PDA

View Full Version : Israeli vs Palestinian conflict



Apokalupsis
November 21st, 2003, 08:45 AM
While this topic entails many facets and will undoubtedly introduce many side arguments, we can start off on general terms here and split the thread when necessary.

To start this off however, does everyone understand the conflict? Does one side have more legitimacy than the other in this conflict? Will there ever be a resolution? How would you propose to resolve it?

RTShatto
November 22nd, 2003, 01:43 PM
Will there ever be a resolution? How would you propose to resolve it?I believe the bible says there will be 3 and a half years of false peace in Israel, sorry to quote biblical sources but I think it fits in with the conflict in Palestine.

(Daniel 9:27) - The covenant is a peace agreement that is seven years in total. The peace agreement is broken after 3.5 years. The duration of time that occurs until the restoration of the Jewish temple. (After it is desolated by the Antichrist.)

mog
November 22nd, 2003, 02:03 PM
Israel, under the sanction of the US, have been committing ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity for years. They invade and conquer Palestinian villages, then leave them behind the forward defended line to be ethnically cleansed. They do not allow 3.7 million refugees to return to their homes, many of which are now in Israel. They refuse to make even the smallest concessions to work toward peace. Every time an outraged world tries to do something about these blatant war crimes, the US vetoes the action in the UN security council.

Israel are a danger to the middle east. They are an aggressive and evil regime, perhaps the greatest threat to world peace, and must be stopped. The US must cease supplying military and monetary aid. The UN must send in peacekeepers to prevent Israeli border aggression. Weapons Inspectors should be allowed complete discretion in removing Israel's weapons of mass destruction, backed up by the military and economic might of the UN, with no concessions to be made.

Jordan
November 22nd, 2003, 07:15 PM
I'd hate to appear as an anti-semite or anything but I found some articles that israel sells our weapons to china.

http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1993/10/13-4_1.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm
http://www.rense.com/general28/iisj.htm

I do think that israel was techically there on the land before the palestinians were if you look hard in history though. They were just given it back after ww2.

Theologically I am for israel being Gods chosen people, politcally though, it doesnt look good to me.

Apokalupsis
November 24th, 2003, 09:18 AM
Mog, your post almost reads like an anti-Israel site filled with claims of bias, but not having any shred of evidence or truth to it. :) This is exactly why I brought this topic up...to clear up a lot of the myths, misunderstandings, and lies that are told to us. It's a long read, but every one of your points is addressed, refuted, and given sources to.


Israel, under the sanction of the US, have been committing ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity for years. They invade and conquer Palestinian villages, then leave them behind the forward defended line to be ethnically cleansed.
Not true. They retaliate against terrorist attacks...as any nation should do. There is absolutely no ethnic cleansing occurring. In fact, Israel has the most diverse and free nation in the Middle East. Muslims have more rights in Israel than they do in any other ME nation. Many of whom are a part of the Israeli government. Bet you didn't know about that one eh? :)


They do not allow 3.7 million refugees to return to their homes, many of which are now in Israel.
Not true. Israel could not simply agree to allow all Palestinians to return, but consistently sought a solution to the refugee problem. Israel's position was expressed by David Ben*Gurion (August 1, 1948):


David BenGurion:When the Arab states are ready to conclude a peace treaty with Israel this question will come up for constructive solution as part of the general settlement, and with due regard to our counter*claims in respect of the destruction of Jewish life and property, the long-term interest of the Jewish and Arab populations, the stability of the State of Israel and the durability of the basis of peace between it and its neighbors, the actual position and fate of the Jewish communities in the Arab countries, the responsibilities of the Arab governments for their war of aggression and their liability for reparation, will all be relevant in the question whether, to what extent, and under what conditions, the former Arab residents of the territory of Israel should be allowed to return.<sup>1</sup>

The Israeli government was not indifferent to the plight of the refugees; an ordinance was passed creating a Custodian of Abandoned Property "to prevent unlawful occupation of empty houses and business premises, to administer ownerless property, and also to secure tilling of deserted fields, and save the crops...."<sup>2</sup>

The implied danger of repatriation did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees.<sup>3</sup>

The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. The result was the confinement of the refugees in camps.

Despite the position taken by the Arab states, Israel did release the Arab refugees' blocked bank accounts, which totaled more than $10 million, paid thousands of claimants cash compensation and granted thousands of acres as alternative holdings.


They refuse to make even the smallest concessions to work toward peace.
This is one of the more amazing claims made against Israel, one of which is 100% absolutely false as it is not Israel, but the Palestinians who refuse to budge in the slightest. Did you know that the Palestinians have had multiple opportunities to create their own state, but repeatedly rejected all the offers?

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of an Arab state alone, but the Arabs rejected the plan.
In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
From 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians.
The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
The Oslo process that began in 1993 was leading toward the creation of a Palestinian state before the Palestinians violated their commitments and scuttled the agreements.
In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state, but Yasser Arafat rejected the deal.

A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban's words, "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that "Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it." The Palestinians also believe that time is on their side. "They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred years, just like the Crusaders." The Palestinians also hope the Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons in the future that will allow them to defeat Israel. "Why should they accept a compromise that is perceived by them as unjust today?"<sup>4</sup>

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:
Barak made a proposal that was as forthcoming as anyone in the world could imagine, and Arafat turned it down. If you have a country that's a sliver and you can see three sides of it from a high hotel building, you've got to be careful what you give away and to whom you give it.<sup>5</sup>

Furthermore, in 2000 at the Camp David meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.

[quote]U.S. mediator Dennis Ross on the failure of the Camp David Summit:
[Prime Minister Barak] was prepared to make decisions; Arafat was not. I believe he is capable of launching the process, but he is not capable of concluding it.<sup>6</sup>[quote]

The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.

Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.<sup>7</sup>

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations – that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 – prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

Apokalupsis
November 24th, 2003, 09:21 AM
Every time an outraged world tries to do something about these blatant war crimes, the US vetoes the action in the UN security council.
The US has not been all that supportive with Israel...that is another great falsehood that many people claim. The historical record shows that the U.S. has often opposed Israel in the Council.

In 1990, for example, Washington voted for a Security Council resolution condemning Israel's handling of the Temple Mount riot earlier that month. While singling out “the acts of violence committed by Israeli security forces,” the resolution omitted mention of the Arab violence that preceded it.

In December 1990, the U.S. went along with condemning Israel for expelling four leaders of Hamas, an Islamic terrorist group. The deportations came in response to numerous crimes committed by Hamas against Arabs and Jews, the most recent of which had been the murders of three Israeli civilians in a Jaffa factory several days earlier. The resolution did not say a word about Hamas and its crimes. It described Jerusalem as “occupied” territory, declared that Palestinians needed to be “protected” from Israel and called on contracting parties of the Geneva Convention to ensure Israel's compliance. It was the first time the Security Council invoked the Convention against a member country.

In January 1992, the U.S. supported a one-sided resolution condemning Israel for expelling 12 Palestinians, members of terrorist groups that were responsible for perpetrating violence against Arab and Jew alike. The resolution, which described Jerusalem as “occupied” territory, made no mention of the events that triggered the expulsions — the murders of four Jewish civilians by Palestinian radicals since October.

In 1996, the U.S. went along with a Saudi-inspired condemnation of Israel for opening a tunnel in "the vicinity" of the al-Aksa mosque. In fact, the tunnel, which allows visitors to see the length of the western wall of the Temple Mount, is nowhere near the mosque. Israel was blamed for reacting to violent attacks by Palestinians who protested the opening of the tunnel.

The United States did not cast its first veto until 1972, on a Syrian-Lebanese complaint against Israel. From 1967-72, the U.S. supported or abstained on 24 resolutions, most critical of Israel. From 1973-2000, the Security Council adopted approximately 100 resolutions on the Middle East, again, most critical of Israel. The U.S. vetoed a total of 35 resolutions and, hence, supported the Council's criticism of Israel by its vote of support, or by abstaining, roughly two-thirds of the time.12

In July 2002, the United States shifted its policy and announced that it would veto any Security Council resolution on the Middle East that did not condemn Palestinian terror and name, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade as the groups responsible for the attacks. The U.S. also said that resolutions must note that any Israeli withdrawal is linked to the security situation, and that both parties must be called upon to pursue a negotiated settlement (Washington Post, July 26, 2002). The Arabs can still get around the United States by taking issues to the General Assembly, where nonbinding resolutions pass by majority vote, and support for almost any anti-Israel resolution is assured.


Israel are a danger to the middle east. They are an aggressive and evil regime, perhaps the greatest threat to world peace, and must be stopped.
Completely lacking of any factual support. It is the opposite that is true.

Sources

1.) Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 332; Avneri, p. 335.

2.) Joseph Schechtman, The Refugee in the World, (NY: A.S. Barnes and Co., 1963), p. 268.

3.) Terence Prittie, "Middle East Refugees," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 66-67.

4.) Yediot Aharonot, (November 23, 2001).

5.) Yediot Aharonot, (August 7, 2002).

6.) Jerusalem Post, (August 9, 2001).

7.) Ma'ariv, (April 6, 2001); Interview with Dennis Ross, Fox News Sunday, (April 21, 2002); President Clinton, Press Conference, (July 25, 2000); "Camp David: An Exchange." The New York Review of Books, (September 20, 2001); Fred Barnes, "Myths of the IntifadaThe Daily Standard, (April 25, 2002).

Apokalupsis
November 24th, 2003, 09:24 AM
Jordan, Israel has been in the business of selling arms for decades. Selling them to China is no secret. They rely on exports and aid for economica gain. They do not make enough as a nation (from production or industrialization) to support themselves like many other nations can. However, it is off topic and doesn't have much to do with Israel vs Palestinians.

mog
November 24th, 2003, 06:16 PM
Mog, your post almost reads like an anti-Israel site filled with claims of bias, but not having any shred of evidence or truth to it. :) This is exactly why I brought this topic up...to clear up a lot of the myths, misunderstandings, and lies that are told to us. It's a long read, but every one of your points is addressed, refuted, and given sources to.

You aren't clearing up myths or misunderstandings, you are just providing the US spin on things that attempts to remove from the conscience of the US people the fact they are supporting war criminals and murderers.

You make it sound like Israel is making generous concessions to an ungrateful Palestine in regard to land, when it was Israel who took these lands with military force.

Israel aren't invading Palestinian territory and imposing their rule on the population, they are "responding to terrorism". They aren't ethnically cleansing, they are "helping to relocate refugees". Perhaps it has never occured to you that governments can say one thing and do another, you seem to take Israeli and US statements as gospel.

The US gives and loans Israel billions and billions every year, and has vetoed over 30 UN resolutions critical of Israel. Yet you claim the US has not been all that supportive of Israel. It is the biggest recipient of US aid worldwide.

Jordan
November 24th, 2003, 07:02 PM
I have nothing more to contribute to this thread then, I know little (I guess because I care so little) so I am going to stop posting here.

Apokalupsis
November 24th, 2003, 07:41 PM
mog, it isn't spin, it's merely fact. Conclusions are based upon premises which are shown to be factual. The conflict IS one sided in that it is the Palestinians (not the Israeli's) who refuse to negotiate and continue terrorist attacks upon the women, children, elderly, etc... of Israel.

During the cease-fire in September of this year (during the latest Roadamp to Peace), it was Palestinians, not Israeli's who broke that cease-fire. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94444,00.html

Palestinians do not want any state of Israel (nor does any other Arab or Islamic nation in the ME) to exist. There are no compromises, only the complete destruction of this nation and its people.

I've given plenty of factual, and verifiable evidence that refutes your claims. Simply retorting with "you are wrong, it's spin" and offering no support or actual refutation of the submitted facts does not help your position. Please support that what I have pointed out above is not true, and please support that what you have submitted as being true, is.

Otherwise, we merely reduce the discussion to "yer wrong", "no, yer wrong", etc... ;)

mog
November 24th, 2003, 10:39 PM
mog, it isn't spin, it's merely fact. Conclusions are based upon premises which are shown to be factual. The conflict IS one sided in that it is the Palestinians (not the Israeli's) who refuse to negotiate and continue terrorist attacks upon the women, children, elderly, etc... of Israel.

During the cease-fire in September of this year (during the latest Roadamp to Peace), it was Palestinians, not Israeli's who broke that cease-fire. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94444,00.html

Palestinians do not want any state of Israel (nor does any other Arab or Islamic nation in the ME) to exist. There are no compromises, only the complete destruction of this nation and its people.

I've given plenty of factual, and verifiable evidence that refutes your claims. Simply retorting with "you are wrong, it's spin" and offering no support or actual refutation of the submitted facts does not help your position. Please support that what I have pointed out above is not true, and please support that what you have submitted as being true, is.

Otherwise, we merely reduce the discussion to "yer wrong", "no, yer wrong", etc... ;)

The problem is I see very few facts to refute. I could use the same facts as you with regard to the Camp David summit, but write them in a way sympathetic to Palestine. Like you, I could throw in some blatantly partial quotes from the Palestinian equivalents of Rumsfeld & co. That is what I mean by spin.

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered unacceptable concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them as nothing more than giving Palestine more responsibilty over land that is theirs, while Israel still maintains control with military force. To counter the perceptions that Israel was being unreasonable, they claimed that Arafat was an obstacle to peace and could not be negotiated with. The failure of Israel to make the necessary concessions culminated with Palestine's exit from the negotiations.
You write

The implied danger of repatriation did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees.3

The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. The result was the confinement of the refugees in camps.
This is a pro Israeli spin. Refugees return home to find their land seized by Jews, yet you make them out to be uncooperative when they refuse to comply with this invasion !! This is laughable. If a country invaded the US and took land, would your government recognise their state and come to a settlement?

"Palestinians do not want any state of Israel to exist"
Israelis do not want any state of Palestine to exist either.
"The conflict IS one sided in that it is the Palestinians (not the Israeli's) who refuse to negotiate and continue terrorist attacks upon the women, children, elderly, etc... of Israel."
No, yer wrong
You enjoy positioning the Israelis as the victims. What about the Palestinian women, children and elderly being machine gunned by Israeli tanks? If you read the article, it says these attacks were alledgedly revenge for the killings of 2 bomb makers. Israel broke the peace.

Apokalupsis
November 25th, 2003, 08:40 AM
The problem is I see very few facts to refute. I could use the same facts as you with regard to the Camp David summit, but write them in a way sympathetic to Palestine.
Really? OK, please do. You see, those ARE facts. Have you read or reviewed that Camp David meeting? Are you aware of what happened? You do know it is public right? Also, how do you negotiate w/ a terrorist? You do know that Arafat is in fact, a terrorist right? As far as Israel making concessions, and Arafat not...

During the course of the Summit, the Palestinian leadership showed that it had not yet internalized the need to demonstrate flexibility and compromise on a number of key issues. In particular, the positions presented by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat with regard to Jerusalem prevented the achievement of an agreement. The leadership of the Arab world did not provide Arafat with sufficient backing for a more flexible stance, and demonstrated a lack of willingness to exert the necessary influence on the Palestinian delegation to bring about an internalization of the need for real compromise.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0hnm0
Also, did you know that Clinton blamed Arafat for the failures of the meeting? Why did he do that?
Also....

. Under intense pressure from President Clinton, in an effort to reach a final agreement, and with promises of American support and security guarantees, Prime Minister Barak offered the most substantial concessions and far reaching proposals, going beyond all the long-standing Israeli "red lines", especially as regards Jerusalem. The US team called Barak "courageous" for these offers. When these terms were later revealed in Israel, people were stunned at the extent of the concessions Barak offered and it is unclear whether the Israeli public were prepared to support the deal. However they were never given the opportunity to endorse or reject the proposals; Arafat rejected them out of hand.

Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php
Also...
UK Guardian: Arafat didn't negotiate, he just kept saying no (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4419440-103680,00.html)

Please, just find some sources to support your position on what happened at Campt David. You will find none. That's because the facts speak for themselves. Arafat could not negotiate because to do so would be seen as weakness...it's total annihilation of the Jews and Israel that is the only acceptable settlement. Now, if you believe as they do, why do you believe it is justified to murder millions? Do you support Hitler's endeavors when he did this? If not, why not? You seem to be willing to accept Arafat's and that of the rest of the Arab nations, Palestinians, and Islamic nations in the ME.

Look, I'm willing to keep an open mind...but NO ONE has ever shown that Arafat and the Palestinians have honestly tried to negotiate peace. Please support your position with facts, not speculation. Also, thus far, I've not seen any fact that I've provided, refuted by you. Quotes serve to lend support, admittedly they do not necessarily "prove" a case. The case was already proven w/ the facts and data provided in a previous thread, the quotes merely support the case. I'm still waiting for facts (even quotes) to help support your position. Thus far, it just seems like bias and an unclear understanding of ME developments.


Refugees return home to find their land seized by Jews, yet you make them out to be uncooperative when they refuse to comply with this invasion !! This is laughable. If a country invaded the US and took land, would your government recognise their state and come to a settlement?
1st, their homes were seized. This was discussed in my previous post. Furthermore, it doesn't seem like the "refugee problem" is fully understood here.

Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.

The beginning of the Arab exodus can be traced to the weeks immediately following the announcement of the UN partition resolution. The first to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends. By the end of January1948, the exodus was so alarming the Palestine Arab Higher Committee asked neighboring Arab countries to refuse visas to these refugees and to seal their borders against them.

Palestinians were fleeing even before threat of the progress of war! On January 30, 1948, the Jaffa newspaper, Ash Sha'ab, reported: "The first of our fifth-column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."

Another Jaffa paper, As Sarih (March 30, 1948) excoriated Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for "bringing down disgrace on us all by 'abandoning the villages.'"

Meanwhile, a leader of the Arab National Committee in Haifa, Hajj Nimer el-Khatib, said Arab soldiers in Jaffa were mistreating the residents. "They robbed individuals and homes. Life was of little value, and the honor of women was defiled. This state of affairs led many [Arab] residents to leave the city under the protection of British tanks."

Please give support to your claims. Simply stating: "untrue" doesn't refute facts.



"Palestinians do not want any state of Israel to exist"
Israelis do not want any state of Palestine to exist either.

Not true as shown in my previous post.


What about the Palestinian women, children and elderly being machine gunned by Israeli tanks? If you read the article, it says these attacks were alledgedly revenge for the killings of 2 bomb makers. Israel broke the peace.
There is a difference between casualties of war which of course, is always a tragedy...and actually targeting women, children, non-military personnel. Also, responding to an attack by arresting or attacking the criminals is not equated to an attack on civilians. Terrorists actually hide and seek refuge in the homes of Palestinian civilians. Israel is at a disadvantage here because they purposefully try to not injure civilians, only militants. Palestinians on the other hand, purposefully target civilians, age, sex, doesn't matter. If you are a Jew, you must die according to them.

In that article: "Israel's military has counted 120 shooting incidents in the West Bank and 10 mortar attacks on Israeli targets in the Gaza Strip. Troops, in turn, keep carrying out arrest raids."

It responds to the attacks by arresting and/or attacking those responsible. If A attacks B, B has a right to respond. B does so by attacking only those in A who were responsible. A then claims because B retaliated, that all of B is to blame, and women and children are fair game.

Does that really seem reasonable to you?

mog
November 25th, 2003, 04:55 PM
Really? OK, please do. You see, those ARE facts. Have you read or reviewed that Camp David meeting? Are you aware of what happened? You do know it is public right? Also, how do you negotiate w/ a terrorist? You do know that Arafat is in fact, a terrorist right? As far as Israel making concessions, and Arafat not...

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0hnm0
Also, did you know that Clinton blamed Arafat for the failures of the meeting? Why did he do that?
Also....

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php
Also...
UK Guardian: Arafat didn't negotiate, he just kept saying no (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4419440-103680,00.html)


Your whole support for this view that Arafat is solely to blame is made up of quotes from Israelis and Americans! Are you really naive enough to think the US government is an impartial observer?


Please, just find some sources to support your position on what happened at Campt David. You will find none. That's because the facts speak for themselves. Arafat could not negotiate because to do so would be seen as weakness...it's total annihilation of the Jews and Israel that is the only acceptable settlement. Now, if you believe as they do, why do you believe it is justified to murder millions? Do you support Hitler's endeavors when he did this? If not, why not? You seem to be willing to accept Arafat's and that of the rest of the Arab nations, Palestinians, and Islamic nations in the ME.
The problems with Camp David go back to Oslo
http://merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/oslo-accords-pal-isr-prime.html
http://merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/camp-david-II-pal-isr-prim.html
http://merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/2000-uprising-pal-isr-prim.html
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/642/op10.htm
http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/telhami/CHjanuary2001.htm


There is a difference between casualties of war which of course, is always a tragedy...and actually targeting women, children, non-military personnel. Also, responding to an attack by arresting or attacking the criminals is not equated to an attack on civilians. Terrorists actually hide and seek refuge in the homes of Palestinian civilians. Israel is at a disadvantage here because they purposefully try to not injure civilians, only militants. Palestinians on the other hand, purposefully target civilians, age, sex, doesn't matter. If you are a Jew, you must die according to them.

Palestine doesn't have the best equipment US dollars can buy. They retaliate the only way they can. Yet just because Israel does the same thing with tanks, bulldozers and attack helicopters, they are less guilty in your eyes.


Look, I'm willing to keep an open mind...but NO ONE has ever shown that Arafat and the Palestinians have honestly tried to negotiate peace. Please support your position with facts, not speculation. Also, thus far, I've not seen any fact that I've provided, refuted by you. Quotes serve to lend support, admittedly they do not necessarily "prove" a case. The case was already proven w/ the facts and data provided in a previous thread, the quotes merely support the case. I'm still waiting for facts (even quotes) to help support your position. Thus far, it just seems like bias and an unclear understanding of ME developments.
The feeling is mutual, I get the impression that you have made no attempt to see things from the Palestinian view, and carry extremely american-centric views that read just like a US government statement justifying support of Israel.

mask
February 6th, 2004, 09:05 PM
can someone shed some light about how israel first began??,besides,why did israel attack other countries like egypt

RTShatto
February 6th, 2004, 09:56 PM
I think England gained posesion of the land of Israel after WWI and promised sovereign rule over that land to the Jews.

But this didnt happen until after WWII in 1949 (49 is the year of jubilee, I found that really interesting)

But the palestinian muslims were already living there, so you see the dilema from the begining?

mask
February 7th, 2004, 04:29 PM
I think England gained posesion of the land of Israel after WWI and promised sovereign rule over that land to the Jews.

But this didnt happen until after WWII in 1949 (49 is the year of jubilee, I found that really interesting)

But the palestinian muslims were already living there, so you see the dilema from the begining?


i think need to research more the term"gained possession" isn't that occupation??

RTShatto
February 7th, 2004, 05:12 PM
Doesnt matter, it was a condition of WWI, which makes it legit. :)

mask
February 7th, 2004, 09:23 PM
Doesnt matter, it was a condition of WWI, which makes it legit. :)

i don't know what u mean by condition of WWI and how would that make it legit??,most of middle eastern countries were already under british control (occupation). when WWI broke out england officially declared these states to be under its "protection". Arabs call belford's promise: who doesn't own gave who doesn't deserve.

RTShatto
February 7th, 2004, 10:07 PM
Well you obviously know more then me about this issue, thats why I said "I think" :)

I thought that England gained the land after WWI when the allies defeated the axis along with the Ottoman Empire (who sided with the axis). Which makes it legit because in war, one conquers or occupies as a condition of surrender. :)

But we all know that the conditions arent always fair, just look what happened with the treaty of versaille and how it fuled WWII.

But then again, thats debatable, but I dont know much on this issue, perhaps somebody can help me out here?

mog
February 8th, 2004, 03:57 PM
Back when the Ottoman Empire still existed, oil had not yet been discovered around the Persian Gulf. It's strategic importance lay in the trade routes, particularly to India and the sub continent ("the jewel in the British crown"). Although Britain was an ardent supporter of the autonomy of the Ottoman Empire, mainly because it didn't want to interfere due to religious tensions, it nevertheless protected it's trade with subtle diplomatic efforts. However the diplomat's words were backed up by the presence of a large Royal Navy flotilla in the Gulf.

As such, Britain already held a lot of influence in the Middle East at the time of WW1. When the Ottoman Empire sided with the Germans, the British organised arab revolts with relative ease under supervisors, the most famous being Lawrence of Arabia. Unsurprisingly, after the defeat of the Turks and the end of WW1, Palestine fell into British hands.

At some point in 1917, Britain promised the minority Jews their own state. Right from the beginning, there were problems. The Jews were lead by hardline Zionists who wanted control of the holy land, and naturally the Arabs resented this minority being grossly over-represented and indeed the very idea of the creation of a Jewish state in what was undeniably Arab land. Palestine was split along the lines of the Jordan River. Jewish immigration was allowed only to the west of it, and the arid desert to the east of it called Transjordan was to be wholly Arab. Just like today, rich and influential Jewish businessmen living in the Western world helped secure deals that were grossly unfair to the Arabs.

The first violence between the Jews and Arabs broke out over the Wailing Wall. Over 100 on either side were killed, mostly by British forces. Due to this incident, the Shaw Royal Commission was instigated over the whole situation in the Palestine mandate. The commission found that the Arabs were completely justified in fearing and resenting Zionist expansionism, and recommended that Jewish immigration must stop and that no Jew should be able to aquire more land. However the Arabs still fundamentally opposed any Jewish state on their land, and the Jews greedily opposed the recommendations, so the end result was both were annoyed with the British.

After several more reports and Royal Commissions, with neither side being satisfied, the British decided there was no answer but the partitioning of the two. When WW2 broke out, the Jews had no real choice but to side with the British, and the British used this to force on them pro Arab concessions. The result was that Palestine functioned peacefully throughout WW2, contrasted to the Arab rebellion in Iraq which had to be crushed by Australian troops.

After WW2, and with the independance of India, the British withdrew from Palestine-Transjordan by 1948. Israel was created in 1949 and with massive US military support, expanded its borders well beyond what the UN had laid out. And little has changed, today Israel still remains an oppressive and evil regime backed by the US government. The Arabs still to this day remain opposed to a Jewish state on land stolen from them.

WatsonGlenn
March 21st, 2004, 06:49 PM
I got this information from a story NPR did on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. Its simple and I think unbiased. Its a complicated problem but I tend to lean towards the Jews in this matter.

The Israeli Conflict

Prologue and summary

The Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting over control of the same piece of land for nearly a century. Each side has its own version of events. The series, reported by Diplomatic Correspondent Mike Shuster, is NPR's attempt to revisit the significant episodes of that history and give both Palestinian and Israeli historians an opportunity to explain how they see it differently.

Part 1: Theodor Herzl and the First Zionist Congress

Jews living in Europe suffered for many years from varying degrees of anti-Semitism, and many had longed to return to the biblical land of Israel. But not until Theodor Herzl published his pamphlet Der Judenstaat, or "The Jewish State," did Jews in Europe begin to formulate a political solution to anti-Semitism.
Zionism emerged as the political movement to create a Jewish state. "Herzl was an assimilated Viennese Jew, a journalist and a playwright," says Avi Shlaim, author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. "He was completely secular and he had no particular attachment to the Jewish religion. As he conceived it, the idea of a Jewish state was a secular idea." In 1897, Herzl brought about 250 of his followers together in the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland. The meeting, designed to formulate the movement's goals and strategies, launched the World Zionist Organization. The goal of the Congress, expressed in a formally adopted program, would be the creation of a home in Palestine for the Jewish people. Herzl had little interest in the Arabs who lived in Palestine, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire.

Herzl judged the meeting a success, writing in his diary: "Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word, it would be this: At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years and certainly in 50, everyone will know it." Herzl's words were prophetic, Shuster reports. The state of Israel would be founded just over 50 years later. In 1897, though, Palestine was a sleepy Arab backwater of the Ottoman Empire. Palestine had been ruled from Constantinople by the Turkish sultans for nearly 500 years and was populated largely by Arab peasant farmers, most of whom had never heard of Zionism. Some early communities of Jewish immigrants had been established in Palestine. In the 1890s, an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 Jews were living among about 500,000 Arabs. Herzl and his followers paid little attention to the Arab population, and, at first, the Arabs of Palestine knew little of Herzl's plans. In 1905, Najib Azouri published what is considered the first public appeal to Arab nationalism, a book called The Awakening of the Arab Nation. This came just as thousands of additional Jewish immigrants were arriving in Palestine, fleeing a new wave of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia, Ukraine and Poland. Two things were happening in the Ottoman Middle East, Azouri wrote: "the awakening of the Arab nation, and the effort of the Jews to reconstitute the ancient kingdom of Israel." His conclusion was also prophetic: "These movements are destined to fight each other continually until one of them wins."


Part 2: The Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate

In 1917, 20 years after the first Zionist Congress proposed establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine, Great Britain declared itself in favor of such a plan. The Balfour Declaration was the product of British strategic thinking and of the lobbying of Zionism's second great personality, Chaim Weizmann."

Weizmann, a Russian Jew, settled in Great Britain before World War I, and became the local representative of the World Zionist Organization, which had set a Jewish homeland in Palestine as its goal in 1897. He managed to make his way into the offices of Great Britain's highest officials, including David Lloyd George, who became prime minister in 1916. The British quickly warmed to the strategic value of a Zionist enterprise in Palestine, says Howard Sachar, the author of A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time. "People like Lloyd George, began to see a number of very important advantages to cultivating a Jewish presence in Palestine, with the unspoken understanding that this Jewish presence would be under a British protectorate," Sachar says. On Nov. 2, 1917, Britain issued what came to be known as the Balfour Declaration. The letter from Balfour declared the government in favor of establishing "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. The Zionists were euphoric, Shuster reports. They understood the words "national home" to mean Jewish state. Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American historian at the University of Chicago, calls the declaration a monumental injustice: "The Balfour Declaration involved a promise by an imperial power to establish a national home for a minority in a country that had a population which was not recognized in that declaration... The existing non-Jewish populations were the 92 percent majority of the country. Their national and political rights were ignored in a declaration which promised national and political rights to the Jewish people." Britain gained control of Palestine at the end of World War I. And in 1922, the League of Nations gave a mandate to Britain to rule Palestine, envisioning that the territory would eventually be granted independence. Britain attempted to bridge the political interests of both the Zionist settlers and the indigenous Palestinian Arabs. But violence broke out between the two communities almost from the start. It culminated in the Arab revolt of 1936, which left hundreds of Arabs and Jews dead. Britain proposed partitioning Palestine, an idea the Palestinians rejected and for which the Zionists had little enthusiasm. When World War II broke out, Great Britain was ready to leave Palestine.

Part 3: Partition, War and Independence

Once it was clear Germany had lost the war, the Zionists in Palestine turned on the British. Underground Jewish groups began to attack the British army and the Palestinians. The violence escalated. In 1946, Britain decided to turn the issue of what would happen to Palestine over to the United Nations. The U.N. proposed partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish, one Arab, and the General Assembly voted in favor of that solution in November 1947. The Arabs rejected the proposal and fighting broke out in Palestine. In 1948 the Zionists declared independence. Four Arab states invaded Israel, three-quarters-of-a-million Palestinians fled their homes and became refugees. The Jews won the war. A cease-fire was declared in 1949.

U.S. President Harry Truman endorsed the U.N. partition plan for political reasons, but also because of the terrible toll of the Holocaust, according to William Quandt, author of Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. "We did understand there was a tremendous human need after World War II for some kind of a political solution for the survivors of the Holocaust, who could not rebuild their lives in Germany and who were in need of some sort of restitution," Quandt says. The Arab majority in Palestine rejected the U.N. proposal. "The Jews were being offered 55 percent of Palestine when in fact they had owned only seven percent of the country," says Philip Mattar, editor of The Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. "Four-hundred-fifty thousand Palestinians were going to end up within the Jewish state, and they did not see any reason why they should go along with that kind of inequality, that kind of injustice." On May 14, 1948, Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the independent state of Israel. Almost immediately, four Arab states -- Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq -- invaded the new state. Israel "fought for its very existence on four fronts, but the Arab armies were disorganized and weak," Shuster says. "By November, it was clear they could not defeat Israel." By the time the war ended in 1949, Israel had even more land than called for in the U.N. partition plan. "Israel ended up with 78 percent of Palestine," says Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, author of Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel. "The Palestinian community in Palestine just disintegrated. The majority of Palestinians became refugees, and Palestine -- the geographical term Palestine -- disappeared from the map." In the war, 750,000 Palestinians fled their homes and became refugees. Most were driven out either by force or by fear, historians say. "In some cases there were massacres," says Rashid Khalidi of the University of Chicago. "In some cases people were put on trucks and sent away. In some cases they fled on their own." "The Palestinians fled to refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza, and what is now called the West Bank," Shuster reports. "Thousands with their children and grandchildren live in those camps until now. And from those camps would spring the Palestinian movement -- the guerrilla fighters and bombmakers and political leaders -- who would continue to fight Israel and challenge its right to exist, down to this day."

WatsonGlenn
March 21st, 2004, 06:51 PM
Continued

Part 4: The 1967 Six Day War

In 1967, the mood in the Middle East was ugly. Israel, independent since 1948, was surrounded by Arab states dedicated to its eradication. Egypt was ruled by Gamal Abdel Nasser, a firebrand nationalist whose army was the strongest in the Arab Middle East. Syria was governed by the radical Baathist Party, constantly issuing threats to push Israel into the sea." The Israelis attacked Egypt first, on June 5, 1967, in what most historians say was a defensive move. In the spring of that year, the Soviet Union had led the radical government in Damascus to believe that Israel was planning to invade Syria. Syria shared this misinformation with Nasser. The Egyptian leader closed the Gulf of Aqaba to shipping, cutting off Israel's primary oil supplies. He also ordered United Nations peacekeepers to leave the Sinai Peninsula. And he sent scores of tanks and hundreds of troops into the Sinai toward Israel. Nasser's stature was immediately boosted in the Arab world, says Michael Oren, author of Six Days of War. "He was elevated to almost a god-like status overnight and politically it seemed like a good bargain," Oren says. "The bad news was he wasn't counting on Israel striking back militarily." After three weeks of internal debate, Israel's leaders decided to attack. In the first day, Israel nearly destroyed Egypt's air force, and struck deep into the Sinai Peninsula, Egyptian territory. After six days of war, Israel had seized all of the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt, the West Bank and all of Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The seizure of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall in Old Jerusalem allowed Israelis to visit and worship at the holy sites for the first time in decades. Historian Benny Morris, author of The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, the Jews and Palestine, says "there was not just a sigh of relief that the threat of Arab attack had been dispelled, but there was also this outbreak of joy that at last the Israeli army had conquered the sites holiest to Judaism." The war profoundly changed Israel itself, says historian Anita Shapira, of the Chaim Weizmann Institute for the Study of Zionism in Tel Aviv. It led to the emergence of a strong mythic movement that claimed the West Bank as part of greater Israel. In the months after the Six Day War, Palestinian guerrilla leader Yasser Arafat organized an insurrection in the West Bank. It failed, but it brought about a shift in the outlook of the Palestinians, says Yezid Sayigh, author of Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1945-1993. "This in a sense catapulted the general Palestinian public into the arms of the guerrillas because they'd seen that the people they'd hinged their hopes on -- the Arab leaders and the armies they'd believed in -- had been swept aside in a matter of days. "And here came along a bunch of young men who jumped into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (and) said: 'We're going to take matters into our own hands. The Palestinians will stand up and fight for themselves. We're going to transform ourselves from being destitute refugees waiting for charity handouts from the U.N. and turn ourselves into freedom-fighters, people with dignity.'" In the wake of Israel's dramatic victory over traditional Arab armies, Shuster says, "the central conflict would be waged between the Israelis and the stateless Palestinians for the land they both claimed as their own."


Part 5: From the 1973 Yom Kippur War to Peace with Egypt

Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel in October 1973 to regain territories they lost in the Six Day War of 1967.

The shock of the attack -- which came on Yom Kippur, the highest of Jewish holy days -- and the strength of the Arab assault, led to a reassessment of the political and military balance in the Middle East. NPR Diplomatic Correspondent Mike Shuster reports in the fifth part of Morning Edition's series on the history of the Middle East conflict.

"This was one of the great surprises in history, the same as Pearl Harbor," says Benny Morris, author of Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist Arab Conflict. An overconfident Israel "was caught with its pants down on the 6th of October, 1973," Morris says.

Syria attacked Israeli positions on the Golan Heights. Egypt, now led by Anwar Sadat, launched 200 combat aircraft to hit Israeli forces on the eastern side of the Suez Canal. "By the end of the first day of fighting, the Egyptian army was able to cross the canal and seize positions on the Israeli side, something the Israeli army did not believe the Egyptians could do," Shuster reports.

The war, which lasted 19 days, shook Israel. It recovered militarily, but its leaders understood they needed to enter serious negotiations with the Arabs. This was the era of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy and the beginning of a succession of peace processes.

The war brought Menachem Begin and his right-wing Likud Party to power in 1977. "The shock of the '73 war brought about a completely new elite to rule the country for better and for worse," says historian Anita Shapira. "This war made people realize that power is not theirs forever, and that compromise is something that is necessary in order to survive in the long run."

The Palestinians, led by Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, understood that they could no longer rely on Arab states like Egypt and Syria to fight for them. But the PLO also began to see that a compromise with Israel was necessary, especially after Egypt's Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. U.S. President Jimmy Carter coaxed Sadat and Begin into an agreement at Camp David in 1978.

But the Palestinians felt left out of the process, says Rashid Khalidi, author of Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. "Most of them were very bitter that Sadat had made a separate deal, had not tried to negotiate with and on behalf of the Palestinians, and in so far as he did so, simply agreed to autonomy with Begin. The Palestinians believed that they had the right to independence, and that the Egyptians had in effect betrayed them."

WatsonGlenn
March 21st, 2004, 06:51 PM
continued, last page I promise

Part 6: From the First Intifada to the Oslo Peace Agreement

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza had been living under Israeli occupation for 20 years when their frustration and anger broke out into open rebellion in December 1987 now known as the first Intifada.

The Palestinians "were stateless, living under the humiliation of identity checks, body searches and verbal abuse that were the rule of the Israeli army, watching helplessly as Israel expanded Jewish settlements on what had been their land," The Intifada "galvanized Palestinians everywhere, and created an enormous amount of sympathy for the Palestinian cause," says historian Philip Mattar, executive director of the Institute for Palestine Studies. The Israeli army would seize Palestinian stone-throwers and literally break their arms. As these scenes were broadcast to the world, they were seen as "a Palestinian David against the Israeli Goliath."

The Intifada sent a message to the Israeli public that "this could be very costly to you financially and morally. And it swayed many politicians and military people in Israel to accepting the concept of a Palestinian state."

Israel's government was divided between the right-wing Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin of the Labor Party. Israeli historian Benny Morris says the Intifada led to the breakdown of Israel's unity government in 1990. Labor reached the conclusion that one cannot suppress the Intifada and must give the Palestinians some form of statehood because the Intifada cannot be beaten militarily. Likud on the other hand preferred a military solution to the Intifada."

Yasser Arafat's exile in Tunisia caused a vacuum in the Palestinian political leadership, giving rise to Islamic fundamentalism in the form of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. As the Intifada stretched into two and three years, more and more Israelis concluded it was time to settle with the Palestinians. In 1992, Rabin was elected prime minister, and he authorized secret negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization in Oslo.

The Israelis and the Palestinians signed the Oslo Peace Areement, Sept. 13, 1993, at the White House. The agreement envisioned creating a Palestinian state and an end to the conflict, "but it provided no road map," All the hardest issues were postponed: what to do about Jewish settlements on the West Bank, the status of Jerusalem, final borders of the two countries, and whether the Palestinian refugees could return to their original homes. Both sides were close to agreeing on an outline for dealing with many of those issues when Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by a Jewish right-wing zealot. "Had Rabin survived, had that outline been given flesh and bones, it's not inconceivable that by 1999, you would have had two states living side-by-side," says historian William Quandt, author of Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Since 1967.


Part 7: The Second Intifada and the Death of Oslo

Signed at a Sept. 13, 1993, White House ceremony by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, the Oslo agreement was meant to bring peace. But for many reasons, the Oslo process did not succeed. Just two years after the Oslo signing came the first blow to the agreement and many consider it fatal." On Nov. 4, 1995, a young right-wing Israeli zealot shot Rabin to death after a peace rally in Tel Aviv. With that, says Shuster, "the lone Israeli politician of his generation who seemed capable of making peace had been gunned down." Other blows to the peace process followed. As Israel prepared for the 1996 elections, pitting Labor's Shimon Peres against the Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, the Hamas organization carried out a series of deadly suicide bombings in Jerusalem and other Israeli cities. Netanyahu was elected -- and "when Likud came into power in 1996, Oslo was essentially over," says William Quandt, author of Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Since 1967. "You had a prime minister in Israel who didn't believe in it." Netanyahu slowed the implementation of the Israeli withdrawal from West Bank areas, even as he increased the pace of Jewish settlements there.

Yasser Arafat had returned from exile in 1994 and set up the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and in those portions of the West Bank that the Israelis abandoned. But his method and style of governing also contributed to the failure of the Oslo process, says historian Avi Shlaim, author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. "The Palestinian leadership, Yasser Arafat in particular, bear a share of the responsibility for the breakdown -- in particular, for violating some of the terms of the Oslo agreement by importing arms, by having much bigger security forces than they were entitled to, and by not laying the foundations for a democratic regime that respects human rights," says Shlaim.

President Clinton stepped in to try to revive the peace process. In October 1998, after two weeks of meetings that Clinton hosted, Arafat and Netanyahu signed an agreement meant to give Oslo new life. When Netanyahu returned to Israel he "again dug in his heels," blaming Palestinians for failing to fulfill the bargain. However, the peace process still had the support of the majority of Israelis; and in 1999, Netanyahu's coalition fell apart, and he was defeated in a bid for re-election by Ehud Barak.

In July 2000, Clinton brought Barak and Arafat together for another round of negotiations at Camp David -- but the attempt failed. Barak made an offer that many consider Israel's best ever. But when he unfolded a map that showed a Palestinian state made up of several unconnected cantons surrounded by Israeli troops, Arafat walked away."

The second Intifada broke out soon thereafter and proved more deadly than the first. Rioting gave way to guerrilla attacks and then to a series of suicide bombings. Israeli forces used tanks, helicopter gunships and jet fighters, leaving many Palestinians dead. With the collapse of Barak's government, Israelis chose Ariel Sharon as their prime minister. In late March, Sharon launched a full-scale invasion of Palestinian territories, much of which remain occupied.

Over the past century of conflict, it has always been hard for the two sides to perceive a path to peace. The great irony of the past decade is that almost like equal poles of a magnet, the closer the Israelis and Palestinians came to each other, the more violently they pulled away."

nuenke
March 23rd, 2004, 02:52 PM
Palestinians do not want any state of Israel (nor does any other Arab or Islamic nation in the ME) to exist. There are no compromises, only the complete destruction of this nation and its people.

It is perhaps true the Muslims in general hate Israel and want it destroyed. But how do you think they can ever expect to do so? Is it not possible for Israel to separate itself from all Palestinians, and isolate itself from them? Israel has the backing of the U.S., so no major war attacking Israel has a chance. Even if stable Middle East despots get toppled because of perceptions of selling out the Palestinians occurs, the chaos would be among Arabs, not between Arabs and Jews.

My question simply is how do you think Hamas, et al. plans to destroy Israel under the current antagonisms? I fail to see any plan in any of their actions except martyrdom.

ZealousDemon
March 23rd, 2004, 03:05 PM
I've not researched too much about the conflict, but I have a good idea of how it started and why it's still going.

Personally, my naive hippie-solution would to give the Jews their West Bank settlements, most of northern Israel (including Jerusalem), and then give the Palestineans the rest, including the Gaza Strip.

However, I doubt that it could be solved that easily. This conflict has been going on for too long for any side to agree to something that simple and quick.

nuenke
March 23rd, 2004, 05:10 PM
This conflict has been going on for too long for any side to agree to something that simple and quick.

Perhaps it will be decided once WW-IV gets going full steam. I see no end now in the escalation of fighting, and probably and end to the United Nations before it is all over.

mask
March 23rd, 2004, 08:48 PM
Palestinians do not want any state of Israel (nor does any other Arab or Islamic nation in the ME) to exist. There are no compromises, only the complete destruction of this nation and its people.
it is a shame that someone like u is saying something like that,
yes some people do, but the majority would accept 2 states living side to side in peace,
just as extremist don't accpet any israeli presence in the ME,
israeli fundementalist believe in a greater israel and in crushing palestinian cities killing civilians with terrorist to ensure security and they don't recognize any right for the palestinians to exist.
using the word palestinians or arabs is a big mistake.

Spartacus
March 24th, 2004, 07:03 PM
The only way the Palestinians can win anything is to throw all their weapons and explosives in the River Jordan, renounce violence and adopt the peaceful tactics of Ghandi and the American Civil Rights Movement...

The Palestinians are now sending 14 year old children out amongst the Israelis with explosives strapped to their chest...that is what their love of violence has come down to.

The problem with the Palestinians is they hate the Israelis more than they love their own children.

The problem with the Israelis is they are fighting an enemy who has sworn to wipe them out...and they are backed into a corner...

KevinBrowning
March 24th, 2004, 07:31 PM
it is a shame that someone like u is saying something like that,
yes some people do, but the majority would accept 2 states living side to side in peace,
just as extremist don't accpet any israeli presence in the ME,
israeli fundementalist believe in a greater israel and in crushing palestinian cities killing civilians with terrorist to ensure security and they don't recognize any right for the palestinians to exist.
using the word palestinians or arabs is a big mistake.
I don't see how using the words "Palestinian" or "Arab" is a big mistake. "Palestinian" is a rather flawed term, but then so are most racial terms. I could go on for a long time about how I'm a native American, but not an American Indian. Back to the point though. Why do you say it's a shame that he would say the Palestinians will not accept a compromise? From what I've read on the matter, most Arabs cannot and will not accept Israel's existence. They see it as the Zionists intruding on their territory. They don't understand why the infidels claim to own their "homeland." They are fed scathing propaganda by their clerics and tribal leaders. It's a sad situation, with a lot of prejudice and misinformation going around.

mask
March 24th, 2004, 09:31 PM
I don't see how using the words "Palestinian" or "Arab" is a big mistake.
coz it's generalizing what the radical fundementalists say , so that the listener get the wrong idea that this is the belief of all arabs or palestinians, every society has the liberal and the conservative, the radical and the more towards main stream.


Why do you say it's a shame that he would say the Palestinians will not accept a compromise?
the shame is that he just summed up the beliefs of 100 million people that live in different countries have a diverse(to a certain extent) cultures and backgrounds in just one sentence, u'd be aggrevated if ur one of them.

From what I've read on the matter, most Arabs cannot and will not accept Israel's existence.
then u heard wrong. there is no palestine , but there's an israel.israel is not letting palestinians have a country , and that's what all arabs hope for, for palestine to be a country, i'm not saying there aren't many fundementalists that ask to wipe the infidels off of not just the ME but the world.But if palestinians would be allowed to have any sort of home, fundementalism will get much much weaker in the ME , just like at the time of isaak rabin.


They see it as the Zionists intruding on their territory.
how do u see it?? in the light of the opening post??
what u and many fail to understand is that palestinians would just take whatever they can get,they have no means of forcing their will on israle, they'll just get whatever they offer even if they think they rightfully deserve more, they dont care much for destroying israel but for having a home for their own,not because they're a bunch of nice people but because it is more important for them to have a home first, that's a priority.

Demosthenes
March 27th, 2004, 03:27 PM
From what I've read on the matter, most Arabs cannot and will not accept Israel's existence.

I beleive that Israel is mostly a Jewish state. The Palestinians are mostly Arab. Out of the Jews and the Arabs, the Jews were in Palestine first. Throughout history, Jews have been repeatedly forced out of their home by Assyrians, Romans, Seijuk Turks, Ottomans etc. and now they are back to where they rightfully belong. I don't see what the Palestinians have to be mad about. They settled in someone's else's house and now that it is time for them to leave, they are fighting a war because they beleive that since they lived in the house, it's theirs.

chadn737
March 27th, 2004, 03:30 PM
I don't see what the Palestinians have to be mad about.

Because, they're Jewish infidels and they took back what was rightfully theres. That would make any fundametalist muslim mad.

Demosthenes
March 27th, 2004, 03:40 PM
Because, they're Jewish infidels and they took back what was rightfully theres. That would make any fundametalist muslim mad.

Then all the problems come down to the fundamentalist muslims, not the Jews. So it is the Palestinians that are the root of the problem not the Israelis. Also, I don't see why so many people are so shocked that Israel assassinated the Hamas leader recently. The U.S. went after Osama after September 11th, and the Hamas group has probably cost Israel many more lives than Sept. 11 did the U.S. (I'm just assuming, I haven't looked at any factual information.)

mask
March 27th, 2004, 10:07 PM
I beleive that Israel is mostly a Jewish state. The Palestinians are mostly Arab. Out of the Jews and the Arabs, the Jews were in Palestine first. Throughout history, Jews have been repeatedly forced out of their home by Assyrians, Romans, Seijuk Turks, Ottomans etc. and now they are back to where they rightfully belong. I don't see what the Palestinians have to be mad about. They settled in someone's else's house and now that it is time for them to leave, they are fighting a war because they beleive that since they lived in the house, it's theirs.
first this is absolutely historically wrong.
second, where do u live???would u accept a native american to kick u out of ur house because he's great grand father used to set up his tent there??

FruitandNut
March 28th, 2004, 01:39 AM
I thought Cannanites and Philistines etc. begat eachother in that area of the globe before those eleven of the twelve tribes of Israel decended on them. They were in effect invaders, an occupying force; with, or without, God's intervention or approval. Just how much of that 'Gott mit uns' is factual and how much is political, is up to archeological detective work, person belief, agenda and conjecture. God has all too frequently been used as 'justification' for a lot of questionable actions.

'I was only obeying orders', is sometimes an intellectual cop out from assuming an adult responsibility.

nuenke
March 28th, 2004, 08:59 AM
I beleive that Israel is mostly a Jewish state. The Palestinians are mostly Arab. Out of the Jews and the Arabs, the Jews were in Palestine first. Throughout history, Jews have been repeatedly forced out of their home by Assyrians, Romans, Seijuk Turks, Ottomans etc. and now they are back to where they rightfully belong. I don't see what the Palestinians have to be mad about. They settled in someone's else's house and now that it is time for them to leave, they are fighting a war because they beleive that since they lived in the house, it's theirs.

It is called eminent domain. If you leave your land abandoned, and I occupy it for a long period of time, title reverts to the occupant.

Aside from that, no land belongs to anyone except via force. Humans, for two million years, have been fighting wars over land and resources. The last I looked, real estate ownership through land titles was not part of the United Nations. When disputes arise, and no court has jurisdiction, the winner takes the land by force of fecundity.

chadn737
March 28th, 2004, 09:32 AM
It is called eminent domain. If you leave your land abandoned, and I occupy it for a long period of time, title reverts to the occupant.

Was the area really unoccupied by the Jews? If I remember correctly there were numerous Jewish settlements that had been in the area long before WWII.

nuenke
March 29th, 2004, 03:57 PM
Was the area really unoccupied by the Jews? If I remember correctly there were numerous Jewish settlements that had been in the area long before WWII.

Israel today is dominated by Ashkenazi Jews from Europe and the United States. They founded the state, and they run the state. What few Jews were in Israel before Zionism had little to do with the creation of Israel.

Demosthenes
April 4th, 2004, 12:26 PM
It is called eminent domain. If you leave your land abandoned, and I occupy it for a long period of time, title reverts to the occupant.

Aside from that, no land belongs to anyone except via force. Humans, for two million years, have been fighting wars over land and resources. The last I looked, real estate ownership through land titles was not part of the United Nations. When disputes arise, and no court has jurisdiction, the winner takes the land by force of fecundity.

First, the Jews never labandoned their land, they were thrown out by force. Second, if force is the factor that desides what borders are drawn, why after the Allies won WWI and Britain got mandate over Palestine, did the Arabs revolt when Britain wanted to make a home for the Jews? If Britain won the war it should get the right to do whatever it wanted with the land. After Britain retreated, Israel proclaimed its independence and was immediately invaded by basically all bordering countries. Israel survived that war and the mnay others that occured in the last 50 years, so doesn't that mean that it has earned the right to remain free? After all, force was used to defend against the invasions. And third, if the Native Americans initially had guns and treated the European settlers like enemies instead of guests, things might have turned out a whole lot differently. Also Mask, if I was historically incorrect, I apologize. I haven't really spent a lot of time studying the history of that area. Since you were the one who pointed out I made a mistake, correct it by telling me what I said wrong. Otherwise simply pointing out I was incorrect accomplishes nothing.

MattNuenke
April 6th, 2004, 08:26 AM
First, the Jews never abandoned their land, they were thrown out by force.

When were they thrown out by force and by whom? Are you covering thousands of years in this comment, expecting me to guess what century you are referring to?


After Britain retreated, Israel proclaimed its independence and was immediately invaded by basically all bordering countries. Israel survived that war and the mnay others that occured in the last 50 years, so doesn't that mean that it has earned the right to remain free?

War is never final. The outcome is provisional until the fighting starts again. In the past, Israel fought neighboring countries in conventional warfare, and with the help of military might they easily defeated the poorly armed and poorly trained Arabs. Now, the region is entering a new phase where it looks like the Palestinian uprising is spreading to Iraq and other countries. The Arab street may be smelling blood, and they are a different sort of enemy than conventional resistance. Partisans are much harder to defeat, as we learned in Afghanistan against the Russians, and our own experience in Vietnam. I see this as a protracted war, and one that will surely spread before it starts to subside. The key will be how many governments will fall to Islamism? Now, unlike even a few years ago, the Arabs are all connected by satellite TV and Internet. We are entering a new phase of warfare that we have never known before.

FruitandNut
April 17th, 2004, 02:14 PM
ps' Britain got the short straw when it came to 'doing something' with the survivours of the holocaust. They had been given a mandate by the League of Nations after WW1 and after WW2 an emerging United Nations, Uncle Sam included, pressured them to 'let my people go', as it were.

If any of you have seen the film 'Exodus' you may remember the dilemma the British had being faced with getting the local Arabs to 'accept' a fait accomplis over an influx of what over the years had become foreigners. As the new Jewish nation was being installed they needed 'lebensraum' and it was the local Arabs that were pushed out of areas of familial antiquity.

I suppose the Europen settlers in the USA expected the Native Indians to push of without a fight?

MattNuenke
April 18th, 2004, 07:26 AM
If any of you have seen the film 'Exodus' you may remember the dilemma the British had being faced with getting the local Arabs to 'accept' a fait accomplis over an influx of what over the years had become foreigners. As the new Jewish nation was being installed they needed 'lebensraum' and it was the local Arabs that were pushed out of areas of familial antiquity.

And again, the Jewish-Palestinian conflict looks a lot like the Nazis-Bolshevik conflict leading up to WWII. More and more, people see Israel in the same light as the Nazis. In fact, the Nazis emulated the Jews when they adopted a racial supremacist stance and declared the Aryans as supreme - as the Jews had been doing for themselves for several thousand years. Nazism was a mirror image of Judaism. See "National Socialism as an Anti-Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy" in Kevin MacDonald's 1998 book "Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism." I think it is available online at www.questia.com

Andacanavar
April 18th, 2004, 10:21 PM
Yeah, I got to agree that Isreal/Jews are somewhat smug. I went off on a tagent about this the other day and my wife looked at me like I was the second coming of Hitler.

Let me ask, how are the Palestinians supposed to fight back? Throw down their weapons and beg? Please. Whoever mentioned that land has almost always been taken by force throughout the history of humanity is right. The Jews lost Isreal fair and square, so tough. "Everybody" feels sorry for Joe Jew after WWI & WWII, so they toss the Palestinains out of their homes and the West sleeps better at night, because Joe & Jane Jew are back where they "rightly" belong (obviously, I'm paraphrasing here). Give me a break.

I guess we should call pot kettle black and give the United States back to the Native Americans, Mexicans, etc. who populated this land before whites did, right? Or if it makes the current generations feel better, give back the eastern half of America to England (Revolution), France (French & Indian War), etc. :rolleyes:

We should have withdrew all and any support for Isreal decades ago. Look how much it has cost us. The Middle East is AT BEST wary of America. It's none of our business. At the risk of sounding anti-semitic (no, I really couldn't care less), I'm constantly amazed at how some Jews think the world owes them something. I guaran-damn-tee if America pulls all support for Isreal when I wake up, the big, influential community that is Jewish in this country will be up in arms. Why? Why do we owe Isreal or Jews in general anything? Last time I checked, we allowed them to come here during the World Wars in order to have freedom. Last time I checked, it was US who helped free their ass from Nazi hands. And we owe them?

What a crock. :mad:

KevinBrowning
April 19th, 2004, 05:02 PM
Yeah, I got to agree that Isreal/Jews are somewhat smug. I went off on a tagent about this the other day and my wife looked at me like I was the second coming of Hitler.

Let me ask, how are the Palestinians supposed to fight back? Throw down their weapons and beg? Please. Whoever mentioned that land has almost always been taken by force throughout the history of humanity is right. The Jews lost Isreal fair and square, so tough. "Everybody" feels sorry for Joe Jew after WWI & WWII, so they toss the Palestinains out of their homes and the West sleeps better at night, because Joe & Jane Jew are back where they "rightly" belong (obviously, I'm paraphrasing here). Give me a break.

I guess we should call pot kettle black and give the United States back to the Native Americans, Mexicans, etc. who populated this land before whites did, right? Or if it makes the current generations feel better, give back the eastern half of America to England (Revolution), France (French & Indian War), etc. :rolleyes:

We should have withdrew all and any support for Isreal decades ago. Look how much it has cost us. The Middle East is AT BEST wary of America. It's none of our business. At the risk of sounding anti-semitic (no, I really couldn't care less), I'm constantly amazed at how some Jews think the world owes them something. I guaran-damn-tee if America pulls all support for Isreal when I wake up, the big, influential community that is Jewish in this country will be up in arms. Why? Why do we owe Isreal or Jews in general anything? Last time I checked, we allowed them to come here during the World Wars in order to have freedom. Last time I checked, it was US who helped free their ass from Nazi hands. And we owe them?

What a crock. :mad:
The Jews have been persecuted and slaughtered to such a degree throughout history, culminating with the Holocaust, that the world community decided to give the Jewish people a small reparation: A country to call their own. Is there anything so wrong about that? The modern Israeli state is more than willing to allow "Palestinians" to live freely in Israel. But the brainwashed suicide bombers think negotiating is shouting "Jihad!" while one detonates oneself in a crowded public area. Your comparison to "Native" Americans is fundamentally flawed, as the situation with Israelis and "Palestinians" goes back so far in time that there is no clear "original" inhabitant. Your inaccurate accusation of "Isreal [sic]/Jews" as being "somewhat smug" resonates with the unfounded, ludicrous anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism of the modern European and Arab community. Was America smug for defending itself after Pearl Harbor, and then again after September 11? Is any country smug simply for defending itself against violent attackers? Because that's exactly what Israel is doing, and they have been forced to learn how to do it very well, because they are a lone nation among a sea of enemies, Muslims who hate no one more than the "evil Zionists." Even the "Crusaders" are not as reviled as Jews are in the Middle East. So, Israel has refused to be abused like the Jews have been through history, and has formed one of the greatest militaries and intelligence organizations in the modern world. More power to them.

Andacanavar
April 19th, 2004, 07:40 PM
The Jews have been persecuted and slaughtered to such a degree throughout history, culminating with the Holocaust, that the world community decided to give the Jewish people a small reparation: A country to call their own. Is there anything so wrong about that?

Cry me a river. Just because a certain people have suffered so much doesn't give anyone the right to throw other people out of their homes and force them to adjust to how they live.



The modern Israeli state is more than willing to allow "Palestinians" to live freely in Israel.

Let's throw them the Nobel Peace Prize while we're at it.



But the brainwashed suicide bombers think negotiating is shouting "Jihad!" while one detonates oneself in a crowded public area. Your comparison to "Native" Americans is fundamentally flawed, as the situation with Israelis and "Palestinians" goes back so far in time that there is no clear "original" inhabitant.

I can see your point, but original inhabitant has nothing to do with it. Who was living there right before Isreal was created? Who was living in the area of what became the United States of America before Europeans invaded it?

If there is anything fundamentally flawed in that argument, it's that Europeans took this country by force when Isrealis didn't.



Your inaccurate accusation of "Isreal [sic]/Jews" as being "somewhat smug" resonates with the unfounded, ludicrous anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism of the modern European and Arab community.

For one thing, to say I'm anti-American is the most ridiculous thing you could say and to me is a borderline insult. The reasons why I don't think we belong in Isreal's back pocket is BECAUSE I'm pro-American. It has nothing to do with us, and this whole situation only creates enemies. Sure, Isreal is our "friend" ( :rolleyes: ), but so what? Yeah, ther're really backing us up when the crap hits the fan for us.



Was America smug for defending itself after Pearl Harbor, and then again after September 11? Is any country smug simply for defending itself against violent attackers?

Two COMPLETELY different situations. Palestinians were thrown out of their homes, forced to adjust their way of living. Not the case with UBL now and the Japanese in WWII.



Because that's exactly what Israel is doing, and they have been forced to learn how to do it very well, because they are a lone nation among a sea of enemies, Muslims who hate no one more than the "evil Zionists."

Believe that if you want to. Isreal is hardly alone. If the US were to give anymore support, we would have to throw our own troops into the foray.



Even the "Crusaders" are not as reviled as Jews are in the Middle East.

Hmmmm.. I wonder why? Seriously.



So, Israel has refused to be abused like the Jews have been through history, and has formed one of the greatest militaries and intelligence organizations in the modern world. More power to them.

A military enhanced BY the greatest military in the world.

Meng Bomin
April 19th, 2004, 07:45 PM
Believe that if you want to. Isreal is hardly alone. If the US were to give anymore support, we would have to throw our own troops into the foray.They are, in fact, the biggest recipient of US foreign aid followed in close second by Egypt.

nuenke
April 21st, 2004, 03:27 PM
The Jews have been persecuted and slaughtered to such a degree throughout history, culminating with the Holocaust, that the world community decided to give the Jewish people a small reparation: A country to call their own. Is there anything so wrong about that?

The Jews, the Armenians, the Gypsies, and many other races and or religions have been persecuted. The problem is why? The Jews have been equally guilty in persecution, oppression, deception, etc. They did not become a persecuted race for nothing. Much of their racial separation, there acting on behest of nobility to tax the masses, etc. have made them outcasts over and over again - and there was always reasons behind the persecutions. Were the persecutions fair? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but then neither is the current persecution of White males either.

Anti-Semitism is not magical. It occurred at different times for many different reasons. But the Jews were always participants in those reasons, not just helpless by-standers.

Apollinax
April 30th, 2004, 03:13 PM
Bush has been president for 3 years and has had much on his plate, including two wars (Afghanistan, which everyone supported, and Iraq, which most Americans and many nations supported). Some argue that Bush has ignored the Israili-Palestinian matter. I disagree. The Bush administration played a major role in developing the Road Map. That plan, developed by the U.S., the European Union, the U.N. and Russia, provides for the end of hostilities and the establishment of a Palestinian state within 3 years. Sharon, the Israeli cabinet and the former Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas gave their support to that plan. So far, it is barely breathing, but it demonstrates effort and some success, if we measure success by the fact that the warring parties can agree in principle on anything. A low measure, to be sure, but in this case any progress is important. The plan got little attention from the Palestinians prior to the Iraq invasion. The Abbas endorsement came after June, when Saddam was gone. A link? Hard to say.

Dennis Ross, an ambassador and director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, writes that "the Bush administration must demonstrate its commitment to democratic growth in the region in order to win the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim worlds." This, Ross says, will be aided by a victory in Iraq. What happens in the "post-Saddam Iraq," Ross says, will have "seismic" impact in the region. It may open the way to a changed approach to the Israel-Palestinian problem. Robert Satloff, director of policy and strategic planning at the Near East Institute, says that the focus on Iraq and the natural detritus of Saddam's removal puts the Middle East front and center in US foreign policy, where during the Cold War it never was. Because of the focus on WMD as part of the larger war on terrorism (which was the rationale for war in Iraq), which means more intense focus on Iran and Syria, countries that according to Ross, "support, fund, guide and equip terrorists groups such as Hizballah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the Middle East will remain central to US foreign policy. Satloff doubts that the Israel-Palestinian issue will get as much direct attention because of the war on terrorism, but geography alone dictates that it will never be far from sight. Satloff suggests that the elections in Jordan may demonstrate whether Arab support for US policy can be sustained. To his credit, Bush has promised support for a Palestinian state on essentially two conditions: an end to violence and democratic reforms. To Israel, Bush has said that further settlements are unacceptable and present a bar to a final resolution.

In short, thanks in large part to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration may be poised to push for a meaningful settlement because the US has now invested so much more than talking points and gestures in the Middle East. The larger war on terrorism, made necessary by 9-11 and helped by victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, is consistent with and will ultimately aid (and has already) efforts to settle the Israel-Palestinian problem.

nuenke
May 1st, 2004, 06:00 AM
In short, thanks in large part to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration may be poised to push for a meaningful settlement because the US has now invested so much more than talking points and gestures in the Middle East. The larger war on terrorism, made necessary by 9-11 and helped by victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, is consistent with and will ultimately aid (and has already) efforts to settle the Israel-Palestinian problem.

I don't see any progress on the Jewish/Palestinian problem, and Sharon is never going to yield to Bush because Bush cannot antagonize the Jewish vote. This war is going to play itself out by spreading to other Muslim nations, as the Arab broadcasters show them how brutal the United States will treat Arabs rather than freeing them.

This hatred between Islam and the West will now only be settled in a long and protracted war on many fronts, as the body bags keep piling up. And that is what war is all about: politics by other means.

mask
May 2nd, 2004, 08:00 AM
The Jews have been persecuted and slaughtered to such a degree throughout history, culminating with the Holocaust, that the world community decided to give the Jewish people a small reparation: A country to call their own. Is there anything so wrong about that?
of course not, i'm assuming the country ur talking about is a rock floating in space. why do the palestinians have to suffer for that? isn't compensating the jews on the expense of some other people is also injustice just like the jews suffered from, i find ur justification amusing.

KneeLess
May 2nd, 2004, 02:51 PM
of course not, i'm assuming the country ur talking about is a rock floating in space. why do the palestinians have to suffer for that? isn't compensating the jews on the expense of some other people is also injustice just like the jews suffered from, i find ur justification amusing.
Indeed, they do deserve a country of their own, but to take over another's country because of Zionism or something is ridiculus. The fact that the Israelies won't take the Palistinians back after they fled because of a war is a slap in the face. It's like someone leaving on vacation and you goto their house and call it yours because you used to live there, some 2000 years ago. ;)

FruitandNut
June 30th, 2004, 06:02 AM
While this topic entails many facets and will undoubtedly introduce many side arguments, we can start off on general terms here and split the thread when necessary.

To start this off however, does everyone understand the conflict? Does one side have more legitimacy than the other in this conflict? Will there ever be a resolution? How would you propose to resolve it?


Apok: NO, YES, Armageddon perhaps?, Are you prepared to grant me unlimited powers and a bit of time?


All comes down to the human condition and its willingness to act on incomplete information. For every one 'nearly rational' human being, there are a good fistful of 'mainly irrational' types. For every intellectual there is a buch of average types and a number of low intellect. Stick those ingredients into a stewpot marked 'The Isreal-Palestine Issue', and it will heat itself up.