Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Israel vs. Palestine

Middle East Israel Palestine

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 04:06 AM

I haven't started a topic here before, so thought I'd give it a whirl. The news today is that the Israelis carried out a raid on a Hamas leader, President Bush is noted as saying he's "troubled" that this may interfere with the peace process.

What I was wondering is if there ever was a peace process. All these suicide bombings and reprisals seem to be a slow war. Why not just have an all-out battle between the two sides, winner take all? I know it would be horrible, but the current situation seems to be never-ending.

Would an all-out battle for control of the territory settle things? Or is peace at hand?

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 11 June 2003 - 04:07 AM.


#2 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 04:09 AM

i have to admit, i have my doubts that a peace process is even possible, there appears to be too much hatred on all sides for an honest negotiation, and the isrealies aren't going to give up land they fought and died for for over half a century because someone else says so.

Also, i'm very curious about Bush's 'troubled' remark. I understand it decreases the chances of succes, but by every measure, Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Bush says he is against terrorism, so shouldn't he be supporting the strike?

oh, and congrats on your first topic. It is one with many angles to it, so should be good topic for the OT

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#3 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 04:37 AM

Thanks! I'm a nomimal Israel supporter, as I believe in direct combat between soldiers, not bombs in the middle of crowded shopping malls. But to me I don't see any reason why Israel should give concessions, after all they are the ruling military authority in the area. And the Palestinians will continue their suicide runs as long as they believe there is some international advantage to doing so.

I read some analysis last month that detailed how the 'Intifadah' has been a disaster for the Palestinians. Their losses on a strictly numbers level have been terrible compared to Israels, and they've won nothing but acrimony for it. Recently the financial support of Saddam Hussein disappeared, that's why Bush is so keen on pressing these new treaties. But I wonder like you do if the bitterness is too much for any headway.

-Ogami

#4 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 04:40 AM

^

Battles between soldiers are fine when the playing field is even, but when one side receives significant funding in the form of US aid and military technologies, and the other does not, I don't see how that would be even remotely fair.  The terrorist acts performed by the Palestinians are reprehensible, but I can see why they choose that over direct combat: it's still suicide, but it's less of a slaughter on your side that way.

#5 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 04:43 AM

Well - I can't favor an all out war.  I do think peace is possible, but I think that there will have to be some really hard choices made about how to accomplish it.

My "extreme" peace plan would look something like a UN-established Palestinian State - administered by the biggies on the security council - with a gradual self-rule process built in over 25 - 50 years.  I'd probably establish Jerusalem as a city without a state - jointly administered by Jewish, Muslim and Christian forces, I'd encourage free trade as much as possible in the region, and some strict reforms like uniform education in Palestine for all - male and female, with cultural sensitivities built-in (like separate schools for boys and girls).  In short - I'd force peace on the region, and then create the infrastructure that would make it beneficial to all parties to keep it like that.

Then again - I'm a very dictatorial idealist... :(

LOL!

QT

Editing to add: Great to see you here, Ogami!

Edited by QueenTiye, 11 June 2003 - 04:46 AM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#6 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 04:46 AM

Can i ask QT, why Isreal should have to give up their territory to what are functionally terrorists?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#7 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 04:48 AM

I think it's the best chance in recent years. Sadly, that's not saying very much.

I dunno... hope seems pretty dim. But you never know what's going to happen next, especially where Middle East politics in concerned.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#8 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 04:55 AM

Well... you could ask, but I'd probably not answer the question as stated.

I mean - you know its a loaded question, right? ;)

But to the portion of the question I can address - I'll say this.

My views on world affairs and conflict resolution are profoundly different and have nothing to do with people's perceptions of "political rights."  My thinking is based on coming to an understanding of the source of the conflict, and working to find solutions that actually meet those needs.  

So, as long as people are rigidly confined to "I'm right" no "I'M right" modes of thinking, conflict will not go away.  It doesn't matter what anyone says - the Palestinian people have a yearning that fuels their animosity, as do the Israelis.  Fulfilling that yearning is the goal, to my way of thinking.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#9 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 05:00 AM

I do see your point actually, and i agree with it.

However, the Isrealies, from what i've seen, believe they have as much right to the land, and for very similar reasons, as the Palestinians.

and the basic problem is that people have to want to be reasonable. and i don't believe that either side wants to be reasonable in this case.

and yes, i suppose it was a loaded question, sorry, i try not to ask loaded questions if i can avoid it.

#10 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 05:02 AM

Prolog wrote:

Battles between soldiers are fine when the playing field is even, but when one side receives significant funding in the form of US aid and military technologies, and the other does not, I don't see how that would be even remotely fair. The terrorist acts performed by the Palestinians are reprehensible, but I can see why they choose that over direct combat: it's still suicide, but it's less of a slaughter on your side that way.

Exactly, Prolog. I believe we both precisely understand the Palestinian viewpoint. I agree this is their perspective. But Israel's advantage has more to do with their form of government, not their allies. They've bought everything they've gotten from us.

Israel produces, they have a stable government, they have industries that export and sell products around the world. What have the Palestinians produced? What is their education system producing, engineers? Draftsmen? Computer programmers? chemists? MBAs? From all accounts their education system is aligned along teaching hatred of Jews, not skills.

Israel has an economic and military advantage because they wanted their own government more, it's the oldest rule in warfare. The desert blooms from their industry. What have the Palestinians produced for the last 50 years but Arafats? I point all this out not to demean or insult the Palestinians, but to seriously wonder whether they have shown any evidence they would do a good job of self-governance. Their record is abysmal.

-Ogami

#11 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 05:14 AM

Queen Tiye wrote:

My "extreme" peace plan would look something like a UN-established Palestinian State - administered by the biggies on the security council - with a gradual self-rule process built in over 25 - 50 years. I'd probably establish Jerusalem as a city without a state - jointly administered by Jewish, Muslim and Christian forces, I'd encourage free trade as much as possible in the region, and some strict reforms like uniform education in Palestine for all - male and female, with cultural sensitivities built-in (like separate schools for boys and girls). In short - I'd force peace on the region, and then create the infrastructure that would make it beneficial to all parties to keep it like that.

Yes, that may be one of the only workable plans I could see, simply because the Palestinians are having a really hard time proving they are capable of running a democratic government. I read an article some time ago in National Geographic, it was on the island of Cyprus, and how the UN has been peacekeeping it for over a decade. They haven't brought peace to the disputed land, and their occupation appears permanent. But there aren't regular killings like Israel has now.

Editing to add: Great to see you here, Ogami!

Great to be here, believe me.

-Ogami

#12 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 06:17 AM

:blink: Gode, Ogami I was fully expecting both of you to give me my head handed back to me on a platter... LOL!

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#13 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 09:13 AM

Oh goodness, no. I still have a few surprises up my sleeves. Wait, I'm in short sleeves, never mind.

#14 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 10:18 AM

The problem, IMHO, is that you have two peoples in one small space, who both have a legitimate claim to the same land.  The various solutions as I see them are:

1:  Two-state solution.  The currently favored model, which leaves neither party entirely happy and doesn't settle thorny issues like Israeli settlements on the West Bank, the status of Jerusalem, and what happens to the Palestinians (and their descendants) who were expelled from homes within Israel's 1948 borders.

2:  Bi-national state.  That means make Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza one big state, with everyone inside of it equal under the law.  But given the demographics of the Israelis and Palestinians, this has the effect of making the country no longer a majority Jewish state within a generation.

3:  Population transfer.  This means expelling large numbers of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, and probably some Israeli Arabs as well.  This solves the problem of Israel governing a large, hostile population of Arabs, but, well...we called this ethnic cleansing when Milosevic did it in Kosovo and bombed him for it.

4:  The status quo.  Muddling through with Israel occupying 3.5-4 million hostile and angry Arabs and trying to defend 200,000 Jews, some of them with extreme political and religious Jews, in tiny outposts spread across the occupied territories.  This probably means more of the same.

So what's the solution?  Damned if I know, but the status quo will probably continue to be bloody.  Wars like this tend to be really nasty, and only end when one side is wiped out or definitively conquered (the American Indians, the Maoris), the other side decides to pack it in (the French in Algeria, the Dutch in Batavia), or in a few happy instances, the two sides reach an accomodation (the Chinese and native Malays in Malaysia, the whites, blacks, and coloreds in South Africa, the Indians and Fijians in Fiji ).  

Zack
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#15 rhuhne

rhuhne
  • Islander
  • 55 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 06:42 PM

I'm not a history major and really don't know a whole lot about the topic, but I'll put my $0.02 in anyways.

I don't believe that Palastine was performing terrorist operations until Israel started dickin' with them. Israel and Palestine were created at the same time or Israel was given territory from Palestine.

Something that's curious is that you don't hear about a Palistian military. What defenses do they have? Is their primary defense their civilians? What would we do if there was no or little military in this country and we were attacked and our homeland taken? Would we perform acts of girilla :blink: warfare? Terrorism? Let's see...hmmm...oh yeah, the Revolutionary War!

There is or has been something pretty peculiar about the U.S. relationship with Israel.

Check out this website and links and maybe your thinking on this topic will be altered forever.
http://ussliberty.org/  (sure wish I knew what I was doing :unsure: )

There will be peace in the Middle East in the not so distant future. It takes a little while to shift the paradigms of enough people on both sides. People are working on that transformation as we speak.

#16 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 10:51 PM

Zack wrote:

The problem, IMHO, is that you have two peoples in one small space, who both have a legitimate claim to the same land. The various solutions as I see them are:

Indeed. This claim has been settled through military combat in at least a half-dozen wars since the founding of Israel. Many in Israel believe the "peace process" is an attempt to disarm them through words when the military force of their neighbors has failed repeatedly. Until their enemies cease boasting that they will drive every Jew into the sea, this is a well-founded belief.

1: Two-state solution. The currently favored model, which leaves neither party entirely happy and doesn't settle thorny issues like Israeli settlements on the West Bank, the status of Jerusalem, and what happens to the Palestinians (and their descendants) who were expelled from homes within Israel's 1948 borders.

In order to sign the peace with Egypt, Israel removed all settlements in the Sinai. I don't see why they couldn't do the same with the Palestinians.

2: Bi-national state. That means make Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza one big state, with everyone inside of it equal under the law. But given the demographics of the Israelis and Palestinians, this has the effect of making the country no longer a majority Jewish state within a generation.

That is sort of what they already have, there are Arab representives in the Knesset, who represent the Palestinians who didn't leave. If you'll recall, when Israel was founded, it was attacked on all sides by the arab neighboring countries. The arabs broadcast on every radio for the Palestinians to evacuate their land. Once the hated Jews had been exterminated, the Palestinians could move back in. Those Palestinians who are refugees chose to leave on the hope of the Jews being massacred. When that didn't happen, they were left out in the cold. But there are hundreds of thousands of arabs who chose to stay, and are Israeli citizens to this day. The "refugees" got precisely what they deserved, nothing. Now their descendants still have no home, 50 years later. Great plan!

3: Population transfer. This means expelling large numbers of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, and probably some Israeli Arabs as well. This solves the problem of Israel governing a large, hostile population of Arabs, but, well...we called this ethnic cleansing when Milosevic did it in Kosovo and bombed him for it.

It would also embolden their arab neighbors to use WMDs against Israel. The Israelis know this, that's why they haven't driven out every arab from their territory. They have to live with their neighbors.

4: The status quo. Muddling through with Israel occupying 3.5-4 million hostile and angry Arabs and trying to defend 200,000 Jews, some of them with extreme political and religious Jews, in tiny outposts spread across the occupied territories. This probably means more of the same.

I'm in favor of the status quo. Until the Palestinians demonstrate they are capable of democratic self-government (an impossibility given their educational system), this is how it will remain.

So what's the solution? Damned if I know, but the status quo will probably continue to be bloody. Wars like this tend to be really nasty, and only end when one side is wiped out or definitively conquered (the American Indians, the Maoris), the other side decides to pack it in (the French in Algeria, the Dutch in Batavia), or in a few happy instances, the two sides reach an accomodation (the Chinese and native Malays in Malaysia, the whites, blacks, and coloreds in South Africa, the Indians and Fijians in Fiji ).

In an all-out war, the Palestinians would lose as surely as they have lost for the past 50 years of wars, even with the assistance of their arab neighbors. That's why it is in their self-interest, not so much Israel's, to seek out a lasting peace. Apparently, the Palestinians have not had sufficient incentive to return to the peace table. Fine. With the removal of their financial benefactor Saddam Hussein, we can wait. Can the Palestinians?

-Ogami

#17 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 10:55 PM

Rhuhne wrote:

I don't believe that Palastine was performing terrorist operations until Israel started dickin' with them. Israel and Palestine were created at the same time or Israel was given territory from Palestine.

Well, that's certainly the Palestinian view. History records otherwise. By all rights Israel should have completely conquered the Palestinian refugees and driven them from the territory. Yet where would that have left Israel with their arab neighbors, whom they must trade and live with? That's no solution, it never was. So Israel tries to co-exist with a Palestinian foe that wants to see them all dead, and earn nothing but enmity for it. It's not easy.

Something that's curious is that you don't hear about a Palistian military. What defenses do they have? Is their primary defense their civilians? What would we do if there was no or little military in this country and we were attacked and our homeland taken? Would we perform acts of girilla  warfare? Terrorism? Let's see...hmmm...oh yeah, the Revolutionary War!

Where are the Palestinian Federalist Papers? Their Bill of Rights? Where is the Palestinian Ben Franklin? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington? Thomas Paine? John Quincy Adams?

Our country is great today because we declared that freedom and the right to pursue happiness were given at birth. The Palestinian Constitution declares the rights that the State grants to the citizens. Our Constitution grants rights to the government at the express consent and approval of the citizens. Such a small difference, and it makes all the difference in the world.

Palestinians equivalent to our Founding Fathers? Not even close.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 11 June 2003 - 11:01 PM.


#18 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 11:34 PM

In a word with one syllable: NO.

Nobody's ever going to give an inch on either side, and people will keep dying. Both sides are convinced they have an absolute right to the land, and each is convinced that they are being put upon by the other.   :blink:  :wacko:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#19 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 11:39 PM

Godeskian, on Jun 10 2003, 10:50 AM, said:

Can i ask QT, why Isreal should have to give up their territory to what are functionally terrorists?
Perhaps because those "functional terrorists" occuppied Israel for many centuries before the Jews moved back there, making it as much THEIR land as the Israelis - maybe more so, since they had lived there for so many centuries.

It would be like the Indians taking over North America and kicking all of us out on the grounds that they were here first. Well YAH, they were - but it ain't practical - they haven't occupied the territory exclusively for some time. The situation is even more extreme in Israel, being many more centuries since there's been an actual country, Israel.

When  Israel was formed after WWII, they displaced a lot of Arabs to form their new homeland. The people who were occupying that land for centuries didn't want to move, considering it their homeland (and rightfully so - if you and your ancestors were born in a given land, that kind of makes it YOUR homeland),  the Israelis weren't in a mood to be dicked around with, and there you go - a recipe for disaster.

Edited by Rhea, 11 June 2003 - 11:40 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#20 rhuhne

rhuhne
  • Islander
  • 55 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 02:46 AM

Ogami, I apologize for any misunderstanding that I have created.

I wasn't trying to equate Palistine with the origins of the US only the methods of defense.

I really am interested. Does Palistine have an Army or some other means of defense?

All I've seen is Palistinians throwing rocks and bottles at Israeli solders and the Palistinians being gunned down, neighborhoods destroyed, with heavy armament.

What does Palistine have to defend itself with? To prevent being overrun by Israeli "settlements"?

I don't believe that Palistine is the agressor here.

Israel is a pissed off, spoiled brat little nation that starts fights to justify its attacks.
The six day war was started by Israeli intelligence making it look like the Israeli's were attacked by Egypt. Why the US spy intelligence gathering ship, the USS Liberty found out about this it was soundly attacked by Israel. The Liberty and it's crew were lucky to survive. It's a very interesting story and implicates the US government also. Check out this site:  http://ussliberty.org   betrayal of our fighting men by our own country. There's more to this than we may ever know about.

Edited by rhuhne, 12 June 2003 - 02:57 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Middle East, Israel, Palestine

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users