Comments on: After the ceasefire Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:37:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: genebennett Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:18:21 +0000 and please tell me how one small Isreal country, with no oil and very little land can all the arabs fight about it i don’t get it the arabs have millons apon millions of land why dont they just leave the Jews alone

By: genebennett Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:13:38 +0000 what does it mean for arabs that live there being a statehood does it help them in any single way economically or land wise? I am not sure how this helps.

By: EthicsIntl Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:00:22 +0000 The undeniable fact that there has been nothing but war since the inception of Israel proves that its founding fathers( Zionist financiers-money-changers) grossly miscalculated the future and survival of such a horrendous project.

You can’t just massacre the indigenous people to make room for others, not in today’s world.

The ‘Israeli State’ idea was doomed from day one.

Anyone can easily dig out from the internet for the horrendous historical details that brought about this catastrophe.

By: tmc Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:53:52 +0000 @xcanada2 has some good points. As the younger generations get more variety and accuracy of opinions from around the world, their opinion of events in the middle east seem quite different from say, my father or grandfathers views. I imagine things were a lot easier when there were only two to three generations alive at once, with truly only local information vs. having now five and six generations with truly global information.
If you explain to someone that Israel only existed as a sovereign nation for a very short time in ancient history, and that what is now Israel was created in 1948 by American, English, and other European countries that decided to create it in the aftermath of WWII. At the time the middle east was not a major oil supplier and the local Palestinians, Jordanians and Syrians were not seem as economic countries. In fact, we had some rather tasteless names for them. Besides, the Europeans had been dictating borders in the region for decades after WWI and the fall of the Ottoman empire. Suddenly they seem to look at the situation a little differently. History’s a bit awkward sometimes.

By: xcanada2 Thu, 22 Nov 2012 18:06:11 +0000 David Rohde says:

“In many ways, the conflict itself remains intractable. But the region around Israel and the Palestinian territories is undergoing historic changes. Whatever his true feelings, Mursi proved to be surprisingly pragmatic. Someday, Israelis and Palestinians may also do the same. The only outcome that will undermine Hamas and secure Israel is a two-state solution.”

Anyone can agree up to the last sentence, with the above. But, how does Rohde, indeed most of the West, write off the one-state solution for peace, the only possibility in a number of peoples’ opinion including the late Tony Judt, a Jew and writer who lived in Israel for a couple of years and analyzed and advocated the one-state solution up until his death:  /print/2011/09/tony-judts-final-word-on -israel/245051/

Peace is necessary for a secure Israel.

Basically, the problem in Israel is racist, the apartheid Zionism cult. I don’t see how any two-state solution based on this principle can ever be a peaceful solution? Zionist Israel is based on ethnic cleansing for Jews-only, and vigorously continues on that path. How can that lead to peace? Maybe if there were no other Arabs besides the indigenous Palestinians, and Zionists could have killed almost all of them (as we Americans were able to do with the our native Americans), then Israel could be a largely peaceful place (like the US?). But, Palestinians are not the only Arabs (and Muslims) around, so the situation is simply not like in America, or similarly in Australia, and it never will be.

So, that more of less leaves the one-state-solution, the end of Zionism, Jews and Arabs living in a non-racist, or low-racist Israel/Palestine, as the only possibility for enduring peace. Pragmatically, it is also a very desirable goal for America, in view of the natural resources we need from the ME. Getting there will obviously be difficult, but not impossible.

Even with a one-state-solution, equal rights for all in Israel-Palestine, and a path to true peace, the Palestinians will have given up a great deal. They will have acquiesced to the influx of millions of European Jews, have suffered three generations of violent, domineering Zionist malevolence, loss of land use, disrespect, and degradation of their self-worth. It will not be easy to straighten out this situation, but is is the interests of the world to do so.

Following the lead of Zionists, and of Zionist-dominated America, has not lead to peace, and never will. Obviously, our world leaders throughout the history of Israel, have terribly failed. Rohde’s opinion has some good, pragmatic points, but on the fundamental issue of a secure, and therefore peaceful, solution for Israel, it simply fails, like our leaders have repeatedly failed, including the Reuters enterprise.

There is significant movement towards the one-state-solution: olution w.answers.php?questionID=000565
The attrition of the old Exodus-movie educated American Zionists, and indeed the rest of the Hollywood-brainwashed older generation is greatly helping the one-state movement. Hopefully, the young, more media-savvy generations of America, Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the world, will not be so easily brainwashed about Zionism as us older people who were so badly caught off guard by the then new powers of mass media.

For example, read Peter Beinhard on Jewish youth indifference to Zionisms goals:  /2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-es tablishment/?pagination=false