the cuban conundrum for conservatives...

[wesw]

...is that it is hard to justify the support for Cuban -American property property claims in cuba, and to at the same time deny very similar Palestinian claims.....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oi vey! Now they are claiming Cuba? Let's support that - call the Knesset, quick!

[Scooter]

I'm guessing that the fact that Palestinians aren't a voting bloc in a swing state has a lot to with it.

[wesw]

I think the whole idea of returning captured lands, and making reparations for revolutions and all sorts of atrocities is a difficult idea to support.

where would you start? where would you end?

every land on every continent except antartica has changed hands at some time.

on the other hand, division of some countries, Iraq, for example seems to make sense. it is hard to argue that the kurds have not earned and do not deserve a homeland. try to stop them. youll have to kill them, and many have.

its all so complicated....

[Long Run]

Not a good analogy. The Palestinians were living with the Jews in Israel and went to war against the Jews by joining with the Arab coalition that was going to eliminate Israel. They lost. It was clear that if they lost, they would lose their homes and property since they would not be welcome back after waging war against Israel. You can try to argue that Israel "started" the war by the simple act of creating its country, but the bottom line was that the Palestinians could have chosen to stay neutral or stand with Israel but they chose the Arab nations. Not the first time they were loser pawns in that battle.

In Cuba, people had their land and property taken by the aggressor, pretty much outright theft.

A better analogy would be our country taking property from Mexico and Spain when we were the aggressor in those wars, pretty much outright theft.

[wesw]

I m not taking sides but I m sure the Palestinians would see it much differently than you have laid it out.

[liberty]

Oswald clearly was the killer of President Kennedy, but who inspired and or directed him? Since Oswald was a communist and an admirer of Castro it seems obvious it was Castro. For that reason there should be no normalization with Cuba until Castro is in communist hell.

[wesw]

obvious? it s obvious that we don t know what the hell happened. someone probably does, but they ain t talkin'. except , apparently, to Lib....

[MajGenl.Meade]

I blame Bruce Jenner. Oswald liked Wheaties too but who can remember whose face was on the box in 1963? So, Jenner it is. Apparently he's entered a witness protection program run by TSA

[Lord Jim]

Not a good analogy. The Palestinians were living with the Jews in Israel and went to war against the Jews by joining with the Arab coalition that was going to eliminate Israel. They lost. It was clear that if they lost, they would lose their homes and property since they would not be welcome back after waging war against Israel. You can try to argue that Israel "started" the war by the simple act of creating its country, but the bottom line was that the Palestinians could have chosen to stay neutral or stand with Israel but they chose the Arab nations. Not the first time they were loser pawns in that battle.

In Cuba, people had their land and property taken by the aggressor, pretty much outright theft.

A better analogy would be our country taking property from Mexico and Spain when we were the aggressor in those wars, pretty much outright theft.

Thanks for saving me the keystrokes Long Run.

[Sue U]

Not a good analogy. The Palestinians were living with the Jews in Israel and went to war against the Jews by joining with the Arab coalition that was going to eliminate Israel. They lost. It was clear that if they lost, they would lose their homes and property since they would not be welcome back after waging war against Israel. You can try to argue that Israel "started" the war by the simple act of creating its country, but the bottom line was that the Palestinians could have chosen to stay neutral or stand with Israel but they chose the Arab nations. Not the first time they were loser pawns in that battle.

Well, that's not exactly true. Jews and Arabs in Palestine had had a sometimes cordial, sometimes murderous relationship since the Balfour Declaration (1917) that expressed British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. (Prior to WWI, Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire, which had its own enormous ethno-political problems.) It was the rise of Zionism in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries -- and particularly, the movement's growing support among world powers -- that unnerved the Palestinian Arabs, who feared being overrun by mass immigration of European Jews. And they were not wrong about that (although they were wrong about the timeline and ultimate cause).

At the time of Israeli independence/Palestinian naqba in May 1948, nearly the entire Arab population of the new Jewish state fled, but it is ridiculous to say that the 700,000 - 800,000 refugees "went to war against the Jews." If they had, there certainly would have been no Jewish state by June 1948. Following the war, the refugees were effectively prevented from returning. As Wiki succinctly describes it:

The very precise number of refugees is a matter of dispute[3] but around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (50 percent of the Arab total of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes.[4][5]

The causes are also a subject of fundamental disagreement between Arabs and Israelis. Factors involved in the exodus include Jewish military advances, attacks against Arab villages and fears of another massacre by Zionist militias after the Deir Yassin massacre,[6]:239–240 which caused many to leave out of panic; Arab evacuation orders; expulsion orders by Israeli authorities; the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes,[7] the collapse in Palestinian leadership,[8] and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control.[9]

Later, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented them from returning to their homes, or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees.[10][11] The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing,[12][13][14] while others dispute this charge.[15][16][17]

The overwhelming majority of Palestinians dispossessed by Israeli independence were civilians fleeing in panic or forcibly expelled. They did not simply abandon their property in order to take up arms against the new order being imposed. Palestinian claims for reparations are not in any way unjustified.

[wesw]

sue is right, but that is like traveling a never ending road, should we make Italy make reparations for the roman empire? for taking Jerusalem. or the Babylonians? or should the egyptions be punished for enslaving the jewish ancestors? or perhaps find some Palestinians who can trace their roots back to the philistines and be compensated for the promised land.

[Sue U]

Neither 1948 nor 1959 are so remote that legitimate individual property claims cannot be effectively traced, and Germany is still paying reparations today to Holocaust survivors and their children and to the State of Israel.

[wesw]

I get that sue, but where do you draw the line?

besides, Germany lost.

I firmly believe that if the Palestinians had continued just throwing rocks , they would have had their state 20 yrs ago...

[Sue U]

I know people who will tell you they're still pissed about the loss of their family property in Spain when their ancestors were expelled in 1492. But I think that's a stretch.

The matter of reparations for individuals or a nation are by definition a matter of line-drawing in acceptance of some notion of culpability for, or unjust enrichment by, past acts for which consequences are still being suffered today by identifiable victims. There is a point where past acts are so remote that present-day reparations are not justifiable individually, but still may be warranted through a more broad-based or even symbolic program. It's all about what will satisfy human concepts of justice in the individual circumstances. There's not any one-size-fits-all solution.

As for the Palestinians and statehood, the matter is far too complex to have been solved by throwing rocks. There has been enough political miscalculation, leadership failure and general fuckery on all sides of that problem over the last 65 years.

[wesw]

well, I remember that the world was with the Palestinians when they were throwing rocks. once they started blowing up civilians they lost support


but what do I know, I m just a simple fisherman....

[liberty]

obvious? it s obvious that we don t know what the hell happened. someone probably does, but they ain t talkin'. except , apparently, to Lib....

Wes, did you miss the Nova special on PBS a while back; they evaluated the known facts and forensic evidences? Their conclusion was that everything known and can be proved points to Oswald as the killer of Kennedy.

The show also established that Oswald was a communist, so who do you think would have inspired him,
Richard Nixon.

[wesw]

libery liberry liberty, you should re read our earlier posts. you said it was obvious that castro was behind it, that (italics ) is what I was disputing.


I m pretty sure that the guy shooting at kennedy was the guy that killed kennedy, taking itany further, to place blame on castro, is pure conjecture

[Lord Jim]

the Nova special on PBS a while back; they evaluated the known facts and forensic evidences? Their conclusion was that everything known and can be proved points to Oswald as the killer of Kennedy.

Lib I believe you're referring to Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? which I used to tout back at the CSB...

It is the best examination of the Kennedy assassination ever done; it should be required viewing for any Grassy Knoller...

As far as Oswald's politics are concerned:

Yes, Oswald was a self pro-claimed communist, but the more important fact is that he was a malignant narcissist with delusions of grandeur....

Oswald moved to Russia, became a communist, moved back to the US, and started his one man "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" not out of deep ideological commitment...

But because he was a pathetic little man who thought he should be much more famous and important than he was, and these were all attempts to make him stand out and be more "noticed" and important...

As his efforts to satisfy this hunger repeatedly failed, he became increasingly desperate to achieve the fame he believed he deserved. That's why he tried to kill General Walker, and why he murdered JFK.

[Lord Jim]

Here's the complete documentary on Oswald I referred to: (BTW it was Frontline, not Nova):