The Israeli–Palestinian conflict

[kadosh]

what's your point ?
it's no secret theres an israeli lobby . theres a palestinian lobby too . it's what you make it look like thats important . do you really think it has such a big affect on U.S policy ? that they control the media ? and hollywood ?

The new me pointed out that Arafat was actually offered a state in name only and that second intifada was triggered by Ariel Sharon’s intentionally provocative appearance at the Temple Mount.

that is not true. if sharon wouldnt have done that then they would find another reason to start an intifada .

it dosent matter how many books you read if you are not a middle eastern then there are some things you will never understand .

 

[JayMan]

I have recently been to Israel on free Birthright trip. I went during the middle of the Gaza fighting. It was enlightening and made me realize even more that both sides in this conflict are disgusting and neither one has the high moral ground.

 

[Bryan]

JayMan!! Is that really YOU??

 

[JayMan]

Bryan,


Erlkonig.

Good enough? =p

 

[Bryan]

Bryan,

Erlkonig.

Good enough? =p

Good enough. So how are things going? Have you finished law school yet?

 

[HughJass]

what's your point ?
it's no secret theres an israeli lobby . theres a palestinian lobby too . it's what you make it look like thats important . do you really think it has such a big affect on U.S policy ? that they control the media ? and hollywood ?

The new me pointed out that Arafat was actually offered a state in name only and that second intifada was triggered by Ariel Sharon’s intentionally provocative appearance at the Temple Mount.

that is not true. if sharon wouldnt have done that then they would find another reason to start an intifada .

it dosent matter how many books you read if you are not a middle eastern then there are some things you will never understand .

who are you thinking of voting for in the election Kadosh?

 

[kadosh]

what's your point ?
it's no secret theres an israeli lobby . theres a palestinian lobby too . it's what you make it look like thats important . do you really think it has such a big affect on U.S policy ? that they control the media ? and hollywood ?

The new me pointed out that Arafat was actually offered a state in name only and that second intifada was triggered by Ariel Sharon’s intentionally provocative appearance at the Temple Mount.

that is not true. if sharon wouldnt have done that then they would find another reason to start an intifada .

it dosent matter how many books you read if you are not a middle eastern then there are some things you will never understand .

who are you thinking of voting for in the election Kadosh?

it's in 4 more days and to be honest i just dont know .i cant see any big difference between the three major partys and i dont see any reason to vote to one of the little ones .

 

[Hammy070]

I don't need to be brainwashed or indoctrinated by anyone to know that any scum bag stealing my land isn't getting it without a fight.

But would you deliberately kill women and children in that fight?

In normal circumstances of course I would not, the thought repulses me and I wouldn't even consider it.

I know you're thinking "Ah, normal circumstances! So you would consider it in a different situation"

Your question is not relevant though. Look at all scenarios and possibilities. To fully appreciate the conflict the fight itself has to be explored.

Is a 'fight' justified in the first place?
Do both sides have the right to fight?

From my point of view, the Palestinians absolutely have to fight, they are justified in doing so. The Israelis are the occupiers, and continue to occupy not just most of historic Palestine, but also the modern day Palestinian territory which is a mere fraction of what they originally had. They not only occupy, but have no intention of withdrawing. Each settlement built and expanded is designed to decrease the likelihood for Palestinian freedom. They are therefore in my view an aggressor, and occupation by default is a declaration of war, as is evident anywhere in the world.

The Palestinians did not suddenly occupy a non-existant Israel. To summarize: Palestinians are fighting in response to a declaration of war by Zionists. If one disagrees with this and insists Palestinians are the aggressors, then one should describe which action by Palestinians acted as a declaration of war, and the action must precede any Israeli act of war for it to qualify as the initial declaration of war.

We then come to the manifestation of the fight. The outcome in my view is precisely reversed. The Palestinians who are justified in fighting face an arms embargo internationally so their means are rendered minimal. Homemade Qassams built from scraps and small firearms consist of their means. Israel however who are aggressing, are vigorously armed with massive aid from the USA (more than all African and Asian nations combined) and possess a preponderance of world class armaments.

This situation means in my view, that the wrong people are given the right means and a lot of it, and the people fully justified in fighting are actively prevented from obtaining any form of weaponry that could aid them in their cause.

Therefore we have a hugely erroneous policy, which forms the basis for unconventional and controversial methods being employed by some Palestinians. But does it justify civilian attacks? I don't believe it does, nothing JUSTIFIES civilian deaths on both sides. But the extent of the injustice varies greatly. The suicide bombings are not an original injustice or cause. The occupation of Palestine, massacring and expelling of Palestinians preceded terrorist attacks by many decades.

The stateless Palestinian whos original home was seized by Zionists. Whos' family members were killed or forcibly removed from their land. Whos' crops have been raised by Israeli bulldozers and whos' home was demolished. Who watches as a world superpower intensively arms the people that committed these acts - would have little motive to feel outrage or express disdain/empathy when the security and lives of his occupiers is compromised. In his/her eyes, the attack on Israeli civilians simply awards them similar rights that he/she themselves were given. One could say such an attack is a 'necessary evil', neither right nor wrong.

It is in my view, hardly surprising that a few Palestinians would resort to such means - specifically because of the context and environment he/she experiences daily.

We in our countries experience none of it. So we tend to judge everything based on what we would do now. I have no doubt that any other people in the world who lived in that context would produce individuals willing to perform such attacks. In fact, I would say the extent of such attacks in Palestine is very minimal. I would expect far less needs to be done in America or Europe to produce an even greater response.

I do not justify the attacks, but in the context of the situation - I am not going to go out of my way to condemn them either.

 

[Hammy070]

[quote="Old Baldy":c7v53kpr]Of course I extend it. ANYONE and EVERYONE has the right to self-defense, I've said that a guzillion times.

If the Palestinians feel threatened they have the right to self-defense.

So do the people in Israel.

How could you possibly think I would say differently??!! :freaked:

You're a big second amendment fan, what do you think of Americas blocking of any weapons to Palestinians, and vigorous delivery of hi-tech arms to Israel?

Everyone has the right to defend themselves after all. But a bank robber isn't entitled to defend himself, the initiator/attacker should be distinguished from the victim/recipient, and support given to the people entitled to it. The mid-east conflict is a reversal of that ethos, and what you see on TV is the result.

I don't like it.

However, the authorities in America, for quite some time now, are worried Arab nations would wipe Israel off the map if arms weren't provided. They also provide America with deterence against radical elements, (i.e., so they say).

Is that true? I don't know. Do you know? If so, how do you know Arab nations would not wipe Israel off of the map?

I mean, the leader of Iran has said he wants to destroy Israel.

Now I'm trying to get away from cheap shots here after inappropriately insulting president Carter, but I get the feeling some members here would favor Israel being wiped off the face of the earth.

I don't agree with that philosophy. And if that is what our authorities feel would happen, I would provide arms to Israel and not those Arab populations who want to destroy Israel.

I do not like Israel constantly appearing to adhere to the "expansion" philosophy however.[/quote:c7v53kpr]

To support Israel is to support the wiping off the map of Palestine.

Israels' creation by default is a declaration of war, this would be the case anywhere in the world. If Zionists decided to establish a state in Southern Ireland, Szechuan Province in China, Pretoria in South Africa, Oregon in the USA or Kashmir in the Indian subcontinent, the result is war. The natural given goal being to remove the invader. To say you disagree with the invaders removal, is to say you agree with their invasion and the wiping off the map of the territory being seized.

 

[Bryan]

But would you deliberately kill women and children in that fight?

In normal circumstances of course I would not, the thought repulses me and I wouldn't even consider it. {snip}

From my point of view, the Palestinians absolutely have to fight, they are justified in doing so. The Israelis are the occupiers, and continue to occupy not just most of historic Palestine, but also the modern day Palestinian territory which is a mere fraction of what they originally had. They not only occupy, but have no intention of withdrawing. Each settlement built and expanded is designed to decrease the likelihood for Palestinian freedom. They are therefore in my view an aggressor, and occupation by default is a declaration of war, as is evident anywhere in the world.

The Palestinians did not suddenly occupy a non-existant Israel. To summarize: Palestinians are fighting in response to a declaration of war by Zionists. If one disagrees with this and insists Palestinians are the aggressors, then one should describe which action by Palestinians acted as a declaration of war, and the action must precede any Israeli act of war for it to qualify as the initial declaration of war.

We then come to the manifestation of the fight. The outcome in my view is precisely reversed. The Palestinians who are justified in fighting face an arms embargo internationally so their means are rendered minimal. Homemade Qassams built from scraps and small firearms consist of their means. Israel however who are aggressing, are vigorously armed with massive aid from the USA (more than all African and Asian nations combined) and possess a preponderance of world class armaments.

This situation means in my view, that the wrong people are given the right means and a lot of it, and the people fully justified in fighting are actively prevented from obtaining any form of weaponry that could aid them in their cause.

Therefore we have a hugely erroneous policy, which forms the basis for unconventional and controversial methods being employed by some Palestinians. But does it justify civilian attacks? I don't believe it does, nothing JUSTIFIES civilian deaths on both sides. {snip}

Thanks for finally giving me a rather long-winded response, even if you ARE a bit of an apologist for horrific suicide bombings that deliberately kill women and children!

 

[Hammy070]

Horrific yes. Kill women and children, yes.

I don't condone them. I will condemn them when the context improves to a degree that in no way justifies such an extreme response. For example, if a Jewish person in Nazi Germany committed a terrorist attack against German civilians, it will not be viewed as equally wrong as if it were done in modern day Germany. Context is everything when it comes to forming any opinions.

 

[tembo]

So should the Native Americans fight other Americans to get off "their" occupied land? And should the Aborigines get every other Australian of "their" land? And should Amazonian and other South American tribes get all the white and black and Arab immigrants of "their" land? And should the East Indians get Muslims of "their" land?

I don't get why the Palestinian cause is so dear in the Muslim world, while all other causes or injustices such as the above are never mentioned. In fact, there are a lot of Middle Eastern and Palestinian land owners in native American and Inca and Aztec lands. Will they leave and stop occupying these lands if Palestine were back to its size before WWII?

 

[ali777]

So should the Native Americans fight other Americans to get off "their" occupied land? And should the Aborigines get every other Australian of "their" land? And should Amazonian and other South American tribes get all the white and black and Arab immigrants of "their" land? And should the East Indians get Muslims of "their" land?

I don't get why the Palestinian cause is so dear in the Muslim world, while all other causes or injustices such as the above are never mentioned. In fact, there are a lot of Middle Eastern and Palestinian land owners in native American and Inca and Aztec lands. Will they leave and stop occupying these lands if Palestine were back to its size before WWII?

Pretty much all the countries in the world have a bloody past, they fought over borders, resources, etc. But, the problem with the Palestinian conflict is that it is happening in our times, and it is human nature to protect the weak or to sympathise with the victim.

People tend to remember recent past and forget things that have happened centuries ago. So, any peace deal may take generations to be effective.

I also agree with your claim that compared to the other events around the world the struggle of Palestine gets a disproportionate coverage and attention (I just wanted to throw "struggle" and "disproportionate" in there).... There is a bit of hypocrisy in the Muslim world, they close their eyes to the murders of taliban and what's happening in Sudan. Actually, I'm not sure if you've noticed but the Arab world didn't really want to get involved with the recent fightings.

 

[HughJass]

So should the Native Americans fight other Americans to get off "their" occupied land? And should the Aborigines get every other Australian of "their" land? And should Amazonian and other South American tribes get all the white and black and Arab immigrants of "their" land? And should the East Indians get Muslims of "their" land?

If your issue is that land claims should be limited by the amount of time that has passed, which I think it might be judging by the above examples, then I assume you would be of the opinion that any claim that Jews might have to Palestine would be completely null and void

IMO there should always be some kind of reasonable agreement that acknowledges native title claim in countries when there's been massacres, slavery, land theft etc... especially if it's been whitewashed or ignored

 

[tembo]

Yes I was surprised that the Arab world seemed to not protest the recent massacre of Palestinians, while the Iranians (and the rest of the world) showed more concern.

I felt like the Israelis were wrong by the way, in spite of my anti-Ummah opinions.

 

[The Gardener]

IMO there should always be some kind of reasonable agreement that acknowledges native title claim in countries when there's been massacres, slavery, land theft etc... especially if it's been whitewashed or ignored

Obviously, this is a valid point. I don't think anyone, even pro-Israelis, can present a valid argument that counters the "original sin" aspect of Israel's creation.

Those who can't get past that "original sin", as yourself, will lock yourself into a position where no solution will ever be possible short of massive bloodletting.

Those who can get past the "original sin" and deal with reality in terms of finding a solution taking as a given the current realities that the state of Israel exists have a shot of forging a more enduring peace. In other words, Aussieavodart, get over the fact that Israel was created and exists, and lets start a negotiation that accepts this.. and works forward from that point on to find an arrangement that both sides can live with.

I mean, if you are so willing to CONSTANTLY complain about the lack of justification for Israel to establish its own pseudo-colonial state on the Levant, then I'd certainly assume that you are equally angry about Australia's original sin, and be equally willing to return Australian lands to their rightful ancestral owners... right? Or are you just a big flaming hypocrite?

I mean, Jesus Christ, you guys engaged in hard core ethnic cleansing... even kidnapping Aboriginal children, a "stolen generation", in attempts to, to borrow your word "whitewash" them literally and figuratively. As Cecil Cook said, "breed out the colour". I wonder what YOU would say if some Israeli politician ever uttered such a vile quote in referring to the Palestinians?

 

[ali777]

IMO there should always be some kind of reasonable agreement that acknowledges native title claim in countries when there's been massacres, slavery, land theft etc... especially if it's been whitewashed or ignored

Obviously, this is a valid point. I don't think anyone, even pro-Israelis, can present a valid argument that counters the "original sin" aspect of Israel's creation.

Those who can't get past that "original sin", as yourself, will lock yourself into a position where no solution will ever be possible short of massive bloodletting.

Those who can get past the "original sin" and deal with reality in terms of finding a solution taking as a given the current realities that the state of Israel exists have a shot of forging a more enduring peace. In other words, Aussieavodart, get over the fact that Israel was created and exists, and lets start a negotiation that accepts this.. and works forward from that point on to find an arrangement that both sides can live with.

I mean, if you are so willing to CONSTANTLY complain about the lack of justification for Israel to establish its own pseudo-colonial state on the Levant, then I'd certainly assume that you are equally angry about Australia's original sin, and be equally willing to return Australian lands to their rightful ancestral owners... right? Or are you just a big flaming hypocrite?

I mean, Jesus Christ, you guys engaged in hard core ethnic cleansing... even kidnapping Aboriginal children, a "stolen generation", in attempts to, to borrow your word "whitewash" them literally and figuratively. As Cecil Cook said, "breed out the colour". I wonder what YOU would say if some Israeli politician ever uttered such a vile quote in referring to the Palestinians?

Good points there G...

I personally always look beyond the original sin. My opposition is to the human rights violations that happen in my time. Countering the original sin with another sin only escalates the problems. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think many nations can claim that they have not committed a sin in the past. There is no need to be hypocritical about it, but we have to learn from our mistakes and move on...

 

[The Gardener]

We need LEADERS. On both sides.

And, unfortunately, we need TWO leaders on both sides, each with the enlightenment of Mandela or Gandhi, to emerge simultaneously. They can't just make peace (this was already tried... Sadat, Rabin)... we need them to LEAD their respective populaces into recognizing that the Israeli and Palestinian states could and should be each other's greatest allies.

 

[techprof]

We need LEADERS. On both sides.

And, unfortunately, we need TWO leaders on both sides, each with the enlightenment of Mandela or Gandhi, to emerge simultaneously. They can't just make peace (this was already tried... Sadat, Rabin)... we need them to LEAD their respective populaces into recognizing that the Israeli and Palestinian states could and should be each other's greatest allies.

Gardener, to a certain extent I agree with you on the need for Gandhil like figure. But I am not sure if Dalai Lama's leadership has made any difference for Tibet.

 

[Hammy070]

So should the Native Americans fight other Americans to get off "their" occupied land? And should the Aborigines get every other Australian of "their" land? And should Amazonian and other South American tribes get all the white and black and Arab immigrants of "their" land? And should the East Indians get Muslims of "their" land?

I don't get why the Palestinian cause is so dear in the Muslim world, while all other causes or injustices such as the above are never mentioned. In fact, there are a lot of Middle Eastern and Palestinian land owners in native American and Inca and Aztec lands. Will they leave and stop occupying these lands if Palestine were back to its size before WWII?

There is little doubt that the examples you listed above are valid cases of historical injustices. We can go on to list countless more examples from various periods throughout history of injustices against populations from all areas of the world.

To work with one example: Did Europeans oppress and murder Native Americans and seize what was undeniably their territory? Yes.

But it happened several centuries ago. One may insist: Justice must be done regardless of how much time has passed. Possibly so, but everyone responsible is long gone. And all victims are long gone. So there are few who could claim a defense or a prosecutor role. Not only that, but there was no international law or human rights conventions at the time to breach in the first place. So the injustice is in hindsight, and technically not illegal. To validate this case today would require existing present consequences still in effect. For example: If Native Americans were prevented full and equal citizenship, lived in refugee camps, had their property demolished etc. However they live as equal Americans alongside every other American.

The issue is, and has always has been one of RIGHTS. Not simply ownership.

Israels actions were committed and still being committed whilst being a member of the UN and a signatory of the Geneva Convention. This means Israel is wholly, comprehensively accountable for it's actions since it's creation. Europeans certainly wouldn't colonize North America in a similar manner were it discovered today.

The Palestinian cause is not "dear" to just Muslims. 100,000 protestors in London recently, in my own town, almost all Arab Christians, my own Government and even some Jewish groups who are passionate about it. It's an exceptional situation because it's an externally inflicted injustice, whereas the Taliban are mostly Afghan and their injustices are policies, they never questioned any Afghans right to be a full citizen. The Palestinian issue is a vigorous suppression of the owners rights and a specific elevation of a foreigners rights, supported maximally by a world super power.

Your point suggests that when enough time has passed, a people should put the past behind them and live where they have already been settled. I agree with you 100% and as someone pointed out, this applies perfectly to the Jewish occupation of Palestine after 2000 years.