LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSo Israel and Pakistan have had no violence between each other, because they both have nukes? Israel, with nukes, is not attacked by the Palestinians on a daily basis?Originally Posted by SammEl
Your comments make no sense.
So Israel and Pakistan have had no violence between each other, because they both have nukes? Israel, with nukes, is not attacked by the Palestinians on a daily basis?
Your comments make no sense.
Last edited by Kata; 25-03-2010 at 12:44 PM.
The people moving there right now are not 'jews' in historical sense. They are eastern europeans/europeans who have no link to the land. Even that 'suposed' link is being challenged by historiansas t oits validity with one claiming some indigenous palestinians have more claim through their jewish ancestory if the link is plausible, but somewhere down the line changed their beliefs.
They have been forced onto a land by western military/political leadership without any care for the indiginous populations who we refer to as Palestinians. They have nukes - all of their neighbours don't. Yet they cry victim.
For all the sneaky tricks with semantics using the media and lobbying groups to great effect but what they are doing is immoral. To try and fool people and cry victim with tanks, nukes, helicopters, and sophisticated weaponry and $3bn of aid annually from US against unarmed women and children fools no one. What will they be taken out by?? black magic??
There is nothing moral about them. They have got themselves into the situation because they are commited to taking ALL of the land - thats why there will be no peace process. It will always be stalled at the last minute with more land grabs and more indiscriminate killings. Then when someone gets angry at this situation and rightly so - they will cry victim on our screens. On and on it goes...
If the west does want to bring peace in the region - give the other side the same weapons and watch them come to the table.
Last edited by pp05; 25-03-2010 at 01:51 PM.
Hmm, I would probably disagree.
after WW2, they had no claim to the land. If you go back in history far enough us brits could claim bits of france, whilst the scandinavians took ownership of blighty etc.
So you have to accept that when some place is domiciled by someone you probably should respect that fact, and not try and claim it as your promised land.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Yeah that's the real thing I think. And before that the Jews took it off some "idolators" or whatever who got subsumed into cultures or killed, not sure.
The whole thing, when you look at dispassionately from the outside rather than jumping on the OMG AMERICA KILL BURN JIHAD bandwagon and making up little stories to dehumanize people with silly names seems to be that no one alive now has any real claim to the land... Going from there I'd say fair enough if they want it back, just because you settle somewhere and build and reproduce hugely doesn't make it yours, sure you could say squatters rights but by the logic you could say we own Ireland, Africa, India etc obviously when we did not and it was right to pull out even if we had built up our own colonies.
The stuff going just seems to be just an example of how short human memory is and the capability with ideologies, like religion, to blot out and ignore the bits that don't "fit" with the rest of the view. e.g. Jews are bad for doing it now, but obviously it was right for Muslims to do so to the Jews in the first place? heh. So many people seem to follow poli-ideological dogma rather than logic and it really shows.
So what's the cut-off time period, and who decides it? Israel has been there for a pretty long time now; is it not yet long enough?
No because it is actively expanding, putting quite harsh sanctions on those in Gaza etc.
Its kinda like the matter conservation thing, in order to expand, they can not create, only convert.
It would be like the frogs expanding from St. Pancras, annaxing the British Library. They are an old established country after all!
If Israel didn't expand any further at the expensive of the 'disputed' shall we say land, then they might have some sympathy from me.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
No, it's not a comment for the Palestinians, it's far deeper than that.
They know they cannot even come close to the power of Israel, look what happened before, total destruction.
Do you think, if Iraq actually had a WMD, America would of even thought about attacking them? Come on, think reality here, if you are in charge of a country, and you have a WMD and you know two major countries are about to attack you, you'd launch those missiles within an instant, because either way, you have already lost.
Israel will continue to do what it wants regarding all the small conflict they do on a frequent basis, they know they are untouchable, any country with nukes is untouchable - North Korea will never ever be attacked, unless of course they fire one off first. Look how many countries are against Israel, including the major world organizations, and look what's been done about it.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wor...h_In_14_Months
Two deaths, and they launch big attack, normally killing civilians - Are you kidding me?
And we all just sit back, because, they are untouchable.
Hi guys, this is a subject I've been thinking about recently so glad it came up. I'd be interested to see what information can be dug up.
What with the debate and news stories that rage on and the passion with which they continue I wanted to be better informed.
So far my reading has lead me to the following conclusions:-
- The Holy Land conflict (I will avoid the terms Palestine/Palestinian as much as possible since they are themselves a bone of contention/confusion) is made complicated and enduring because of two things - primarily, ideological differences, secondarily, modern vs pre-modern history (20th century vs pre-20th century).
- The presence/intervention of outside parties seems to be motivated by three general principles - the historical, the strategic and the moral.
Historical - the current situation exists because the League of Nations (Pre-United Nations) handed over the area to British mandate and Britain supported (in varying degrees of vagueness) the establishment of a Jewish homeland in that area. Eventually a strategically compromised Britain handed back to the League/UN responsibility for the conflicted area.
Strategic - It's pretty obvious how having a stronghold, ally or at least stability in the Middle or Near East is advantageous.
Moral/Religious - The exact reason here varies depending upon one's view, feelings or religion but the main ones are:
Sympathy for the Jews who had, but have for a long time lacked, a homeland.
Sympathy for Palestinian Arab refugees.
The belief that a Jewish homeland should not exist/Jews should be exterminated.
The general feeling that attacks/abuses should be stopped or prevented (or in other words - one should strive to protect victims).
It should be noted that of these three main reasons for international involvement any one or all of these may, at any point, be feigned/used insincerely in order to gain standing in one or more of the others.
- I do not believe the situation can be resolved with the involvement of outside parties (or properly discussed among any of us) until the supposed/deciding motivations for that involvement are clarified exactly and therefore with them the goals of that involvement. The clarification of these things is something which I am coming to believe is extremely important; but considering the annoying nature of most politics these days I'm skeptical it will happen.
- Current mainstream media coverage is crap at giving anyone a clear view of the issues at hand. I wonder if the Holy Land issue isn't, arguably, the most heavily biased story running at present. I've come to believe that if you want a grasp on this monster issue you have to do your homework. As a side note I find it particularly interesting how this issue seems to get people riled up in a way others (even bloodier and more clear cut issues) can't even come close to. What's peculiar about this issue that makes people so angry or opinionated - or even care? If it's the suffering of Palestinian Arabs (which seems to be the main one) surely the suffering of Africans (PRC, Sudan for two) or North Koreans should have people more concerned with their much higher death tolls and more sadistic and gruesome abuses and atrocities? Perhaps it is due to the involvement of a strong, modern, western-style power (Israel) which brings it closer to home.
Whatever the case, I do believe that in discussing and attempting to solve this issue it is absolutely necessary to create and clearly present the specific problems with which we are concerned and our desired goals by which, once attained, we may call the situation resolved.
So first question - What is (are) the problem(s) you have with, or see in, the Holy Land conflict?
Second question - What would be the specific targets you would set in order to consider those problems resolved?
Before any of us can answer those questions though, and before I give mine, I'll give a quick summary of the situation as I understand it to this point.
When I started this post I made the following comment:
"The Holy Land conflict (I will avoid the terms Palestine/Palestinian as much as possible since they are themselves a bone of contention/confusion) is made complicated and enduring because of two things - primarily, ideological differences, secondarily, modern vs pre-modern history (20th century vs pre-20th century)."
I'll use this passage to make the summary.
First, as regards the terms Palestine/Palestinian (terms I think one would consider it reasonable to say were significant in understanding the conflict) the pro-Israeli camp have a bone to pick. If you want to understand the Israeli/Jewish argument then you need to understand this point of theirs.
They argue - and so far it seems to hold at least some water (I'm still trying to research any history on culture 'Palestine') - that the term Palestinian has been appropriated by the Arab nations for use in a propaganda war. That anyone interested in this issue must look into this and go beyond shallow modern labels. To be more specific the pro-Israeli camp argue that there is no such thing as a 'Palestinian' - at least not in any way that would distinguish them as an individual people or culture. They argue that a 'Palestinian' is quite simply an Arab who is no different culturally, linguistically, historically or in any other way beyond the fact that they want to live in land on the west side of the Jordan. The pro-Israel camps sees no difference between 'Palestinians' and the Arabs identifying themselves within one of the surrounding Arab nations (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia). They would direct us to consider the historical meaning of the term 'Palestinian' and ask that it be used specifically in that way rather than let it be appropriated for use in a way that confuses or hides the issue. They would label that as part of a propaganda war the Arabs are using to further their cause.
As regards the historical use of the term this can be said:
Palestine has, until the 60's, been a geographical term referring to the region of land now known as Israel and sometimes extending east of that beyond the Jordan. The same region has also been known by other names. Some place the origin of the term with the Romans who wanted to destroy the Jewish attachment to the region thereby renaming Israel or Judea and Samaria after one of their enemies - the Philistines. Thus - Palestine. It is the case that within all societies to have ruled the region since the Jewish conquest and domination of the area several thousand years ago the term 'Palestinian' was used to refer any individual from any religion or culture who lived in the area. Thus there were Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian Christians and so for. The term 'Palestinian', it seems, has never had any distinct cultural significance but truly has been purely geographical.
Here's a link to the definition of Palestine and Palestinian (adj/noun) in Webster's Dictionary - the same is borne out by other sources. It seems pretty cut and dry.
So that's the terms outlined - whether a case for a distinct Palestinian identity can be made or not remains to be seen but the history I've check out doesn't seem to suggest it. That's not necessarily the be-all-and-end-all though as will be seen.
The remaining two points to be covered are ideology and history. I'll tackle them in that order.
Ideology is, I believe, the biggest issue here. Ultimately, history can be looked at from many different perspectives and arguments made; that which holds sway in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Arabs today is where it's really at.
The Jewish ideology is quite simple. They do have a long historical association with the area - the longest of any civilisation still in existence. (Egypt is older but although waging war at times, they never settled in the area). Whether or not one share's their belief, to the Jews, the land west of the Jordan, Israel, was given to them by God. They held it for many years. They have never ceased to have a presence there (some numbers put the Jewish minority at 12% for the years or Arab rule), and it is dear to their hearts. Indeed, the survival of the Jewish people/culture/nation is a remarkable fact of history. Because of this, the land known as Israel/Palestine is dear to them, dearly loved by them, and very important to them. In these days since the second World War, although somewhat obvious, I think it bears re-stating that the opportunity for the Jewish people to have their own homeland once again especially after suffering such a severe persecution (again, is it uniquely so?) only becomes all the more sweet to them. To Jew, the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine is the sweetest of all dreams. It has been given to them. They have been working hard to make the most of it. Whilst they have shown something of a spirit of cooperation, it is also clear they will not allow it to be taken from them again. Not easily anyway.
I think that sums up the Jewish ideology. The Arab ideology is more complex and there are two main parts to consider...
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
...
The first, and I speak of it carefully because it's not the easiest or nicest thing to consider, is a widespread animosity towards the existence of any sort of Jewish nation/homeland, especially in the Holy Land. This is obviously a strong statement, however, I make it because it is a principle and fact clearly stated many times and many places among Arab and Islamic nations, coalitions and smaller groups and certainly the PLO or PA as it is now known. This is hard to fathom but it must be recognised, that for much of the Arab world, the existence of the Jewish nation of Israel is intolerable on the level of principle. This anti-Jewish ideology which exists is the single most significant and complicating factor in the Holy Land conflict. I would go so far as to say that without it, there might be no major conflict at all. Nevertheless it does exist and it must therefore be borne in mind when considering the actions and attitudes of both sides in the conflict.
I should say that I did not mention this within the Jewish ideology because although there are, undoubtedly, Jews who hate Arabs, generally speaking the Jewish ideology or principle does not contain any notion of eradicating or conquering the Arabs as a people or even region. It is more a defensive principle whereas the Arab animosity towards Jews is an aggressive principle. As said above, this is the saddest and most complicating fact of the conflict. I suppose one could call it an irrational hatred in principle.
One question that came to mind while considering this is, "If this is true, why didn't the Arabs wipe out the Jewish minority who remained in the region all those years? Perhaps it is a modern ideology born out of reaction to Jewish aggression in dominating the area?"
The best answers I've found so far are that, firstly, the stated principle itself says otherwise. So if the ideology is a modern one, it's origin is not reactionary. This leave us with the possibility then that it could have come about, perhaps, by a change in the Arab mindset or religious thought - from moderation or a liberal mindset to a more extreme or severe one. Secondly, the general rule tends to be that private individuals living in close proximity tend to behave more humanely than 'patriotic' or national groups when they start to march. It could have been that a minority Jewish population is no threat to an Arab empire which blankets the whole region beyond the tiny speck which is the Holy Land. However, when the Jewish population starts to increase - as it did from the 1880's onwards - and when in the end that population forms itself as a nation and not just a minority - then the animosity rises. In other words, when the Jewish population is small, destruction of their human lives (which is a distasteful business no matter who you're killing) is less of a priority than getting on with your own life. When the Jewish population grows, however, and becomes national, then it becomes a question of principle. Thirdly, and here we come to the second part of the ideology, what the Jewish people 'take' from the Arabs living in the Holy Land.
Now, I have to be careful here because this is also a major bone of contention. The standard argument from the Arab side, which is, I think, the one with which most of us are familiar, is that the Jews came in and stole the land from them, and forced them out of their homes. That is certainly a serious matter and should not be ignored. However, the pro-Israel camp would interject here to state that they Jewish people have in fact taken very little from the Arabs, and that the little they did take was first taken from them after the land had been officially given to them and even then they only took part of it back following a declaration of war by the Arab nations who fired the first shots and made moves to conquer. They would put forward the argument that at many major offers to settle the matter the Jewish people were accepting and prepared to settle but the Arab nations were not. They would also argue that before the involvement of the League of Nations and the British, and before the world wars broke out, the Jews had started peaceably entering the land and legally purchasing parts of what was then a sparse wasteland. It was only as that movement grew and the land started to be developed by them that hostilities started to occur and again, they would argue, at the instigation of the Arab nations around them. The pro-Israel camp would, at the mention of Jewish occupation or conquer of Arab land, ask for specific examples of what it is that they have 'taken' and attempt to show that there is in fact very little. They would state that this talk of Jewish aggression is again propaganda being used to paint the picture of history different that what it actually was. Of course, for any outside parties to take action it is agreed that it must be done so based upon reality and truth and not upon hearsay. The question then falls to us to investigate who is telling the truth, or how much truth lies where, exactly. Then we must, if we feel it is right and appropriate, work with the current parties to come to a resolution as we see one possible.
To return to the second point of Arab ideology, however, we have before us their 'defensive element' - their claim of a right to possession of that land - or part of it (however much is deemed correct) and we must (in discussing or resolving the issue) seek to come to a determination of the extent of that claim. Certainly there is no doubt that at the individual level there are families and persons who are in difficult circumstances and have some right to live in that land. The additional piece to consider here is something that came to light when reading Arab sources - Al Jazeera - and their statement is that they were promised a full Arab homeland, of all Palestine (it seems the bit west of the Jordan is of particular importance - if not just having the whole thing and the Jews none) by the British only to discover the British had also, secretly, been talking with the Jews. The resulting two way division of the land was not, they say, what they signed up for. So that, it appears, is perhaps what the Palestinian Arabs feel that Israel took from them when they declared independence. And that, perhaps, certainly seems to help understand how the Arab side views things. If in fact that is the truth.
So, in thinking about all this, what must be decided is on what level, private or national, Palestinian Arabs have a right to the land they claim is theirs or whether there is any truth to the Jewish assertion that the Arabs were already given a land of their own, the country now known as Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan, the larger part of Palestine given to the Arabs when the Jews were given the western part) and that they have all they need in terms of space. Then, as regards the Arab families living within Israel's borders, that they are welcome to live and stay there. What Israel wont tolerate, they say, is the Arab attempt to encroach upon the land and borders given to it by the UN, by an official vote, or to overthrow them either by means of direct aggression or the indirect development of an additional Arab nation, the 'invented' nation of 'Palestine'. That is the discussion which exists over that second aspect of the Arab ideology. Although the issue is further complicated when one considers more recent action in terms of the building programs, developments and the overturning of 'illegal' Arab housing by Israel in areas it considers to be part of Israel. These do add specific cases to the 'displaced' or 'persecuted' Arab complaint and ideology, although in the wider view they still fall into the same context of territorial dispute. Which is something we'll briefly look at next.
Okay, essay length post almost done.
I just want to give a review of the history of the conflict as I understand it in it major points.
1300-1000 BC Conquest of Canaan by nation of Israel and establishment of the unified nation whose first king was Saul and the second the famous King David. The capital set at Jerusalem and the Temple built by the third king Solomon.
720 BC Assyrians conquer the 'northern tribes of Israel'. Jerusalem and Judea still Jewish/Israeli.
586 BC Babylonians conquer all Israel. The first Temple is destroyed. A minority group remain but most taken to Babylon.
515 BC Many Jews return to Israel with authority of Persian King Cyrus (who conquered Babylon). Second Temple built.
332 BC Land conquered by Alexander the Great - now under Hellenistic/Greek rule. Jewish rule still permitted - a Jewish theocracy but under the empire's authority.
160 BC Maccabean Revolt against Greek culture and desecration of the Temple. The Temple retaken and purified.
129 BC Following further revolt and the fall of the Seleucid/Greek empire the Jewish land, now called Judea, regains independence.
63 BC Romans conquer Jerusalem - Roman rule begins. During this time the Temple is again destroyed. This is also the period of Jesus Christ, some Jewish revolts, and some Jewish autonomy is still retained but again under Roman rule.
313 AD Byzantine/'Christian' Rule begins. Jews lose a lot of autonomy. Many churches built on holy sites.
614 AD Persian Invasion - Persians invade and capture Jerusalem. The Jews help and are rewarded with administration of Jerusalem for three years, however, soon the Byzantine Empire retakes the city (629AD).
636 AD Arab Rule begins. At first Jews retain freedoms. Eventually restrictions against non-muslims slowly force the population to dwindle down to much reduced numbers.
691 AD Dome of the Rock mosque built on site of first two Temples in Jersualem.
1099 AD European Crusaders take the land and hold it for 200 years. Once things settle down in this time a number of Jews use the trade routes to return and settle in Jerusalem and Acre especially.
1291 AD Mamluks (Egyptian Muslim Military class) take the land. Dark period in the land's history - ports and cities destroyed - becomes a backwater ruled from Damascus and suffered plagues, swarms of locusts and earthquakes.
1517 AD Ottoman Empire Rules (Turkish) - Order restored but still ruled from Damascus. Jewish immigration is stimulated once again and many return. Both in Jerusalem and especially Safad.
1860 AD First Jewish community outside Jerusalem's walls built.
1882-1903 AD First large scale Jewish immigration, mainly from Russia.
1897 AD Zionist Organisation Founded in Switzerland
1904-1914 AD Second large scale immigration from Russia and Poland mainly.
1909 AD First kibbutz founded and also Tel Aviv founded, the first modern all Jewish city.
1917-18 AD British Rule - Balfour Declaration (pledges support for Jewish homeland in Palestine)
1919 AD Third large scale immigration again mainly from Russia.
1922 AD British mandate of Palestine granted by League of Nations. Division is two-fold - approximately 25% given for Jewish homeland, west of the Jordan, the remaining 75% east of the Jordan called 'Trans-Jordan'.
1924-32 AD Fourth large scale immigration from mainly Poland
1929 AD Hebron Jews massacred in Arab revolts.
1933-39 AD Fifth large scale immigration mainly from Germany.
1936-39 AD Arab anti-Jewish riots.
1939 AD Jewish immigration severely restricted by British 'White Paper'.
1939-45 AD WW2 - and the Holocaust 6 million Jews killed.
1944 AD Jewish Brigade formed as part of British forced.
1947 AD UN Proposes Arab and Jewish states be set up.
1948 AD MAY 14 - British Mandate ended, Nation of Israel Declared
MAY 15 - 5 Arab states declare war on Israel and invade. One year War of Independence. IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) established.
1949 AD Armisitice Agreements signed between Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria.
Jerusalem divided between Israeli and Jordanian rule.
Israel admitted at 59th member of UN.
1948-52 AD Mass immigration from Europe and Arab nations.
1956 AD 8 Day Sinai Campaign - Israeli/British/French forces invade Egypt and Israel captures Sinai peninsula and Gaza strip in response to Egyptian moves to halt trade and blockade the Suez canal. UN place a force on the Egypt/Israeli border. Following this and assurances from Egypt for free navigation along with insistence from Britain and Russia, Israel withdraws in stages from the land just taken.
1967 AD 6 Day War - Jerusalem taken and united, Gaza, Golan Heights and Sinai peninsula taken. Northern Israeli towns freed from 19 years of Syrian shelling. This sets the stage for the current disagreements.
1973 AD Yom Kippur War In a surprise attack on the Jewish day of atonement, Egypt retook the Suez canal and a narrow zone on the other side. Syria reconquered the Golan Heights. Following massive US and Soviet resupplying of the sides, Israel succeeded in pushing back the Syrians and threatening Damascus. In Sinai, the IDF crossed the Suez Canal and cut off the Egyptian Third Army.
From here on out there are some further wars and various other maneuvers. But I'm getting tired and it's time for bed.
I tried to balance this timeline from various sources. If it seems weight towards the Israeli side I can only say I really tried to balance it. All the resources I checked confirmed the same details. Unfortunately the Arab sources I found - In English - weren't too detailed - this one jumps from the Muslim reconquest after the Crusades all the way to 1917. No division or mention made between Arabs and Ottoman Turks. It's questionable to say the least.
Then there was this one but it only take the history from 1915 onwards - it's Al Jazeera and their main bone to pick, which helped me refocus the Arab ideology is that they feel the were deceived by Britain and ended up getting stiffed.
Right, I'm off!
I'll leave those two questions to you - what are the problems you see and what goals would you require for them to be considered solved?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Hi Galant.
It's difficult to get a clear view of this because so many sources that pretend to independence are actually Israeli mouthpieces. You will find subtle slants, omissions mainly, but also various twists of nomenclature and sound bites that all attempt to sway one to a particular viewpoint.
I notice, for instance, that in your account there is no mention of how the majority of the Arabs living in what is now Israel were driven out by Israeli terrorist groups during the war of independence. The Yum al Nakba (day of catastrophe in Arabic) was marked by organised mass murder of Arab civilians by Israeli troops, notably those led by that master of mass murder, Ariel Sharon.
Few people mention that Sharon, among others, specialised in the murder of Arab women and children. Sharon was quoted as recommending that his men kill Arab children so that they didn't grow up to be Arabs in Israel, and recommended that his men ape Arab women so that they would carry the seeds of Israel. This dreadful man is largely responsible for the situation we have now.
Also one seldom reads about the Arab proposal to query the International Court of Justice on the competence of the General Assembly to partition a country against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants. When you read it in isolation like that, it seems appalling. How dare a bunch of foreigners take a country, partition it and then give part of it away to a bunch of aliens? Imagine if the UN partitioned the UK, donating England and Wales to Pakistan, Leaving Scotland and the far North of England for the British, on the basis that lots of Pakistanis want to live there. How would the British react? This isn't an unrealistic comparison. The Jews were given 56% of the Mandate territory, for a population about half the size of the Arab population. During the Arab-Israeli war, Israel took and kept most of the area it had been allocated by the partition plan and took control a significant portion of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, Negev, a strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank.
True. That happened, though, as you know nothing is quite that simple. However it is undeniable that the Israelis, mainly the Special night Squads, drove over 250,000 Arabs off their land in their terror campaign in 1949. Since then, of course, much more land has been stolen from the Palestinians in the West Bank, and much more is under Israeli administration, meaning that it cannot be used properly, as Israel will not give permits for building , farming or digging wells, and frequently maintain exclusion zones in useful Arab lands; farms, schools, factories etc.
Well, the Israelis would indeed say that, but they would be lying, wouldn’t they? Look at a map. Israel was given 56% of the Mandate territory and drove the Arabs off that and a lot more, as I explained above.
Well, duh! The Arabs were having their land expropriated and given to Jewish immigrants. Of course they weren’t ‘accepting’, while the Jews were.
Read this The Arab Revolt
Also, it was not a sparse wasteland, a lot of it was farmed. The “Land without a people, for a people without a land” thing is just a propaganda meme with no basis in reality. You can see these ‘before and after’ pictures on a lot of Israeli propaganda websites, but the reality of it is that the Israelis deliberately destroyed over 1 million fruit trees belonging to Arabs in order that they could point to the difference and say “See what we have done? Turned the desert into an orchard. See what the Arabs have done; ruined this land”.
This is the partition plan:
See how the Jews were to get most?
Now follow This link. This was the map of the area going into the Camp David Peace talks. See how much has already been swallowed up by Israel? (Sorry about the link, but the image is huge)
There is also a little disingenuousness in Israel’s statements that they haven’t taken much.
Look at the map of the Jewish squats in the West Bank from B’tselem, the Israeli civil rights group.
That’s over a third of the tiny part that the Palestinians are still allowed to live on.
Yeah. They would. The Israelis lie like that a lot.
That’s very good, of course, but the more talking that goes on, the more building of Israeli colonies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem goes on. Israel is stealing more land while everyone is talking.
Well, it is a pretty clear historical fact, as far as historical facts go.
It’s not really that clear. There are definitely a lot of Arabs who feel that the whole area should be taken back and the Israelis kicked out. There are a lot more who just want to get on with their lives without the constant, grinding oppression of occupation, and just want Israel to back off to the ‘67 borders, and there are those who want to return to their land, that they were driven off in 1949.
It’s my feeling that pragmatism should rule here. Israel could retire to the Green Line and offer land swaps in exchange for the right of return. That would be unfair, as it would be like me annexing Sandringham and offering parts of Balham in exchange, but stuff has to happen, in order for stuff to happen.
It’s irrelevant. If the Welsh were driven out of Wales you couldn’t say, with a straight face, “Well, There are other British lands, you could live there”, so you can’t say the same thing to Arabs driven off their land.
Even if it were relevant, why do you think that the western powers had the right to give people their own country back?
You seem to be mistaking the racist, religiously intolerant, apartheid state of Israel for something else. Arab Israelis are treated as second class citizens and have fewer rights than Jewish Israelis. Become an Israeli Arab and try to get a building permit to rebuild your house the IDF bulldozed for ‘security reasons’ and you will see what I mean.
'That just sounds nonsensical. Why would finally freeing the Palestinians to create a state threaten anyone? Surely the position of the Palestinians is that their miserable existence is due to their occupation, which is why they fight back. If the occupation stopped, the majority of Palestinains would have no fight with Israel. The Arabs of Palestine were denied the right to self-determination, largely by British terrorism, so they aren’t allowed it now? And what would you call residents of Palestine who aren’t Israeli? And what are the Palestinians, if not Palestinian?
Why are displaced and persecuted in quotes? Surely there's no doubt?
Actually, at the moment, this is the main point. Most Palestinians would be happy with a return to the 1967 borders, allowing Israel a lot more land than the Mandate offered, and well over half of the total area. It is the relentless growth of Israel into the West Bank that is the primary reason that the Palestinians throw stones at the Israeli tanks. If the Camp David Peace process had not foundered on the cutting off of East Jerusalem, and the additional separation roads cutting the West Bank into a ‘Leopard skin’ Arafat may well have been able to accept the 95% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza that Clinton hoped for. Of course, it would never have happened. The Israeli religious right wouldn’t tolerate that.
Last edited by Brucelles; 11-04-2010 at 01:36 PM.
(Thanks Evilmunky)
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes.
shadowmaster (11-04-2010)
You speak as though you know people on both sides, and that the Arabs hate the Jews irrationally while the Jews regretfully hate the Arabs because they keep attacking them.
You really ought to visit Israel, or read the Jerusalem Post.
Arabs are justifiably miffed because they are crushed by the weight of a cruel occupation, their homes and crops are destroyed on a whim of the conquerors, they are subjected to hours long waits every time they try to travel any distance, because the roads of the occupation forces are only opened irregularly. The whole of Gaza is living in horrific misery under a siege so cruel that even school books aren’t allowed in.
Meanwhile, the Israel kills people, jails them without cause, destroys homes, infrastructure, lives and livelihoods, and seeks every little way to make the lives of Palestinians more miserable.
Again, I urge you to read the B’Tselem site for a human view of which way the balance of evil is tilted.
Again and again Israelis elect virtual psychopaths to parliament. My God! Can you imagine the British electing someone like Ariel Sharon to the office of PM? Even leaving aside the various criminal wars on Lebanon, just considering the kind of a man who would exhort his troops to rape women, murder children and would train them to knock on the front door of a civilian’s home and, when it is opened, spray the inside with machine gun bullets. Or a man who would arm the Phalangists and order them to exterminate a refugee camp filled with women and children while blocking the entrance ‘like the exits to a rabbit warren’ so that none could escape. A realistic estimate of the number of innocent civilians Sharon ordered murdered that day would be somewhere between 2,500 and 3,500, and the Israeli people thought he would make a good Prime Minister?
If anything points to hatred on the part of the Israelis it was that; electing a rabid dog like Sharon to office with a mandate to ‘stamp out the Arab problem’.
(Thanks Evilmunky)
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes.
The game might change a bit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...lk/8615104.stm
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I always wondered if America would ever get a president for whom concentration camps by another name, mass murder and genocide would be too much. Now it seems they have. This could actually mark a significant turning point, as I have been told many times, that if Americans knew about Israel they would be appalled. If Obama makes a noise, Americans will hear some of it, and then they will know.
(Thanks Evilmunky)
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes.
Most of them will just blame it on the 'librul mejuh' and ignore it, IMO.
~'Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence--those are the three pillars of Western prosperity'~ Aldous Huxley
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
