-un-agency-after-vote-to-grant-membership-to/)

Petty, but who cares as long as other countries keep on funding Unesco. It's time to show that the US can't boss us (the world) around any more.

airshifter

31st October 2011, 23:02

If you want to show the world that what the US does doens't matter, then quit whining about it! :laugh:

And naturally, don't let facts get in the way of your reasoning. From your link above:

"Washington is required by law to cut off funding to any U.N. agency if the Palestinian Liberation Organization is granted membership in any group at the international body."

A little research on the matter will also show that the verious UN Resolutions that over the years were veto'd by the US had mostly to do with the same thing... the PLO. It was a long standing US policy that they would not recognize a terrorist organization as a legitimate government, especially back in those days when they weren't even part of the election process.

At least the US has a policy that it states. 52 members abstained from voting on the matter.

Bob Riebe

31st October 2011, 23:42

Malbec

31st October 2011, 23:50

"Washington is required by law to cut off funding to any U.N. agency if the Palestinian Liberation Organization is granted membership in any group at the international body."

A little research on the matter will also show that the verious UN Resolutions that over the years were veto'd by the US had mostly to do with the same thing... the PLO. It was a long standing US policy that they would not recognize a terrorist organization as a legitimate government, especially back in those days when they weren't even part of the election process.

Then why is US policy not consistent? The PLO which is now called Fatah renounced violence at the time of the Oslo peace accords, presided over by the US. The US is happy to negotiate directly with Fatah and provide them weapons and training to form a heavily armed police force. In fact Fatah is the only Palestinian political organisation that the US is happy to deal with and we have had both G W Bush and Obama speak up to support them over Hamas.

When G W Bush and Obama spoke of a two-state solution they talked to Fatah and envisioned them ruling over the Palestinian side.

From the article it says clearly that the US statutes that insist on cutting off funding to any organisation the PLO is involved in dates back to 1990, before the Oslo peace accords and before the PLO renounced violence and recognised Israel's right to exist. Clearly those statutes are now out of date and are out of touch both with the reality on the ground and with US policy in the Middle East as executed by the last two presidents.

Rollo

1st November 2011, 00:22

And naturally, don't let facts get in the way of your reasoning. From your link above:

"Washington is required by law to cut off funding to any U.N. agency if the Palestinian Liberation Organization is granted membership in any group at the international body."

A little research on the matter will also show that the verious UN Resolutions that over the years were veto'd by the US had mostly to do with the same thing... the PLO. It was a long standing US policy that they would not recognize a terrorist organization as a legitimate government, especially back in those days when they weren't even part of the election process.

Hear hear :up:

Seeing as both Hamas and Fatah are both factions of the PLO, the US's policy is entirely consistent. Given that neither Hamas and Fatah recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist, it seems to me that the same courtesy is being extended in the other direction - Hoisted with their own petard as it were.

Malbec

1st November 2011, 00:42

Seeing as both Hamas and Fatah are both factions of the PLO, the US's policy is entirely consistent.

Wrong.

The PLO no longer exists in practicality.

The organisation that was the PLO renamed itself Fatah, recognised Israel's right to exist and renounced the use of violence to achieve Israel's destruction. This was part of the Oslo peace accords.

Hamas is an entirely separate organisation from Fatah and has never been part of the PLO or Fatah.

Given that neither Hamas and Fatah recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist,

As described above, Fatah DOES recognise Israel's right to exist. Please read up on the Oslo peace accords.

Hamas doesn't on paper but in practicality it does recognise Israel as it negotiates directly with them for purchasing utilities such as electrical power and clean water and negotiating services like garbage disposal from the Gaza strip. It is rather difficult to buy things from a country you don't recognise exists.

Please don't confuse fiction with fact, I really don't know where your version of events comes from as it really doesn't bear any resemblance with reality.

yodasarmpit

1st November 2011, 00:53

Absolutely idiotic. Thank you Obama for turning a fledgling nation against the US (and west by association) by an act of complete insolence.

It is this type of immature thinking that will ensure the Middle East always see he West as an enemy.

Eki

1st November 2011, 08:50

You might want to reconsider who is being idiotic here (hint). As noted above, the US is required by law to respond that way. The correct answer is to change the law and that takes a while in any truly democratic country. Particularly since Jewish interests are well funded and vocal here it won't be an easy sell. It was not a choice by the US government or Obama, the immediate outcome was obvious to anyone who has any understanding of the facts.
Maybe it's time to change the law then?

schmenke

1st November 2011, 14:01

No Eki, it is not petty. Canada has legislation similar to the U.S. where it is illegal to support known terrorist organizations. This is why they were forced to vote against.

Other countries such as Canada are currently reviewing their funding policies in light of the recent vote.
Until Palestine has a stable government that is not controlled by a terrorist organization their acceptance into any internationally recognized body will be questioned.

Eki

1st November 2011, 14:23

No Eki, it is not petty. Canada has legislation similar to the U.S. where it is illegal to support known terrorist organizations.
As far as I know, Palestine is not a terrorist organization.

Eki

1st November 2011, 14:27

Not even PLO was a terrorist organization, it was a liberation organization, just like the name said. Fatah and Hamas are political parties.

Gregor-y

1st November 2011, 14:41

We call them terrorists to differentiate them from the likes of the Contras and KLA. Nuances aren't a strong point in US diplomacy, which is why we need the UK, France, etc to run interference. It generally works pretty well except when some of the more conservative elements here forget how this balance is supposed to work.

schmenke

1st November 2011, 15:00

As far as I know, Palestine is not a terrorist organization.

I never said it was. Re-read my post.

schmenke

1st November 2011, 15:01

Not even PLO was a terrorist organization, it was a liberation organization, just like the name said. Fatah and Hamas are political parties.

Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by Canada. Hence the need to vote against against membership to UNESCO.

Bob Riebe

1st November 2011, 18:49

As far as I know, Palestine is not a terrorist organization.

Palestine is nothing; not country, not a state, not a county, not even a suburb.
HMM, is there a shopping center called Palestine?

anthonyvop

1st November 2011, 19:06

Eki

1st November 2011, 20:28

Palestine is nothing; not country, not a state, not a county, not even a suburb.
HMM, is there a shopping center called Palestine?
And you live in the state of Denial.

Roamy

1st November 2011, 21:38

fckem all fckem all fckem all the short the fat and the tall fckem all
I would suspense any foreign aid until we have zero debt !!

Tomi

1st November 2011, 22:15

[quote="Roamy"]

Good idea, your buddies israel would collaps in a year, also you will never have zero debt, thats wish thinking.

Roamy

2nd November 2011, 03:06

Good idea, your buddies israel would collaps in a year, also you will never have zero debt, thats wish thinking.

i would make Israel a territory if they want aid

Bob Riebe

2nd November 2011, 05:00

And you live in the state of Denial.Which is better than Never Land you live in.

Eki

2nd November 2011, 06:07

Unadulterated BS. Any group which actively supports and conducts bombing, etc. directed at civilian targets is, by definition, a terrorist organization. Please note that that is as opposed to collateral damage to civilians where the intended targets are military or terrorists.
You mean like governments who drop atom bombs on Japanese cities or carpet bomb German cities? Or are you saying they just aimed military targets?

Eki

2nd November 2011, 13:37

As you know, that condition is a declared state of war between nations. Not the same thing at all.
Very convenient. The US tries to stop Palestine from becoming a nation, so that they can keep calling them "terrorists". Palestine can't in your eyes declare a war against Israel as long as it isn't a nation, so they must continue as "terrorists". That's a leak proof plan, I must say.

schmenke

2nd November 2011, 14:14

Eki, no one is calling Palestinians terrorists, and no one is trying to block an independent state for Palestine. Just the opposite, in fact.

However, I can't speak for the U.S. but the government of Canada has a difficult time justifying recognition of an independent state whose leadership is, or actively supports, a known terrorist organization.

Also, Palestine is not at war with Israel, although their current leaders actively support unprovoked hostilities :mark: .

Knock-on

2nd November 2011, 15:25

^^ Excellent. 100% agree ^^

BDunnell

2nd November 2011, 16:22

I wouldn't say that activities against Israel are unprovoked. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

I am no supporter of Israel. While at one time they were the victims of aggression by their neighbors, they have become an occupying force, aggressively taking and annexing land that does not belong to them. I cut them no slack what so ever. Further, I encourage my representatives in the US Congress to de fund all aid to Israel. The point I made in my original post was that the US is constrained by our law to act the way it did. That does not mean that the law cannot be changed.

All of that, I agree with very much indeed.

Eki, as usual, doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. He just throws post bombs around to provoke controversy and start arguments. Either the US government acts illegally, as he suggests in many threads, or it doesn't. In this case, I pointed out the the US position was fully within the existing law. Now he seems to want us to act outside that law. Make up your mind Eki, your vehement anti US bias is showing here. Should the US act legally or illegally? Or is it just that no matter what we ever do it's wrong in your eyes?

As for this, I suppose it depends on whether you feel the US is acting consistently in deciding to remain within the letter of international law on this occasion. On that there are differing perspectives.

anthonyvop

2nd November 2011, 16:30

As for this, I suppose it depends on whether you feel the US is acting consistently in deciding to remain within the letter of international law on this occasion. On that there are differing perspectives.

International Law only applies when it serves a nations own self interests. Bar that they aren't worth the paper they are written on!
Did Gaddafi follow international law? Mubarak? Saddam? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot?..........The list is endless.

yodasarmpit

2nd November 2011, 16:31

Further to my earlier post, I'd like to apologise for the tone of the comments.
It does , however, dishearten me to observe that at each turn there appears to be attempts to make difficult the transition from state to fully fledged country.
Rather than impeding their, legitimate, right to self governance and entry into the International community - we should be be doing everything possible to ensure a seamless transition.
Yes, things have been difficult in the past, and are still to some degree in Gaza, however sticking with the status quo mentality won't allow for progression.

It is time for a different way of thinking.

BDunnell

2nd November 2011, 16:53

Did Gaddafi follow international law? Mubarak? Saddam? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot?..........The list is endless.

By that reasoning, not following international law means one lines oneself up with all of those individuals.

BDunnell

2nd November 2011, 16:55

Not even PLO was a terrorist organization, it was a liberation organization, just like the name said. Fatah and Hamas are political parties.

So you believed the German Democratic Republic to be truly democratic, did you?

I find your reasoning here charmingly simplistic.

BDunnell

2nd November 2011, 16:57

No Eki, it is not petty. Canada has legislation similar to the U.S. where it is illegal to support known terrorist organizations.

This I find very difficult, for definitions of 'terrorist' have always been so blurred. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, after all. And now we have anti-terrorism legislation being used in all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Furthermore, it must be mentioned that financial backing from the US was long instrumental in keeping the IRA in guns and bombs.

Eki

2nd November 2011, 17:00

So you believed the German Democratic Republic to be truly democratic, did you?

I find your reasoning here charmingly simplistic.
Are you saying their goal wasn't an independent Palestinian nation state?

Eki

2nd November 2011, 17:13

Eki, as usual, doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. He just throws post bombs around to provoke controversy and start arguments. Either the US government acts illegally, as he suggests in many threads, or it doesn't. In this case, I pointed out the the US position was fully within the existing law. Now he seems to want us to act outside that law. Make up your mind Eki, your vehement anti US bias is showing here. Should the US act legally or illegally? Or is it just that no matter what we ever do it's wrong in your eyes?
So as long as it's legal it's OK? Did Gaddafi follow his national laws? Mubarak? Saddam? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot? Yes they did, but many seemed to have a problem with it.

schmenke

2nd November 2011, 17:13

This I find very difficult, for definitions of 'terrorist' have always been so blurred. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, after all. And now we have anti-terrorism legislation being used in all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with terrorism. ...

Yes, agreed. I can only assume that the government of Canada has drafted some official definition of "terrorist organization" the parameters of which apply to Hamas :mark: .

BDunnell

2nd November 2011, 17:26

Are you saying their goal wasn't an independent Palestinian nation state?

With respect — and I do respect your views — you are avoiding the question.

anthonyvop

2nd November 2011, 17:30

By that reasoning, not following international law means one lines oneself up with all of those individuals.

By your reasoning....Not by any rational person. Does Romania or Poland still have to abide by the rules of the Warsaw Pact?

anthonyvop

2nd November 2011, 17:32

So as long as it's legal it's OK? Did Gaddafi follow his national laws? Mubarak? Saddam? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot? Yes they did, but many seemed to have a problem with it.

Neither did the Finns who allied themselves with Hitler until the USSR kicked their ass.....Then they became Stalin's Brown Nose Buddies!

BDunnell

2nd November 2011, 17:34

By your reasoning....Not by any rational person. Does Romania or Poland still have to abide by the rules of the Warsaw Pact?

I have lost what you are on about. Your view is that international law is worthless; then you went on to list a load of dictators whose actions have gone against international law, as though this somehow backs up your stance.

BDunnell

2nd November 2011, 17:34

Neither did the Finns who allied themselves with Hitler until the USSR kicked their ass.....Then they became Stalin's Brown Nose Buddies!

Great topical satire (albeit 70 years too late).

Eki

2nd November 2011, 18:30

Malbec

2nd November 2011, 18:55

thinking that the Palestine Liberation Organization was about liberating Palestine?

Noone disputes that the objective of the PLO was to liberate Palestine.

Noone can dispute either that the PLO used terrorism as a means to achieve that objective.

Means and ends are two separate entities.

BDunnell

2nd November 2011, 19:08

Eki

2nd November 2011, 22:32

Er... surely the 'German Democratic Republic' example shows what's wrong about going entirely by the name?
Of course, but it doesn't rule it out completely.

Eki

2nd November 2011, 22:37

Noone disputes that the objective of the PLO was to liberate Palestine.

Noone can dispute either that the PLO used terrorism as a means to achieve that objective.

Means and ends are two separate entities.
Go tell that to the members of the resistance movements that used "terrorism" to fight the Nazi occupation.

Malbec

3rd November 2011, 00:14

Go tell that to the members of the resistance movements that used "terrorism" to fight the Nazi occupation.

It may come as a shock to you but in life there are many means to achieve an objective, not just one.

In the cases you mention violence/terrorism is one but peaceful means are another.

Before you start claiming that peaceful means were not open to the PLO I remind you they achieved more in a few weeks of talking at Oslo than they ever did in four decades of killing civilians.

anthonyvop

3rd November 2011, 03:41

I have lost what you are on about. Your view is that international law is worthless; then you went on to list a load of dictators whose actions have gone against international law, as though this somehow backs up your stance.

You don't get it?

Eki

3rd November 2011, 05:53

Neither did the Finns who allied themselves with Hitler until the USSR kicked their ass.....Then they became Stalin's Brown Nose Buddies!
But at least it was all legal.

Eki

3rd November 2011, 05:55

It may come as a shock to you but in life there are many means to achieve an objective, not just one.

In the cases you mention violence/terrorism is one but peaceful means are another.

Before you start claiming that peaceful means were not open to the PLO I remind you they achieved more in a few weeks of talking at Oslo than they ever did in four decades of killing civilians.
But do you think they'd gotten the chance for Oslo talks without violence? I don't. They had to make Israel listen. I don't think Israel would have given away voluntarily anything of what they had hoarded, and they international community was in love with Israel, so there was no way they would have put any pressure on Israel.

monadvspec

3rd November 2011, 10:02

Isn't there always a double standard, or should I say hypocrisy involved when it comes to nations and their attempt at freedom. The old adage, "one man's ........ is thrown around just like the founding fathers of the US.
What I find strange is that Palestine, a country that was eradicated when the Jews came to reclaim it after WWII and thus became a people without a home.
Has anyone here on this board ever been to Israel? I have not. I only reas about it. I read of atrocities meted out by both sides, but, here in the US it is always the Palestinians that are the worst. Why is that?
Does anyone recall the slaughter in a place named Jenin. Israel went into the refugee camp and it was claimed that they killed hundreds. They agreed to an investigation by the UN but just as it was about to occur they refused to allow anyone to investigate. The totals killed ranged originally in the hundreds if not thousands to 50 to 60.

There was no outcry from the west except from a BBC show I happened to watch while on vacation. It opened my eyes. It made me ponder the violence there and then consider what is a terrorist if the IRA,UDA,UFF and all those involved in the "troubles" of Northern Ireland are now free and actually serving as MP's. The Treaty was initiated by Sen Mitchell and with President Clinton coming in there is virtually total peace. Why was Northern Ireland any different to Palestine or allowing Palestinians some form of a country?

Malbec

3rd November 2011, 10:44

But do you think they'd gotten the chance for Oslo talks without violence? I don't. They had to make Israel listen. I don't think Israel would have given away voluntarily anything of what they had hoarded, and they international community was in love with Israel, so there was no way they would have put any pressure on Israel.

If PLO terrorism was the driving force behind Israel wanting to negotiate then the Oslo accords would have been signed in the '70s when they were at their strongest.

By the mid '90s the PLO were pretty much finished as a terrorist organisation since they'd been ripped apart by every major intelligence organisation and hounded from state to state.

The Oslo accords happened for two reasons.

The Israelis were getting fed up with the cost of administering the Occupied Territories and were happy to pass that responsibility onto someone else within reason.

The PLO were getting weaker and weaker and were losing both support and funding to rival organisations like Hamas and grabbed the opportunity to become the leading Palestinian group again through negotiating.

The talks made the PLO important again as they were the only group the Israelis and the US were willing to negotiate with and the Israelis managed to reduce their presence in the Occupied Territories. The fact that the PLO had to renounce terrorism didn't mean much by then because they'd lost much of their ability to launch such attacks by then anyway.

Lousada

3rd November 2011, 10:51

What I find strange is that Palestine, a country that was eradicated when the Jews came to reclaim it after WWII and thus became a people without a home.
Palestine was never a country, at least not the last couple of hundred years. Before Israel the area was part of Britain and before that the Ottoman Empire. Jews have always lived there.

Has anyone here on this board ever been to Israel? I have not. I only reas about it. I read of atrocities meted out by both sides, but, here in the US it is always the Palestinians that are the worst. Why is that?
Because the media always boils it down to a black/white, good vs. bad battle.

Why was Northern Ireland any different to Palestine or allowing Palestinians some form of a country?

Palestinians were always allowed to form a country. It's just that they did not accept any sort of 2 state-option.

BDunnell

3rd November 2011, 11:06

You don't get it?

No, because you are not the best at putting coherent points across.

Malbec

3rd November 2011, 11:18

Jews have always lived there.

As have Palestinians, and even until the British withdrawal Arabs/Palestinians formed the majority.

Palestinians were always allowed to form a country. It's just that they did not accept any sort of 2 state-option.

The Israelis haven't wanted a two state solution either, particularly as the right wing fanatical Jews who hold disproportionately large political power wreak havoc on any party that is happy to give away the Occupied Territories.

Lousada

3rd November 2011, 11:51

As have Palestinians, and even until the British withdrawal Arabs/Palestinians formed the majority.

I never said they didn't. The poster I responded to claimed that Jews came in only after the WWII.

The Israelis haven't wanted a two state solution either, particularly as the right wing fanatical Jews who hold disproportionately large political power wreak havoc on any party that is happy to give away the Occupied Territories.

They don't want it anymore now, but they did want it in 1948.

yodasarmpit

3rd November 2011, 13:03

Has anyone here on this board ever been to Israel? I have not. I only reas about it. I read of atrocities meted out by both sides, but, here in the US it is always the Palestinians that are the worst. Why is that?

I visited Israel (Jerusalem) and The West Bank two years ago. It was a place I had always wanted to see, so on the spur of the moment I booked a flight and hotel, and arranged with the Alternative Tourism Group a couple of days in the West Bank (Hebron, Bethlehem).
When you are there you gain a small glimpse of daily life in Palestine and the Israel - it's not all doom and gloom but you cant help but sympathise with the Palestinians when you witness some of the restrictions imposed and daily encroachment of the settlements.

I would love to go back sometime, as I only managed to see a fraction of the sites I wanted to visit.

Malbec

3rd November 2011, 13:14

Jews who were living there at the time were, by definition, Palestinians.

No thats way too simplistic as it depends on what type of Jew you're talking about.

The Jews who'd lived there for centuries are Arab Jews, culturally and racially very similar to their Muslim and Christian neighbours.

The British banned migration into Palestine after WW1 in an effort to prevent a demographic swing from the Jews forming a definite minority into a majority.

Despite this many Ashkenazi Jews predominantly from Europe and the US migrated into Palestine mainly using illegal methods. This trickle turned into a flood after WW2. When found by the British these guys were mainly deported to their countries of origin.

These Jews were responsible for the sudden surge in the proportion of Jews in Palestine prior to 1949, but few of them held legitimate papers for Palestinian residency and were therefore not by any means Palestinian.

schmenke

3rd November 2011, 14:50

No thats way too simplistic as it depends on what type of Jew you're talking about.

The Jews who'd lived there for centuries are Arab Jews, culturally and racially very similar to their Muslim and Christian neighbours.

The British banned migration into Palestine after WW1 in an effort to prevent a demographic swing from the Jews forming a definite minority into a majority.

Despite this many Ashkenazi Jews predominantly from Europe and the US migrated into Palestine mainly using illegal methods. This trickle turned into a flood after WW2. When found by the British these guys were mainly deported to their countries of origin.

These Jews were responsible for the sudden surge in the proportion of Jews in Palestine prior to 1949, but few of them held legitimate papers for Palestinian residency and were therefore not by any means Palestinian.

???

In 1917 the British promised the Jews (and the rest of the world) the secure settlelment into Palestine, pee-ing off the Palestinians at the time who were previously guaranteed security in exchange for fighting against the Turks.

I don’t think you can call their migration at the time illegal :mark:

Gregor-y

3rd November 2011, 15:54

Neither did the Finns who allied themselves with Hitler until the USSR kicked their ass.....Then they became Stalin's Brown Nose Buddies!
They were flying Blenehiems along with those Messerschmitts. I think there's some context you're missing here.

Er... surely the 'German Democratic Republic' example shows what's wrong about going entirely by the name?
Plenty of Socialist republics could claim to be meeting the definition of a republic; it's just how far down you allow participation. Look at the Republican Party in the US. You think any of the clowns posturing for the primaries has any chance when the party hierarchy puts Jeb Bush forward as the nominee? It'll be just like Dole in 1996 and George Bush in 2000 ;)

Knock-on

3rd November 2011, 16:33

To answer your question: No, I don't think the German Democratic Republic was that democratic. But I do think that the United Kingdom is definitely a kingdom, and also united, so what's wrong with thinking that the Palestine Liberation Organization was about liberating Palestine?

Hang on a minute. Weren't you trying to insinuate that a Parties name somehow had some sort of special relevance to how it behaved. Then you suddenly equate the United Kingdom to this model :confused: For you information, it is hardly United any more with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales being devolved.

I shall now apply your model to other nations. Can China be destroyed by tapping it with a hammer? Is Germany at risk from a good dose of Domestos? Is Greenland not covered in Ice and just how many Fins do you have?

No, I think this is irrelevant. Don't you?

Eki

3rd November 2011, 16:56

I only reas about it. I read of atrocities meted out by both sides, but, here in the US it is always the Palestinians that are the worst. Why is that?
Money talks, and Jews or other pro-Israel own much of the media? I don't know, but there must be some reason for it. In the Finnish media, it seems to be the other way around.

Malbec

3rd November 2011, 17:04

I shall now apply your model to other nations. Can China be destroyed by tapping it with a hammer? Is Germany at risk from a good dose of Domestos? Is Greenland not covered in Ice and just how many Fins do you have??

What goes on in Bangkok then?

Eki

3rd November 2011, 17:07

Jews who were living there at the time were, by definition, Palestinians.

In 1948, 65% of the Jews in Israel were foreign born immigrants (now about 30%):

Latest Population Figures for Israel (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/newpop.html)

Some 5,874,300 of the population (75.3 percent) are Jewish Israelis; 1,600,100 (20.5%) are Israeli Arabs; and, those not identified as either make up the remaining 4.2% of the population, or 323,000 people. When the state was established, there were only 806,000 residents, with this number reaching its first and second million in 1949 and 1958 respectively. Today, over 70% of the total Jewish population are "Sabras" - born in Israel - compared with 35% native-born in 1948.

BDunnell

3rd November 2011, 17:34

Hang on a minute. Weren't you trying to insinuate that a Parties name somehow had some sort of special relevance to how it behaved. Then you suddenly equate the United Kingdom to this model :confused: For you information, it is hardly United any more with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales being devolved.

I think that's a bit of a poor example, to be honest, for the United Kingdom still officially exists as a single entity. You may not consider it to be united according to your definition, but that's an opinion. Few of the countries, however, that have had 'Democratic' in their title are anything of the sort according to any accurate sense of the word.

BDunnell

3rd November 2011, 17:37

I read of atrocities meted out by both sides, but, here in the US it is always the Palestinians that are the worst. Why is that?

One reason worth stating as often as possible is the fear of setting into action the immense Israeli government-funded media monitoring machine. Even specialist publications incur its wrath for printing even mild anti-Israeli statements. It is a country that refuses to tolerate criticism of the mildest form, and I find this highly disturbing.

Roamy

3rd November 2011, 17:42

This whole deal is ridicules - I have been to TV and Jers - Just let this people live their lives. Carve out a country for the Pales and get on with it. TV reminded me of So Cal along the beach.
If you look at the whole deal for some reason most of the people have a screw loose. Look at Saddam - he had so many options i.e. 1. let the inspectors in 2. take 20 billion and move the family to Syria on and on. Quaddafi - Take all your wealth and sh!t and leave. Iran - Get off the nuclear kick and just live life. On and on - but oh no these people are going to fck around until they start a hell of a war. I wish someone would just give me the option to take millions and move. Can you spell Italy??? I would be there in a heartbeat.

BDunnell

3rd November 2011, 17:56

This whole deal is ridicules - I have been to TV and Jers - Just let this people live their lives.

I think this raises an interesting point. Is there not, sadly, quite a large constituency on both sides with whom the status quo goes down well, no matter what the cost may be in lives? It may be a little simplistic to say so, but there was an extent to which I feel this was true for many years in Northern Ireland. People may have said they wanted peace, but their voting habits didn't seem to indicate it. Only when negotiation started was any progress made.

Eki

3rd November 2011, 18:10

They were flying Blenehiems along with those Messerschmitts. I think there's some context you're missing here.

Finland bought a license for the Blenheims already in 1938 from Britain, and the planes were built in Finland. Finland also bought Brewster F2A Buffalos from the US in 1939. Messerschmitt Bf 109 started to replace the Brewsters in 1943.

Eki

3rd November 2011, 18:44

Finland bought a license for the Blenheims already in 1938 from Britain, and the planes were built in Finland. Finland also bought Brewster F2A Buffalos from the US in 1939. Messerschmitt Bf 109 started to replace the Brewsters in 1943.
Talking about brown-nosing Stalin, the US gave him fighter planes that were used against Finland:

Soviet Air Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Force#World_War_II)

As with many allied countries in World War II the Soviet Union received western aircraft by Lend-Lease, mostly P-39 Airacobras, P-63 Kingcobras, Hawker Hurricanes, Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawks and A-20 Havocs. Soviets in P-39s scored the highest individual kill totals of any pilot ever to fly a U.S. aircraft.[citation needed] Two air regiments were equipped with Spitfire Mk. Vb in early 1943 but immediately experienced unrelenting losses due to friendly fire as the British aircraft looked too much like its German nemesis, the Bf 109[citation needed]. Lend-Lease aircraft from the US and UK accounted for nearly 12% of total Soviet air power.[14]

Malbec

3rd November 2011, 19:30

???

In 1917 the British promised the Jews (and the rest of the world) the secure settlelment into Palestine, pee-ing off the Palestinians at the time who were previously guaranteed security in exchange for fighting against the Turks.

I don’t think you can call their migration at the time illegal :mark:

You don't get an empire the size of the Great British Empire and hold onto it by being straightforward and honest. Ever heard of perfidious Albion? The smart untrustworthy country that likes nothing better than playing political games?

The Balfour declaration only had one objective, it was to deny the Germans who were running out of funds access to credit from banks, many of which were run by Jews. It was purposefully wooly and was just a general statement of intent with no timeline, no means of establishing that homeland. Once WW1 was won the Brits forgot about it, the Jews never did.

As you said, at the same time Lawrence of Arabia was busy telling the Arabs including in Palestine that they would get independence if they fought off the Ottomans, they both couldn't both get what the British promised them could they?

The British never wanted to give Palestine away, its too close to the Suez canal and losing it to another power could mean that British lines of communication with the Far East would be cut. If that meant some Jews and Palestinians felt betrayed by the British then they could go to the back of the long queue of people around the world who harboured a grievance against Britain.

And yes the policy of the British was clear, migration to Palestine by Jews was strictly prohibited to keep the demographic status quo there in favour of palestinians and prevent a disturbance of the peace. Its pretty well documented.

anthonyvop

3rd November 2011, 20:10

Talking about brown-nosing Stalin, the US gave him fighter planes that were used against Finland:

Soviet Air Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Force#World_War_II)

Ahhhhh....The Wizard of Wikipedia strikes again.

Enemy of my Enemy is my friend. That was the case with US/Soviet relations during WW2....After V-E day all bets were off.

BDunnell

3rd November 2011, 20:30

Ahhhhh....The Wizard of Wikipedia strikes again.

As opposed to the entirely independent, non-internet-using research you perform before offering an opinion, presumably?

Gregor-y

3rd November 2011, 22:42

Ahhhhh....The Wizard of Wikipedia strikes again.

Enemy of my Enemy is my friend. That was the case with US/Soviet relations during WW2....After V-E day all bets were off.
There are (or maybe were by now) plenty of people across Eastern Europe who resented the fact the Allies (minus Russia) abandoned them to the Soviets while making such a show over protecting Germany and Greece. Then again even John Dulles' 'rollback' rhetoric wasn't feasible by the early 50s, either, unless you wanted to run the risk of a nuclear conflict, which would have been possible with nuts like LeMay still holding sway in the US (to say nothing of different Soviet military mindsets).

I'm not sure what the Finnish attitude was like at the time.

Eki

4th November 2011, 06:19

Enemy of my Enemy is my friend. That was the case with US/Soviet relations during WW2.
Yes, and that was also the case with Finland/German relations during WW2. And after the Germans were beaten, there was no hope for Finland to keep on fighting the Soviets alone, so it was better to change sides and make peace.

anthonyvop

4th November 2011, 13:35

Yes, and that was also the case with Finland/German relations during WW2. And after the Germans were beaten, there was no hope for Finland to keep on fighting the Soviets alone, so it was better to change sides and make peace.

The difference is that the Finns were the ones who attacked the Soviets 1st. Just like their friends.....The NAZIs

anthonyvop

4th November 2011, 13:37

As opposed to the entirely independent, non-internet-using research you perform before offering an opinion, presumably?

You presume wrong.

Are you seriously defending the use of Wikipedia as a legitimate and respectable source?

Gregor-y

4th November 2011, 14:12

The difference is that the Finns were the ones who attacked the Soviets 1st. Just like their friends.....The NAZIs
There's no way you can be this uninformed. I refuse to believe it.

BDunnell

4th November 2011, 15:12

Er... no. As I intimated before, comprehension is not your strong point.

BDunnell

4th November 2011, 15:14

There's no way you can be this uninformed. I refuse to believe it.

Uninformed? This is a view he will have based on much original historical study, I'll have you know, as opposed to a quick Google search, which is apparently all the rest of us have ever been able to manage.

Eki

4th November 2011, 15:19

The difference is that the Finns were the ones who attacked the Soviets 1st. Just like their friends.....The NAZIs
If we put it like that, the US also invaded and occupied Hawaii first and the Japanese just tried to liberate it.

Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_1893.E2.80.94the_Republic_of_H awaii_.281894.E2.80.931898.29)

Eki

4th November 2011, 15:28

If we put it like that, the US also invaded and occupied Hawaii first and the Japanese just tried to liberate it.

Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_1893.E2.80.94the_Republic_of_H awaii_.281894.E2.80.931898.29)

The US also attacked Germany in 1917 and then again in 1941.