I support Israel they are far more lenient with the Gaza strip than I would be in their situation
Poll: was israel right for Attacking Gaza
- Thread starter lior13
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, but theres pplenty of muslim, christian and hindu countrys in the world.Arachon said:
After what happened to jews in a christian country in world war 2, the UN thought it would be a good idea to give them their own country so they would have somewhere to go where they werent persecuted.
So you're saying that Jews are currently being persecuted in so-called "Christian" countries? I'm not too sure I agree with you there. And what happened during WWII was terrible, extremely tragic, there's no denying it. But, it was 60 years ago, don't you think it's time to move on? Also, homosexuals and disabled people where hunted down in Nazi-Germany, and to this very day, similar activities occur throughout the world (obviously not in the same scale as Hitler did though, but at many more places). Should all homosexuals get their own country?Federalist92 said:
Ah well, I digress, I don't think what Hamas is doing is right, make no mistake, they are a bunch of militant idiots, but the way Israel retaliated was just as bad.
Hey, I actually registered just to present an opinion that I think this thread needs: The one found amongst many of Israelis. First of all, I'd like to say that I am Israeli, and am not an expert in this area. I am definitely biased, but I try to be understanding towards other opinions. I am NOT, however, racist in any way towards anyone. Neither are most Israelis.
My points:
1. Just to clear something out: our army is NOT super advanced. All of our technology is based off of American stuff that we receive as part of our piece treaty with Egypt. As a matter of fact, the Egyptians receive exactly what we do. Our army is also not 3 million strong, as our entire population is around 7 million total.
2. The Zionism that most Israelis follow is known as "Synthetic Zionism." This ideology concentrates less on our religious right to this country (which is debatable), and more on the fact that our ancestors used to live here, in a historical kingdom known first as Israel, and later (after we split up, and most of the tribes were exiled and lost) as Judea. This is Historical fact, rather that religious belief. The fact that our religion is based here is also a factor, mind.
3. Although we DO have a legitimate claim here, so do the Palestinians. While we were technically here first, we were gone for nearly 2,000 years. In this time, the Palestinians moved in. They have lived here ever since, and rightfully view this place as their ancestral home.
4. We DID settle here for around 60 years BEFORE 1948 (starting with the first wave of immigrants in 1882). We LEGALLY purchased land from the Turkish lords and later from the British mandate. The places where we were settled in higher concentrations were given to us in 1947 by the U.N., while the rest was given to the Palestinians.
At this point, both sides had an internal argument: there were factions (on both sides) that demanded that they simply seize the entire land. On our side, David Ben Gurion silenced these claims, claiming that this was better than nothing. The Palestinians however, decided that they did not agree with the U.N. proposal. When the British mandate left in 1948, we hastily declared independence. The Palestinians attacked the next day.
In this war, and in others, we captured land as SPOILS OF WAR, wars that we usually did not wish for in the first place, but the Palestinians had other ideas. HOWEVER, we DID EXPEL locals from their ancestral homes in 1948 and n 1967. This cannot be justified, but many of these people have ill intent towards Israel, so we can't just let them in. See the problem?
5. Palestinian terrorists have repeatedly attacked us during cease-fires, and we've lost many CIVILIANS. They in turn used Palestinian civilians as human shields, and we have, more than once, killed Palestinian civilians in our attempts to retaliate. Frankly, I think that we've been somewhat clumsy in our retaliations, especially during the recent Gaza operation, and there have been many accusations on our side of war crimes. Yes, we've over-reacted, but also many accusations that Hamas make are, indeed, false.
6. I see myself as a moderate left-wing citizen, as do many. Our government, however, sucks. Why? Because our system has been held together with metaphorical duct-tape for years. Many Israelis DO NOT want the Palestinians gone, we simply want peace, and to own a portion of this land. We've shown multiple times that we're willing to trade land for peace, i.e. the Sinai Peninsula.
7. What the world sees as illegal settlements, we see in a slightly different light:
A) Small settlements that were part of a right-wing government plan some 30-odd years ago. These settlements are in land privately owned by Palestinians, and many have, or are, being dismantled. Others, however, are not, and I view this as a shame. Many of these places are full of extremist right-wingers, who attack government officials who come to make reports.
B) The larger, older settlements that have dozens of thousands of citizens. These are not on private Palestinian land, rather on public territory inside the disputed regions. These are practically impossible to take apart; where would we put the tens of thousands of refugees? We don't have that much land to begin with...
Well, I've tried to explain things form the Israeli point of view the best I can. Many of us, (the left-wingers) believe that the palestinians have a right to some of this land, just as we do. We just want co-existence. However, while terrorist groups are firing at us, and we are building on their lands, this is impossible. I've tried to explain just how both sides have reasonable claims to this land, and also how both have been in the wrong at certain points. I hope I've helped you understand the situation better, and not just bored you to death.
Sorry if this post is too long, but this is one complicated situation.
My points:
1. Just to clear something out: our army is NOT super advanced. All of our technology is based off of American stuff that we receive as part of our piece treaty with Egypt. As a matter of fact, the Egyptians receive exactly what we do. Our army is also not 3 million strong, as our entire population is around 7 million total.
2. The Zionism that most Israelis follow is known as "Synthetic Zionism." This ideology concentrates less on our religious right to this country (which is debatable), and more on the fact that our ancestors used to live here, in a historical kingdom known first as Israel, and later (after we split up, and most of the tribes were exiled and lost) as Judea. This is Historical fact, rather that religious belief. The fact that our religion is based here is also a factor, mind.
3. Although we DO have a legitimate claim here, so do the Palestinians. While we were technically here first, we were gone for nearly 2,000 years. In this time, the Palestinians moved in. They have lived here ever since, and rightfully view this place as their ancestral home.
4. We DID settle here for around 60 years BEFORE 1948 (starting with the first wave of immigrants in 1882). We LEGALLY purchased land from the Turkish lords and later from the British mandate. The places where we were settled in higher concentrations were given to us in 1947 by the U.N., while the rest was given to the Palestinians.
At this point, both sides had an internal argument: there were factions (on both sides) that demanded that they simply seize the entire land. On our side, David Ben Gurion silenced these claims, claiming that this was better than nothing. The Palestinians however, decided that they did not agree with the U.N. proposal. When the British mandate left in 1948, we hastily declared independence. The Palestinians attacked the next day.
In this war, and in others, we captured land as SPOILS OF WAR, wars that we usually did not wish for in the first place, but the Palestinians had other ideas. HOWEVER, we DID EXPEL locals from their ancestral homes in 1948 and n 1967. This cannot be justified, but many of these people have ill intent towards Israel, so we can't just let them in. See the problem?
5. Palestinian terrorists have repeatedly attacked us during cease-fires, and we've lost many CIVILIANS. They in turn used Palestinian civilians as human shields, and we have, more than once, killed Palestinian civilians in our attempts to retaliate. Frankly, I think that we've been somewhat clumsy in our retaliations, especially during the recent Gaza operation, and there have been many accusations on our side of war crimes. Yes, we've over-reacted, but also many accusations that Hamas make are, indeed, false.
6. I see myself as a moderate left-wing citizen, as do many. Our government, however, sucks. Why? Because our system has been held together with metaphorical duct-tape for years. Many Israelis DO NOT want the Palestinians gone, we simply want peace, and to own a portion of this land. We've shown multiple times that we're willing to trade land for peace, i.e. the Sinai Peninsula.
7. What the world sees as illegal settlements, we see in a slightly different light:
A) Small settlements that were part of a right-wing government plan some 30-odd years ago. These settlements are in land privately owned by Palestinians, and many have, or are, being dismantled. Others, however, are not, and I view this as a shame. Many of these places are full of extremist right-wingers, who attack government officials who come to make reports.
B) The larger, older settlements that have dozens of thousands of citizens. These are not on private Palestinian land, rather on public territory inside the disputed regions. These are practically impossible to take apart; where would we put the tens of thousands of refugees? We don't have that much land to begin with...
Well, I've tried to explain things form the Israeli point of view the best I can. Many of us, (the left-wingers) believe that the palestinians have a right to some of this land, just as we do. We just want co-existence. However, while terrorist groups are firing at us, and we are building on their lands, this is impossible. I've tried to explain just how both sides have reasonable claims to this land, and also how both have been in the wrong at certain points. I hope I've helped you understand the situation better, and not just bored you to death.
Sorry if this post is too long, but this is one complicated situation.
This Israel&Palestine thing is starting to annoy me. 1. People seem to think you're either pro-side x or anti-side x. For example, remember that speech Obama held a while back? Both Hamas and far right Israelis condemned it. Hamas accused Obama of being all pro-Israel and the far right Israelis accused him of being an "anti-semitic Jew-hater." Look, they even made a picture about it! [http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D030609/248obama22.jpg] You're not allowed to be on the friggin' middle ground, you're either anti-semite or anti-Arab! 2. Leaders of the both sides are just so fucking stupid. Geez Israel, those collective punishments sure work in trying to make Hamas less popular. Hamas' rocket attacks, man, that's a sure way to get international sympathy. OH WAIT! 3. This always reminds me of the fact that my opinion doesn't change anything!
No I did not mean that, It came out a bit wrong. The arabs that killed him where doing the same kind of thing the terrorists in gaza are doing, IU am in israel roght now. It is a nation of some of the best people in the world. And we try our best. I can say worse things about asmerica. They crush iraq and kill inoccents because someone unrelated blows up two tower and then they use all that as an excuse for an oil crusade. We do the same, To save our lives. We had every reason to fight in gaza, They where shooting us senslessly for no reasons. Imagine going to school knowing that someone in your own country might fire a rocket at you and kill 20 7 year old students for terrorisms sake. What do you do? How on rearth can you blame us, how can you call us inhumane. All we do is think about how to save those arabs while stopping the terrorists. And all this time those terrorists hide in schools an UN facilities.Borrowed Time said:
Duruzkic, welcome to the Excapsit and may you have a long stay. That was an insightful, intelligent post.
I am of mixed mind regarding the Middle East situation, particularly the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (and I've researched it, having a keen interest in military history and politics).
Firstly, I think that Isreal should exist as a country - but perhaps not stand-alone, or not in the way the UN did it at any rate (I believe it was heavily influenced as a "sympathy vote". Please remember many Allied countries also dislike the jews (kept them in refugee camps during the war and didn't allow them to settle/intergrate in Britain, for example, so dumping them in the middle east was seen as a great way to "get them out of our hair").
Sencondly I think that the land-grabs in all the Arab/Israeli conflicts are too extreme, and that Israel has moved on to persecuting the Palestinians with some of their laws and the wall in Gaza. Especially intercepting UN aid for the Palestinians and refusing it to those who are in dire need. Not to mention the Jewish settlements on Arab land that are even against Israeli law.
Thusly I think that Israel's response to the (relatively) recent attacks was unjustified and extremely heavy-handed - particularly refusing water, food and medical aid entry to the region for several days. I also think it was indiscriminate (incidents like the bombing of a UN school after UN officials at the school gave specific GPS co-ordinates for Israeli fire to avoid them) and there are potentially some war-crimes burried under the white-wash of an Israeli investigation.
HOWEVER the current action Palestine is taking, or rather Hamas, is certainly not the way forwards. They cannot shell Israel day in and day out and not expect military retaliation, nor can they use innocent citizens as human shields. Suicide-bombings against Israeli citizens do nothing to help matters either. These acts are not justified and Israel had a right to respond, even militarily.
Ideally there needs to be a removal, or toning-down of Hamas so that the divisionary wall between the nations is uneeded and can be torn down. Israel should hand back Palestinian land taken in the military campaigns and permit Palestinians to live in Israeli cities. And Palestine has to acknowledge the right for Israel to exist and not to continue on a campaign to exterminate all of Jewish faith in the region. If an Independant State system is non-viable (as the last 60 years are proving) then I think there needs to be a new solution, perhaps as a united Arab/Israeli state so that citizens of both faiths get equal representation in international law but still retaining laws of their respective faiths within the super-state (basically like America with Federal and State-leve laws; replacing Federal with International). I know neither side is likely to like this but it's the best I can think of at the moment.
It is a volatile region and I think the International Community needs to acknowledge it screwed up big-time the first time around and take a second, balanced view. To do this American needs to stop supporting Egypt and Israel (which it is unlikely to because it wants influence in the Middle East to combat the potential spread of Islamic extremism and oil interests), or support the other nations to the same degree, to remove all claims of bias. The International Community cannot simply back off, as to do so will inevitably result in genocide of one side or the other (the Israelis slowly starve-out the Palestinians or pro-Hamas forces exterminate Israel) and both of these are, obviously, not good ideas.
I think Israel needs a more...not exactly "liberal" government but one that is more "outwardly looking". Yes, previous governments have offered fairly substantial peace deals to Palestine, but there is always a matter of theocracy, geography or civil liberties that one side finds contentious and pulls the plug (frequently militarily). Likewise Palestine needs a less extremist governing part too.
Wow, sorry for the wall o'text, I'll stop now - I think I've put my views across (Israel were not justified attacking the way they did but did have a right to respond, and that the situation is incredibly complicated with both sides having equal claim to the land and equally doing things that are against common human decency, thus neither is "right" in one regard or another).
I am of mixed mind regarding the Middle East situation, particularly the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (and I've researched it, having a keen interest in military history and politics).
Firstly, I think that Isreal should exist as a country - but perhaps not stand-alone, or not in the way the UN did it at any rate (I believe it was heavily influenced as a "sympathy vote". Please remember many Allied countries also dislike the jews (kept them in refugee camps during the war and didn't allow them to settle/intergrate in Britain, for example, so dumping them in the middle east was seen as a great way to "get them out of our hair").
Sencondly I think that the land-grabs in all the Arab/Israeli conflicts are too extreme, and that Israel has moved on to persecuting the Palestinians with some of their laws and the wall in Gaza. Especially intercepting UN aid for the Palestinians and refusing it to those who are in dire need. Not to mention the Jewish settlements on Arab land that are even against Israeli law.
Thusly I think that Israel's response to the (relatively) recent attacks was unjustified and extremely heavy-handed - particularly refusing water, food and medical aid entry to the region for several days. I also think it was indiscriminate (incidents like the bombing of a UN school after UN officials at the school gave specific GPS co-ordinates for Israeli fire to avoid them) and there are potentially some war-crimes burried under the white-wash of an Israeli investigation.
HOWEVER the current action Palestine is taking, or rather Hamas, is certainly not the way forwards. They cannot shell Israel day in and day out and not expect military retaliation, nor can they use innocent citizens as human shields. Suicide-bombings against Israeli citizens do nothing to help matters either. These acts are not justified and Israel had a right to respond, even militarily.
Ideally there needs to be a removal, or toning-down of Hamas so that the divisionary wall between the nations is uneeded and can be torn down. Israel should hand back Palestinian land taken in the military campaigns and permit Palestinians to live in Israeli cities. And Palestine has to acknowledge the right for Israel to exist and not to continue on a campaign to exterminate all of Jewish faith in the region. If an Independant State system is non-viable (as the last 60 years are proving) then I think there needs to be a new solution, perhaps as a united Arab/Israeli state so that citizens of both faiths get equal representation in international law but still retaining laws of their respective faiths within the super-state (basically like America with Federal and State-leve laws; replacing Federal with International). I know neither side is likely to like this but it's the best I can think of at the moment.
It is a volatile region and I think the International Community needs to acknowledge it screwed up big-time the first time around and take a second, balanced view. To do this American needs to stop supporting Egypt and Israel (which it is unlikely to because it wants influence in the Middle East to combat the potential spread of Islamic extremism and oil interests), or support the other nations to the same degree, to remove all claims of bias. The International Community cannot simply back off, as to do so will inevitably result in genocide of one side or the other (the Israelis slowly starve-out the Palestinians or pro-Hamas forces exterminate Israel) and both of these are, obviously, not good ideas.
I think Israel needs a more...not exactly "liberal" government but one that is more "outwardly looking". Yes, previous governments have offered fairly substantial peace deals to Palestine, but there is always a matter of theocracy, geography or civil liberties that one side finds contentious and pulls the plug (frequently militarily). Likewise Palestine needs a less extremist governing part too.
Wow, sorry for the wall o'text, I'll stop now - I think I've put my views across (Israel were not justified attacking the way they did but did have a right to respond, and that the situation is incredibly complicated with both sides having equal claim to the land and equally doing things that are against common human decency, thus neither is "right" in one regard or another).
Duruznik, welcome aboard the Escapist, and congratulations on a excellently-composed first post. May the remainder of your sojourn here be as insightful, well-balanced and pleasant to read.
Now, on to a solution: In my opinion, the two-state solution is impractical for several reasons. Primarily, it will always result in people who are going to lose out. Someone, somewhere, is going to lose their land, and this alone presents itself as motive for opposition. As Machieavelli noted, men take offences against their kin far more easily than they do against their property, property being the fundamental element of any civilised society. Thus, we have problem one.
The second issue is that the two-state solution is still going to result in the two groups - Palestine, and Israel - staring at one another across no-mans land, each one itching for the other hated oppressor to strike. It will not diffuse the tension, it will not wipe away the centuaries of bloodshed and hatred than have been engrained into the sands of the Holy Land. Most likely, we would have a short, tense peace, followed by another bloody Armageddon as the two begin raining fire and destruction down amidst one another. Gratifying for the pessimists amongst us, less so for the grieving mothers.
The third is that we are presuming that there exists so sharp a definition between 'Israeli' and 'Palestinian'. While in many sectors of society this is the case, I would presume that in the more moderate, civilised elements of both camps, the camp barely exists at all. What I meant to say is (though I have never been to the Holy Land, and make no claims to the reliability of this statement, it being merely idle speculation), I would presume that, for the civilised majority, there is little difference between Israeli and Palestinian, and there will become less so. Possibly this is just my desire to see this matter ended projecting some great lessening of the divide, wheras in reality the gulf between the two is as wide as the gap between life and death, but I would hope that the differences between Israelis and Palestinians were being resolved.
My solution? The One-State solution. A state named.....god, I don't know. The Empire of Rolling Thunder has a nice ring to it, with Jerusalem as either a free city, or it's capital. Jew and Palestinian become nothing more than a means of collective ethnic identification. Everyone becomes equal. Continual exposure to one another eventually moderates all but the most insane extremists. The resources of the State go to feeding, clothing, educating and improving itself, rather than killing one another in a rather senseless fashion. No longer will Israeli oppress Palestinian, or the other way around. (For I will oppress all without favour or mercy!). But on a more serious note, I would like to see this matter seriously considered, rather than dismissed as the idle desire for peace it most likely is.
Now, on to a solution: In my opinion, the two-state solution is impractical for several reasons. Primarily, it will always result in people who are going to lose out. Someone, somewhere, is going to lose their land, and this alone presents itself as motive for opposition. As Machieavelli noted, men take offences against their kin far more easily than they do against their property, property being the fundamental element of any civilised society. Thus, we have problem one.
The second issue is that the two-state solution is still going to result in the two groups - Palestine, and Israel - staring at one another across no-mans land, each one itching for the other hated oppressor to strike. It will not diffuse the tension, it will not wipe away the centuaries of bloodshed and hatred than have been engrained into the sands of the Holy Land. Most likely, we would have a short, tense peace, followed by another bloody Armageddon as the two begin raining fire and destruction down amidst one another. Gratifying for the pessimists amongst us, less so for the grieving mothers.
The third is that we are presuming that there exists so sharp a definition between 'Israeli' and 'Palestinian'. While in many sectors of society this is the case, I would presume that in the more moderate, civilised elements of both camps, the camp barely exists at all. What I meant to say is (though I have never been to the Holy Land, and make no claims to the reliability of this statement, it being merely idle speculation), I would presume that, for the civilised majority, there is little difference between Israeli and Palestinian, and there will become less so. Possibly this is just my desire to see this matter ended projecting some great lessening of the divide, wheras in reality the gulf between the two is as wide as the gap between life and death, but I would hope that the differences between Israelis and Palestinians were being resolved.
My solution? The One-State solution. A state named.....god, I don't know. The Empire of Rolling Thunder has a nice ring to it, with Jerusalem as either a free city, or it's capital. Jew and Palestinian become nothing more than a means of collective ethnic identification. Everyone becomes equal. Continual exposure to one another eventually moderates all but the most insane extremists. The resources of the State go to feeding, clothing, educating and improving itself, rather than killing one another in a rather senseless fashion. No longer will Israeli oppress Palestinian, or the other way around. (For I will oppress all without favour or mercy!). But on a more serious note, I would like to see this matter seriously considered, rather than dismissed as the idle desire for peace it most likely is.
Oh, because that's totaly not like Israel, no siree, it's okay to wipe Israel off the face of the earth along with a few million innocent people, but the second Israel retaliates to bombs being shelled at them for years with a few Palestinian people they're suddenly "Inhumane". It's not like the Palestinian people were throwing rocket after rocket after rocket against them.The_Healer said:
As you can tell, I'm more or less for Israel defending itself, BUT I do think what they did was excessive. I don't want to sound like a jerk, any civilian loss is bad, but your method of blowing up the damn place doesn't exactly put you with the saints.
However, it all balances out for both sides I think. Everyone around Israel attacks indescriminantly, they specifically target hospitals or populated areas. Israel retaliates every so often trying to minimize civilian casualties, and while some innocent people are killed, at least it puts them off for a week or two.
I have family in Israel, and this is obviously a sensitive subject for most people. But I find it both hilarious and depressing that many people's solution to the violence from Israel is to push in more violence against them. Yes, nuke Israel, that will solve everything! It's not like the terrorists are already trying to do that.
Israel is the most modern, or I should say civil, society in the Middle East. They make many breakthroughs in technology, medicine, and irrigation. They gave up most of the land they acquired in the 6-day war where they kicked everyone's ass in only 6 days. Getting rid of Israel, and giving it to the "rightful" owners, isn't going to do anything. You know what would probably happen if the Palestinians went there? Civil War. Gee, that solved everything didn't it?
Reading over some of the responses, I like the idea of just a one-state place, but that just makes more problems with Palestinians and Israelis not wanting "them" on their land, more civil war, people argue, blah de blah blah. It's not going to end soon, and there's no quick fix to this, but I have a feeling that blowing up the damn place would only make things worse.
Any responses, I'll appreciate if you PM them me rather than responding in the thread. Keeps it clean of more flames.
I can not give years and years of this debate in a single post but I have come to the conclusion that the supporters of Israel are just insane. I was getting some good back and forth with one, a long time ago, and lost all respect for them when they out right stated that Israel should never accept someone who isn't Jewish. We even both agreed that the Palestine people had far more in common ancestor wise to the old Israel people then most in Israel today... yet still they wouldn't budge on that point: They would refuse to drop the issue of religion!
You see, that was my proposal. Either through UN decision, or just outright military force on Israel part, we create a unified state within the boundaries of greater Palestine. Afterwards you give full responsibilities and legal rights to ALL people living with in this boundaries, making them all citizens of this nation. It would solve the problem, as most Palestine are fighting simply cause they view themselves as being nothing but slave to Israel designs and have dreams for a unified country. Now if they where part of that nation, being protected by the law enforcement and not being shot by them unjustly... well they would think they have won and they would stop feeling the need to fight for freedoms, rights and legal responsibilities they now possess!
If they had full legal recourse to the courts then they wouldn't require weapons and crude mortars to try and get their point across. They would become more willing to work with the nations law enforcement, viewing themselves as equal citizens and behaving like other citizens in any other country would. There would be friction still, that can't be helped, but when people did fire off a mortar it would do a greater deal of good to see them arrested, tried openly in front of peers and jailed by the legal system. Much better then seeing an armed force 'invasion' that firing a gun or drooping a bomb that is more likely to kill a innocent people. Hell even when it does hit a 'guilty person' this sort of 'justice' will always do more to inflame the people against Israel which in turn makes Israel less secure. Seeing the people arrested by a police force, tried fairly and justly in a court of law and not being summarily executed by a military force does a great deal more good.
So you see in a unified nation this conflict could so easily become a civil matter, a matter of the courts, but first we need to give full rights to Palestine people! Yet Israel supporters are against such a plan simply because it would include giving the Palestine full rights.
THAT IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM!
It doesn't matter what Israel claims to do or the hollow and meaningless 'tokens of peace' it has given it believes they can just 'vanish' the native population to the equivalent of large open air prisons for the crime of being born on land that was given to them by the British empire. They honestly think it is wrong to accept Palestine people into the state of Israel, even if a greater Israel with larger boarders will be the reward for doing so.
And I can not fathom: WHY IS IT WRONG?!
Yet a unified plan is the only thing that will stop the conflict: If one nation will be forced to live in gulags and be nothing but near slave labour, second class, 'immigrant workers' for the other then there will NEVER be an end for conflict. All the two 'nation' plans fail because of this, cause they will still leave Palestine enslaved to Israel and no one will accept that sort of existence for it's people. Even the most 'generous' to the Palestine will leave Israel as the dominate military and economical power, and they will will use that power to control the Palestine people as slaves, while at the same time forbidding them to have the most basics of rights shared by Israel citizens.
The current plans... are far from generous.
So the only answer I can see if to dissolve BOTH nations and create a new one, forcing the leaders of that nation to accept BOTH sides as they currently stand as citizens and resort the whole mess to the court system to clear up. Much better they fight with words then with bombs, isn't it?
You see, that was my proposal. Either through UN decision, or just outright military force on Israel part, we create a unified state within the boundaries of greater Palestine. Afterwards you give full responsibilities and legal rights to ALL people living with in this boundaries, making them all citizens of this nation. It would solve the problem, as most Palestine are fighting simply cause they view themselves as being nothing but slave to Israel designs and have dreams for a unified country. Now if they where part of that nation, being protected by the law enforcement and not being shot by them unjustly... well they would think they have won and they would stop feeling the need to fight for freedoms, rights and legal responsibilities they now possess!
If they had full legal recourse to the courts then they wouldn't require weapons and crude mortars to try and get their point across. They would become more willing to work with the nations law enforcement, viewing themselves as equal citizens and behaving like other citizens in any other country would. There would be friction still, that can't be helped, but when people did fire off a mortar it would do a greater deal of good to see them arrested, tried openly in front of peers and jailed by the legal system. Much better then seeing an armed force 'invasion' that firing a gun or drooping a bomb that is more likely to kill a innocent people. Hell even when it does hit a 'guilty person' this sort of 'justice' will always do more to inflame the people against Israel which in turn makes Israel less secure. Seeing the people arrested by a police force, tried fairly and justly in a court of law and not being summarily executed by a military force does a great deal more good.
So you see in a unified nation this conflict could so easily become a civil matter, a matter of the courts, but first we need to give full rights to Palestine people! Yet Israel supporters are against such a plan simply because it would include giving the Palestine full rights.
THAT IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM!
It doesn't matter what Israel claims to do or the hollow and meaningless 'tokens of peace' it has given it believes they can just 'vanish' the native population to the equivalent of large open air prisons for the crime of being born on land that was given to them by the British empire. They honestly think it is wrong to accept Palestine people into the state of Israel, even if a greater Israel with larger boarders will be the reward for doing so.
And I can not fathom: WHY IS IT WRONG?!
Yet a unified plan is the only thing that will stop the conflict: If one nation will be forced to live in gulags and be nothing but near slave labour, second class, 'immigrant workers' for the other then there will NEVER be an end for conflict. All the two 'nation' plans fail because of this, cause they will still leave Palestine enslaved to Israel and no one will accept that sort of existence for it's people. Even the most 'generous' to the Palestine will leave Israel as the dominate military and economical power, and they will will use that power to control the Palestine people as slaves, while at the same time forbidding them to have the most basics of rights shared by Israel citizens.
The current plans... are far from generous.
So the only answer I can see if to dissolve BOTH nations and create a new one, forcing the leaders of that nation to accept BOTH sides as they currently stand as citizens and resort the whole mess to the court system to clear up. Much better they fight with words then with bombs, isn't it?
I apologize to those I offended with my post. I regret posting what I did... as it was rather rash and provoked by the guy who started the thread. Perhaps I should explain my motives.The_Healer said:
The Palestinian people have as much right (if not more) to the Gaza strip as Israel BUT they do not have a government to defend them. Sure, Hamas (a terrorist organization) stage attacks against Israel and I am against that. However the power that Israel wields in the region should produce negotiations, not warfare.
I do not pretend to understand their motives, as I am non-religious and live in a capitalist society. The significance of the Gaza strip is therefore lost to me. What I do understand (although I cannot comment on how the news in Australia is spun) is that Israel is using their military superiority to violently suppress the Palestinians (not just Hamas).
However, I do not believe that the situation in Gaza will ever be resolved without external input. This does not necessarily entail violence as political sanctions or the founding of a Palestinian state are possible.
How the hell do you post a comment on this - how can anyone for that matter. Despite having a best friend who is doing a Phd on the topic give me hours of lectures on it all, I haven't even begun to scratch the surface.
My questions to anyone daring to write on this comment are these:-
Who was Theodore Herzel
Tell me the difference between Classical and Revisionist Zionism
Give me a brief outline of Balfour Declaration and the problems that arose from it.
What was the Sykes-Picot Agreement and why did it give the Arabs a negative perception of the West?
Who were the Irgun and the Stern Gang?
Give me a brief outline of what happened in 1948 vis-a-vis the creation of Israel.
What was Pan-Arab nationalism? Why did it fail?
What caused the rise of Islamic Extremism in the Middle east since WWII?
Discuss the rise of anti-semitism within the Arab World since WWII.
When were the first and second Intafadas? What caused them, what were their results?
What were the causes and consequences of the Six Day War?
What were the causes and consequences of the Yom Kippur War?
What were the causes and consequences of the invasion of Lebanon?
Discuss the rise and fall of Fatah.
Discuss the rise of Hamas.
Describe the outlook of Likud as a political entity. What are it's aims and ideals?
Where does America fit into all of this?
What about Iran?
What about the former Soviet Union? Where did this all fit in with regards to the Cold War?
With a lot of these questions, I couldn't even begin to speak coherently on them. That probably means the vast majority, I will admit. There is a whelter of political, military, economic, religious, and diplomatic information to wade through. Even then you might find it a struggle.
My questions to anyone daring to write on this comment are these:-
Who was Theodore Herzel
Tell me the difference between Classical and Revisionist Zionism
Give me a brief outline of Balfour Declaration and the problems that arose from it.
What was the Sykes-Picot Agreement and why did it give the Arabs a negative perception of the West?
Who were the Irgun and the Stern Gang?
Give me a brief outline of what happened in 1948 vis-a-vis the creation of Israel.
What was Pan-Arab nationalism? Why did it fail?
What caused the rise of Islamic Extremism in the Middle east since WWII?
Discuss the rise of anti-semitism within the Arab World since WWII.
When were the first and second Intafadas? What caused them, what were their results?
What were the causes and consequences of the Six Day War?
What were the causes and consequences of the Yom Kippur War?
What were the causes and consequences of the invasion of Lebanon?
Discuss the rise and fall of Fatah.
Discuss the rise of Hamas.
Describe the outlook of Likud as a political entity. What are it's aims and ideals?
Where does America fit into all of this?
What about Iran?
What about the former Soviet Union? Where did this all fit in with regards to the Cold War?
With a lot of these questions, I couldn't even begin to speak coherently on them. That probably means the vast majority, I will admit. There is a whelter of political, military, economic, religious, and diplomatic information to wade through. Even then you might find it a struggle.
With regards to Barciad:
"Who were the Irgun and the Stern Gang?"
Scumbags who should've been strung up from the nearest lampost, or shot on sight.
"What caused the rise of Islamic Extremism in the Middle east since WWII?"
A multitude of factors, including the prescence of Israel, increased Western interference in the region, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the fallout from the Arab Nationalism of the early 70s.
"Where does America fit into all of this?"
The great manipulator, enemy, friend and convenient supply of high-quality munitions. It's everything and nothing.
"Give me a brief outline of what happened in 1948 vis-a-vis the creation of Israel."]
America got what it wanted, Britain lost her mandate in Palestine and the two groups were left to fight it out for whoever wanted the burning rathole of a country.
"What about the former Soviet Union? Where did this all fit in with regards to the Cold War?"
America found Arab Nationalism and Islamic Extremism to be less replusive than Communism, and so supplied the two with supplies and agitated them against the USSR. Of course, this did come back and bite them in the ass.
"Give me a brief outline of Balfour Declaration and the problems that arose from it."
In essence, both the Palestinians and the Israelis were promised their own state in the Holy Land. The problems that arose were a great number of craters, ruins, dead people and so on, continuing to this day.
Don't challenge me on history. I know it, and I suspect most people on this forum do as well. Pray cease being so utterly pig-headed and arrogant.
In the words of AC/DC:
"Sound of the drums, beating in my heart,
The thunder of guns, tore me apart,
You've been, Thunderstruck"
"Who were the Irgun and the Stern Gang?"
Scumbags who should've been strung up from the nearest lampost, or shot on sight.
"What caused the rise of Islamic Extremism in the Middle east since WWII?"
A multitude of factors, including the prescence of Israel, increased Western interference in the region, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the fallout from the Arab Nationalism of the early 70s.
"Where does America fit into all of this?"
The great manipulator, enemy, friend and convenient supply of high-quality munitions. It's everything and nothing.
"Give me a brief outline of what happened in 1948 vis-a-vis the creation of Israel."]
America got what it wanted, Britain lost her mandate in Palestine and the two groups were left to fight it out for whoever wanted the burning rathole of a country.
"What about the former Soviet Union? Where did this all fit in with regards to the Cold War?"
America found Arab Nationalism and Islamic Extremism to be less replusive than Communism, and so supplied the two with supplies and agitated them against the USSR. Of course, this did come back and bite them in the ass.
"Give me a brief outline of Balfour Declaration and the problems that arose from it."
In essence, both the Palestinians and the Israelis were promised their own state in the Holy Land. The problems that arose were a great number of craters, ruins, dead people and so on, continuing to this day.
Don't challenge me on history. I know it, and I suspect most people on this forum do as well. Pray cease being so utterly pig-headed and arrogant.
In the words of AC/DC:
"Sound of the drums, beating in my heart,
The thunder of guns, tore me apart,
You've been, Thunderstruck"
Yeah but then theirs the whole "Israel started it" thing where when it was set up by the UN and they drove the Palestinians out of their own country and have basically just marched into what the Palestinians had left and started to take over.nyaman said:
Nyaman - the Zionist movement actually began in about 1897, almost 40 years before WWII and more than 50 years before Israel was established. It was then that European Jews started buying up land, moving there and improving what had basically been marched over so many times by armies it was nothing more than swamp and desert. Around the same time, the Arab population of the area exploded. This was all when the area was a part of the Ottoman empire, btw. But aside from that, there have been Jews living there for about 2500 years continuously, in much smaller numbers cause those aforementioned armies tended to kill them, as did the Arabs. When Israel was established in 1948, many Arabs in the country left. I'm not going to argue about why/if they were forced out - go look up the historical record and decide for yourself. But they moved into areas that were controlled by Jordan and Egypt for almost 20 years (1948-1967). So I don't think anyone could fairly blame Israel entirely for the establishment of the refugee camps. Oh, and there were some Jews who tried to reclaim their homes and businesses after the Holocaust. Most of the stories I heard ended up with them being chased off or killed by the new occupants.
Fulax - judging from the experience of native people around the world, forcible removal from the land never gives anyone the right to 'take it back'. And in the case of Israel...once you start going back, I don't see why the Israeli Jews can't argue that they were forcibly removed from their land by the Romans 1900 years ago, in which case they have the right to 'take it back' now, or 60 years ago.
Specter_ - I don't think it's really fair to call the Israeli government fascist. The country is not only a democracy but has a multitude of political parties as well as Arab, Christian, and Muslim members of parliament. They have a free press, and people who are demonstrating against the policies of the government aren't locked up. The closest they've come to it is just this year, I believe, when the government passed a law against marches for the Naqbah (the Palestinian name for the establishment of Israel which means The Disaster or Catastrophe) - basically telling people not to call the state that they live in a disaster, like laws against burning your own country's flag. Oh, and Palestinians (the ones living in the West Bank and Gaza, I mean, not the Arab inhabitants of Israel) get medical treatment inside Israel.
I'm not trying to justify anyone's actions - I haven't even voted in the poll - but since someone asked for some background, I thought I'd provide a bit in a few areas.
Fulax - judging from the experience of native people around the world, forcible removal from the land never gives anyone the right to 'take it back'. And in the case of Israel...once you start going back, I don't see why the Israeli Jews can't argue that they were forcibly removed from their land by the Romans 1900 years ago, in which case they have the right to 'take it back' now, or 60 years ago.
Specter_ - I don't think it's really fair to call the Israeli government fascist. The country is not only a democracy but has a multitude of political parties as well as Arab, Christian, and Muslim members of parliament. They have a free press, and people who are demonstrating against the policies of the government aren't locked up. The closest they've come to it is just this year, I believe, when the government passed a law against marches for the Naqbah (the Palestinian name for the establishment of Israel which means The Disaster or Catastrophe) - basically telling people not to call the state that they live in a disaster, like laws against burning your own country's flag. Oh, and Palestinians (the ones living in the West Bank and Gaza, I mean, not the Arab inhabitants of Israel) get medical treatment inside Israel.
I'm not trying to justify anyone's actions - I haven't even voted in the poll - but since someone asked for some background, I thought I'd provide a bit in a few areas.
Nyaman - the Zionist movement actually began in about 1897, almost 40 years before WWII and more than 50 years before Israel was established. It was then that European Jews started buying up land, moving there and improving what had basically been marched over so many times by armies it was nothing more than swamp and desert. Around the same time, the Arab population of the area exploded. This was all when the area was a part of the Ottoman empire, btw. But aside from that, there have been Jews living there for about 2500 years continuously, in much smaller numbers cause those aforementioned armies tended to kill them, as did the Arabs. When Israel was established in 1948, many Arabs in the country left. I'm not going to argue about why/if they were forced out - go look up the historical record and decide for yourself. But they moved into areas that were controlled by Jordan and Egypt for almost 20 years (1948-1967). So I don't think anyone could fairly blame Israel entirely for the establishment of the refugee camps. Oh, and there were some Jews who tried to reclaim their homes and businesses after the Holocaust. Most of the stories I heard ended up with them being chased off or killed by the new occupants.
Fulax - judging from the experience of native people around the world, forcible removal from the land never gives anyone the right to 'take it back'. And in the case of Israel...once you start going back, I don't see why the Israeli Jews can't argue that they were forcibly removed from their land by the Romans 1900 years ago, in which case they have the right to 'take it back' now, or 60 years ago.
Specter_ - I don't think it's really fair to call the Israeli government fascist. The country is not only a democracy but has a multitude of political parties as well as Arab, Christian, and Muslim members of parliament. They have a free press, and people who are demonstrating against the policies of the government aren't locked up. The closest they've come to it is just this year, I believe, when the government passed a law against marches for the Naqbah (the Palestinian name for the establishment of Israel which means The Disaster or Catastrophe) - basically telling people not to call the state that they live in a disaster, like laws against burning your own country's flag. Oh, and Palestinians (the ones living in the West Bank and Gaza, I mean, not the Arab inhabitants of Israel) get medical treatment inside Israel.
I'm not trying to justify anyone's actions - I haven't even voted in the poll - but since someone asked for some background, I thought I'd provide a bit in a few areas.
Fulax - judging from the experience of native people around the world, forcible removal from the land never gives anyone the right to 'take it back'. And in the case of Israel...once you start going back, I don't see why the Israeli Jews can't argue that they were forcibly removed from their land by the Romans 1900 years ago, in which case they have the right to 'take it back' now, or 60 years ago.
Specter_ - I don't think it's really fair to call the Israeli government fascist. The country is not only a democracy but has a multitude of political parties as well as Arab, Christian, and Muslim members of parliament. They have a free press, and people who are demonstrating against the policies of the government aren't locked up. The closest they've come to it is just this year, I believe, when the government passed a law against marches for the Naqbah (the Palestinian name for the establishment of Israel which means The Disaster or Catastrophe) - basically telling people not to call the state that they live in a disaster, like laws against burning your own country's flag. Oh, and Palestinians (the ones living in the West Bank and Gaza, I mean, not the Arab inhabitants of Israel) get medical treatment inside Israel.
I'm not trying to justify anyone's actions - I haven't even voted in the poll - but since someone asked for some background, I thought I'd provide a bit in a few areas.
Nyaman - the Zionist movement actually began in about 1897, almost 40 years before WWII and more than 50 years before Israel was established. It was then that European Jews started buying up land, moving there and improving what had basically been marched over so many times by armies it was nothing more than swamp and desert. Around the same time, the Arab population of the area exploded. This was all when the area was a part of the Ottoman empire, btw. But aside from that, there have been Jews living there for about 2500 years continuously, in much smaller numbers cause those aforementioned armies tended to kill them, as did the Arabs. When Israel was established in 1948, many Arabs in the country left. I'm not going to argue about why/if they were forced out - go look up the historical record and decide for yourself. But they moved into areas that were controlled by Jordan and Egypt for almost 20 years (1948-1967). So I don't think anyone could fairly blame Israel entirely for the establishment of the refugee camps. Oh, and there were some Jews who tried to reclaim their homes and businesses after the Holocaust. Most of the stories I heard ended up with them being chased off or killed by the new occupants.
Fulax - judging from the experience of native people around the world, forcible removal from the land never gives anyone the right to 'take it back'. And in the case of Israel...once you start going back, I don't see why the Israeli Jews can't argue that they were forcibly removed from their land by the Romans 1900 years ago, in which case they have the right to 'take it back' now, or 60 years ago.
Specter_ - I don't think it's really fair to call the Israeli government fascist. The country is not only a democracy but has a multitude of political parties as well as Arab, Christian, and Muslim members of parliament. They have a free press, and people who are demonstrating against the policies of the government aren't locked up. The closest they've come to it is just this year, I believe, when the government passed a law against marches for the Naqbah (the Palestinian name for the establishment of Israel which means The Disaster or Catastrophe) - basically telling people not to call the state that they live in a disaster, like laws against burning your own country's flag. Oh, and Palestinians (the ones living in the West Bank and Gaza, I mean, not the Arab inhabitants of Israel) get medical treatment inside Israel.
I'm not trying to justify anyone's actions - I haven't even voted in the poll - but since someone asked for some background, I thought I'd provide a bit in a few areas.
Fulax - judging from the experience of native people around the world, forcible removal from the land never gives anyone the right to 'take it back'. And in the case of Israel...once you start going back, I don't see why the Israeli Jews can't argue that they were forcibly removed from their land by the Romans 1900 years ago, in which case they have the right to 'take it back' now, or 60 years ago.
Specter_ - I don't think it's really fair to call the Israeli government fascist. The country is not only a democracy but has a multitude of political parties as well as Arab, Christian, and Muslim members of parliament. They have a free press, and people who are demonstrating against the policies of the government aren't locked up. The closest they've come to it is just this year, I believe, when the government passed a law against marches for the Naqbah (the Palestinian name for the establishment of Israel which means The Disaster or Catastrophe) - basically telling people not to call the state that they live in a disaster, like laws against burning your own country's flag. Oh, and Palestinians (the ones living in the West Bank and Gaza, I mean, not the Arab inhabitants of Israel) get medical treatment inside Israel.
I'm not trying to justify anyone's actions - I haven't even voted in the poll - but since someone asked for some background, I thought I'd provide a bit in a few areas.
Sorry about the lack of coherency in my post(s) - this is my first time on this forum (and my first internet forum in half a decade at that, I usually just lurk) and I didn't realise how long the thread had become for much the same reason I'm not addressing specific complaints I think I saw raised - my net's screwing up and I can't find them. Sorry, I'll try and reply to any comments as soon as I can!