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

#21 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 02:52 AM

Ogami, on Jun 10 2003, 06:06 PM, said:

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.
Countries in which the people live in abject poverty will rarely have any sort of quality education system.  Look at countries like Djibouti, Zimbabwe, and so on.  If we want to eliminate the hatred, I think we first have to work towards eliminating the conditions that cause the hatred.  To me, that means freeze all Israeli expansion, and certainly eliminate the settlements, which are basically a big "f*ck you!" to the Palestinians.

#22 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 03:10 AM

Well I know that the Palestinians have C-4 becasue they keep running into crowds of women and children and then explode. That's real stand up work guys.

I was reading in the paper the other day where the Isrealies are evicting people from a couple of Illegal settlements that were created by ISreal. So there is some desire to end this.

But as with the IRA and Ulster Militia there must be a disarmament of the terrorists before things can move forward.

Edited by G1223, 12 June 2003 - 03:11 AM.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#23 ZipperInt

ZipperInt
  • Islander
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 03:46 AM

Regarding the original post - do I think that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will come to a peaceful conclusion? I sure hope so, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
  While I am sure that the majority on both sides want peace, with every attack/raid both the hatred and ignorance to the other sides issues grow, and the chance for peace dwindles. Since both sides feel that they are on the 'right' side of the conflict, peace won't happen until both sides are ready to make some major concessions (this includes not making a retaliatory attack, pulling out of settlements, etc).
The second greatest podcast in the history of ever:
http://geeksonaplain.blogspot.com/

#24 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 04:02 AM

Rhea wrote:

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.

Um, that's simply not true. On the founding of Israel, it was attacked on all sides by its arab neighbors. For those Palestinians who heeded the warnings by the invading arabs to leave, they did so. They and their descendents are the Palestinian refugees. (You might have seen their resettlement is one of the key contentious issues on this Roadmap to Peace). The arabs that chose to stay did so, unmolested. They form a sizable portion of Israel's modern population today, and are Israeli citizens. No one was displaced.

Those who chose to leave in gleeful anticipation of a Jewish massacre lost their land, their businesses, and their homes. As they fully and completely deserved. Since I wasn't believed, I'll quote:

http://www.eretzyisr.../refugees2.html

Quote

At the time of the 1948 war, Arabs in Israel were invited by their fellow Arabs -- invited to "leave" while the "invading" Arab armies would purge the land of  Jews.1 The invading Arab governments were certain of a quick victory; leaders warned the Arabs in Israel to run for their lives.

In response, the Jewish Haifa Workers' Council issued an appeal to the Arab  residents of Haifa:

For years we have lived together in our city, Haifa.... Do not fear: Do not destroy your homes with your own hands ... do not bring upon yourself tragedy by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens.... But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace for you and your families."

While the Haifa pattern appears to have been prevalent, there were exceptions. Arabs in another crucial strategic area, who were "opening fire on the Israelis shortly after surrendering," were "forced" to leave by the defending Jewish army to prevent what former Israeli Premier Itzhak Rabin described as a "hostile and armed populace" from remaining "in our rear, where it could endanger the  supply route . . ." In his memoirs, Rabin stated that Arab control of the road between the seacoast and Jerusalem had "all but isolated" the "more than ninety thousand Jews in Jerusalem," nearly one-sixth of the new nation's total population.
If Jerusalem fell, the psychological blow to the nascent Jewish state would be more damaging than any inflicted by a score of armed brigades.

According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, however, "the majority" of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, and "68%" left without seeing an Israeli soldier.


#25 Belbo

Belbo

    Never Surrender DHARMA

  • Islander
  • 476 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 04:58 AM

Ogami, on Jun 11 2003, 12:55 PM, said:

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. [emphasis mine] When that didn't happen, they were left out in the cold.

And what about the hundreds of thousands who'd already been ethnically cleansed by that point, hmmm? Even Ben Gurion was honest enough to admit that "without Deir Yassin, there would be no Israel".  Like it or not (or conveniently ignore it more likely), Israel was founded on the back of terrorism (including the murder of the UN-appointed mediator, organised by none other than Yitzhak Shamir!) and ethnic cleansing. I daresay the words "Deir Yassin", or "King David Hotel", or even "Irgun" won't mean anything to you.

Anyone wanting a slightly more accurate account of the birth of Israel may want to check here. A few sample quotes

Quote

At the same time, extremist groups such as the Irgun Zwei Leumi and the Lehi, or Stern Group, began a brutal campaign of assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, intimidations, disruptions and sabotage. Their actions were directed against Briton, Arab and even Jews.

Quote

On April 9, Jewish fighters massacred scores of Palestinian villagers, including old people, women and children, in the West Jerusalem village of Deir Yassin, causing widespread panic and greatly augmenting the flight of Palestinians from their homes across the country.

You really should give Messrs Begin and Shamir (and their Stern Gang buddies) their due - they managed to drive out over a half million people while themselves numbering only a few thousand or so, perhaps the most effective use of mass terrorism in the twentieth century.  Not that this in anyway justifies the current Hamas attacks against Israeli civilians, which are just plain stupid as well as obscene. And in answer to the original question, no, I don't think Sharon is serious about this.  

Anyway, congratulations Ogami - I think your post was the single most obscene distortion of history I've seen in over two years on the Drom boards, and probably makes the top five for my 14 years on the net.  Why don't you give William Kennedy Smith a call? You could probably give him some pointers on Blaming the Victim.  :sarcasm:

- Jacopo
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding." - Marshall McLuhan.
"Our crusade was such madness that only a real idealist could have thought it up" - Jons, in The Seventh Seal, anticipating the neocons.
"There's no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky." Charlie Brooker.

#26 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:02 AM

Ogami, on Jun 11 2003, 05:06 PM, said:

Those who chose to leave in gleeful anticipation of a Jewish massacre lost their land, their businesses, and their homes. As they fully and completely deserved. Since I wasn't believed, I'll quote:
Your quote is irrelevant.  Consider this: you leave the US, or whatever country you call home, for six or eight months or whatever.  When you come back, your land, and everything on it, is no longer yours.  How is that remotely fair?  Regardless of intent, regardless of whether you left with glee or whatever, that land was yours, you probably paid for it and invested years into it.  Maybe your family had been living there for generations.  And despite that, the land was taken from you, and you have no way of getting it back.

How is that fair?

#27 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:05 AM

Quote

Ogami: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?

Israel will be the winner, there's no doubt, the Palestinians don't stand a chance. Then, assuming we're not gonna kill 2.5 million people we'll be exactly were we are today, with more hate involved.

Quote

Gode: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.

The man we all miss today, the late Israeli prime minister Rabin, had a very good answer to that: "Peace, unfortunately, has to be done with the people you hate, not with the friends you have"
"Someone says so" is, indeed, a lame reason to give up a land soaked with so much blood and tears. But this is for our own good and the fact that people say so won't change that.

Quote

Gode: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?

Basically, there's an agreement that the Palestinians will deal with Hamas. Allegedly, if Israel deals with it, they will harm the Palestinian government's questionable efforts to stop the terror. The only problem is, they weren't showing any effort.

Quote

Ogami: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.

It is not the people's choice. It is led by reach leaders who send somebody else's children to die in the streets of Israel. It's a complex mixture of religious fanatics, internal politics, brain washing and no democracy. Most people don't want this, but they don't dare say it even to survey polls, because they're afraid the government is behind it. The fact that we do hear some opposition is a proof of how much anger there is, enough for some people to take the chance and say they oppose the terror.

Quote

prolog: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.

Israel doesn't need US money to crush the Palestinians, it needs to decide to do so, to loose all sight of right and wrong in a war, because it will be fighting a half-military-half-civilian society. The country that was given to the Jewish people after the holocaust can not and will not start a war against people.

Terror is terror. They can, and sometimes do, choose to attack soldiers. Attack on civilians should be condemned, and has no political or military excuses.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#28 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:20 AM

Belbo wrote:

And what about the hundreds of thousands who'd already been ethnically cleansed by that point, hmmm? Even Ben Gurion was honest enough to admit that "without Deir Yassin, there would be no Israel". Like it or not (or conveniently ignore it more likely), Israel was founded on the back of terrorism (including the murder of the UN-appointed mediator, organised by none other than Yitzhak Shamir!) and ethnic cleansing. I daresay the words "Deir Yassin", or "King David Hotel", or even "Irgun" won't mean anything to you.  Anyone wanting a slightly more accurate account of the birth of Israel may want to check here.

I am aware of Israel's history and foundation. You apparently have the position that in order to defend Israel's right to existience, I must defend and debate any point of contention in Israel's history. I must personally defend every terrorist act the Israelis perpetrated against the British ruling authority, I must personally be called to account for every bit of village fighting, every bit of sabotage, and every blood fued they had in the 1940s. Sorry, I wasn't alive then, but nice try at attempting to shift the debate so that I have to defend every second of that country's history. Not gonna do it.

Your comments hint that because you believe Israel is not morally justified to be there. Since the beginning of time, force of arms has determined who rules. So far, Israel has beaten off all attempts to destroy their country by force. And they don't intend to be dismembered by words today. You see they are students of history, as am I.

You really should give Messrs Begin and Shamir (and their Stern Gang buddies) their due - they managed to drive out over a half million people while themselves numbering only a few thousand or so, perhaps the most effective use of mass terrorism in the twentieth century. Not that this in anyway justifies the current Hamas attacks against Israeli civilians, which are just plain stupid as well as obscene. And in answer to the original question, no, I don't think Sharon is serious about this.

I can recall the Oslo negotiations, where the Palestinian representative held up a wanted poster of Shamir by the British Authority from the 30s. You see, I am cognizant of Israel's history, I just don't agree that the actions of some terrorists indict a whole people. Were that the case, then I would believe all Palestinians are like Yassir Arafat. I don't.

Anyway, congratulations Ogami - I think your post was the single most obscene distortion of history I've seen in over two years on the Drom boards, and probably makes the top five for my 14 years on the net. Why don't you give William Kennedy Smith a call? You could probably give him some pointers on Blaming the Victim.

I think I do have a grasp of the history of the region, and an understanding of the players involved. But if you think I believe that people who walk into university cafeterias and blow themselves up are the victims, you're out of luck. Those are cowards, not victims. It's easier to blow up women and children in crowded cafes and malls, harder to fight armed troops who will shoot back. And I do believe homicide bombers are the obscenity, not my grasp of the situation. :)

-Ogami

#29 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:35 AM

Quote

Ogami: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.

The Palestinians didn't have 55 years to do so, they never had a chance. They have their own leaders to blame for it (and those of Jordan and Egypt before 1967), they can blame Israel for some more of it, but it doesn't matter. The slaves in America didn't prove what they were capable of before they were released - they couldn't. The history has absolutely nothing with their rights. You know, all people born equal and stuff... :glare:

Quote

Reah: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.

I think you're wrong.  The current situation will end, everybody knows exactly how, leaders on both sides don't seem to have the courage to do it and have their name written on the big compromise in history. The public on both sides doesn't seem to be able, at the moment, to replace those leaders but this time will come.

Quote

Reah: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.

Not accurate. According to the UN decision from 29.11.1947 two countries were supposed to be founded on the land. The Israeli government accepted this, but the Arabs didn't and started a war. To their, and the world's, surprise, they lost. So they lost some of the land. They were not displaced by the Israelis, they were misled by their own leaders who told them to leave, taking the keys with them, because in a few weeks the united Arab armies will throw all the Zionists to the sea and they can return. They left, during a war, but of their own will.

note: there were a few rare cases of soldiers "persuading" civilians to leave. But they are not the general case.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#30 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:43 AM

Prolog wrote:

Your quote is irrelevant. Consider this: you leave the US, or whatever country you call home, for six or eight months or whatever. When you come back, your land, and everything on it, is no longer yours. How is that remotely fair? Regardless of intent, regardless of whether you left with glee or whatever, that land was yours, you probably paid for it and invested years into it. Maybe your family had been living there for generations. And despite that, the land was taken from you, and you have no way of getting it back.

Your example doesn't make sense. The Palestinians were instructed to leave on the PROMISE of genociding the Jews out of existence. Killing them all. Wiping them out. Driving them into the sea. This was what they were promised by the victorious arab armies.

The Arab armies haven't been able to fulfill that promise, have they? So much for the analogy.

Israel was perfectly justified in seizing the assets of enemy combatants, unless the rules of warfare are somehow exempted for their sake. We've seized Afghan and Iraqi assets in this country, why should Israel do differently?

And just to clarify, since many don't know to distinguish between Israeli Arabs and the Palestinian refugees: There are over 400,000 Israeli Arabs living in Israel, complete with their own towns and leaders. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are other people entirely. For the arabs who stayed, they live in peace with their neighbors. For the refugees, they are the ones engaging in bombings and terror.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 12 June 2003 - 05:45 AM.


#31 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:54 AM

Quote

rhuhne :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"?

Last time I checked, settlements, though sometimes based on mobile houses, weren't attempting to run down anyone :p

Seriously. The Palestinians don't have an army, they have police and they have lots of ammu collected by terror organizations. The only point is, unlike Israel, they don't have to defend themselves. They are not attacked, just pushed back when they try to attack army posts or settlements. Neighborhoods that were destroyed are neighborhoods that were source of rockets attacks on Israeli cities. If the Palestinian police did their work and prevented it, nobody would've destroyed them. Israel does have the right to try protect its citizens.


Quote

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.

Errr... right. And Apolo never landed on the moon. :ninja:

Quote

G1223:I was reading in the paper the other day where the Isrealies are evicting people from a couple of Illegal settlements that were created by ISreal. So there is some desire to end this.

But as with the IRA and Ulster Militia there must be a disarmament of the terrorists before things can move forward.

This is the agreement from Sharem last week. Israel will evacuat these settlements and the Palestinians will fight terror, leading to next steps in "the road map" Bush set. The Palestinians aren't keeping their side of the bargain so far.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#32 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:56 AM

Enmar wrote:

Israel will be the winner, there's no doubt, the Palestinians don't stand a chance. Then, assuming we're not gonna kill 2.5 million people we'll be exactly were we are today, with more hate involved.

That's pretty much it, I don't anticipate that happening, so we're stuck where we are. As President Bush remarked, the brightest minds of the last 50 years have tried to resolve the Middle East conflict. It won't be solved quickly if there's not compromise on both sides. But they appear ready to argue forever over even what are the areas of compromise. (chuckle)

The man we all miss today, the late Israeli prime minister Rabin, had a very good answer to that: "Peace, unfortunately, has to be done with the people you hate, not with the friends you have"
"Someone says so" is, indeed, a lame reason to give up a land soaked with so much blood and tears. But this is for our own good and the fact that people say so won't change that.


Yes, and what is the fear among many is that Mahmoud Abas, the elected Palestinian leader, will face the same fate should he sign any deal with Israel. Sad but true.

Basically, there's an agreement that the Palestinians will deal with Hamas. Allegedly, if Israel deals with it, they will harm the Palestinian government's questionable efforts to stop the terror. The only problem is, they weren't showing any effort.

There was an excellent National Review article I can't find the link for on this. It paralleled the Mideast situation with Ireland of the 1920s. The Irish leader managed to effect peace, but at the cost of his own life. Why? Because he dealt effectively and conclusively with the largest terrorist faction of Ireland at the time. Peace cannot be achieved until the Palestinian terror groups are disarmed by force, by their own people. And we all know how long that may take.

It is not the people's choice. It is led by reach leaders who send somebody else's children to die in the streets of Israel. It's a complex mixture of religious fanatics, internal politics, brain washing and no democracy. Most people don't want this, but they don't dare say it even to survey polls, because they're afraid the government is behind it. The fact that we do hear some opposition is a proof of how much anger there is, enough for some people to take the chance and say they oppose the terror.

Just two months ago, the Palestinians were leading marches in the tens of thousands through their streets, chanting that Saddam was their savior, and their hope that Iraq would march to Tel Aviv. Now that "hope" is dashed, but it's a great indicator of just what the Palestinians consider "peace".

Israel doesn't need US money to crush the Palestinians, it needs to decide to do so, to loose all sight of right and wrong in a war, because it will be fighting a half-military-half-civilian society. The country that was given to the Jewish people after the holocaust can not and will not start a war against people. Terror is terror. They can, and sometimes do, choose to attack soldiers. Attack on civilians should be condemned, and has no political or military excuses.

This is something I'm for, I don't mind *desperate* Palestinians strapping bombs to themselves and flinging themselves into battle against Israeli soldiers. That's war, you do what you can do. But targeting civilians is simple spite, it serves no moral or military perspective. And it's no way to earn international respect, other than perhaps wonder at the religious teachings (not poverty) that can induce such behavior.

-Ogami

#33 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:05 AM

Enmar, on Jun 11 2003, 06:58 PM, said:

Last time I checked, settlements, though sometimes based on mobile houses, weren't attempting to run down anyone :p

Seriously. The Palestinians don't have an army, they have police and they have lots of ammu collected by terror organizations. The only point is, unlike Israel, they don't have to defend themselves. They are not attacked, just pushed back when they try to attack army posts or settlements. Neighborhoods that were destroyed are neighborhoods that were source of rockets attacks on Israeli cities. If the Palestinian police did their work and prevented it, nobody would've destroyed them. Israel does have the right to try protect its citizens.

Where do you get your news, Enmar?  There are numerous incidents involving Jewish settlers killing Palestinians. (and these are just the ones that a quick googling picked up from reputable sources, ie, no biased middle-east publications)

Edited by prolog, 12 June 2003 - 06:06 AM.


#34 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:10 AM

Zack's post a little scrambeled (sorry :blush: )

Quote

The problem, IMHO, is that you have two peoples in one small space, who both have a legitimate claim to the same land...

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 ).

I don't think anyone is going to wipe anyone out or has any hope of doing so (except the lunatics on both sides, but without them life will be boring), the Israelis don't have anywhere else to go and the Palestinians don't seem to be welcome anywhere else (That is exactly what king Abdalla of Jordan needs, another 2.5 million to the Palestinians majority he rules :p)

I can link the rest of your post in a long sentence:

The extremists of the Israelis still hope for some magic solution of population transfer that will make the Arabs disappear and that's what they're maintaining the status quo for, at the same time the people who believe that the final solution is two states use the bi-national solution to threaten the other Israelis that if they don't agree to separation, they will find themselves a minority in their own land.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#35 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:25 AM

Quoting Ogami:

Your example doesn't make sense. The Palestinians were instructed to leave on the PROMISE of genociding the Jews out of existence. Killing them all. Wiping them out. Driving them into the sea. This was what they were promised by the victorious arab armies.

The Arab armies haven't been able to fulfill that promise, have they? So much for the analogy.


Hmm.  It seems that leaving has two effects: you appear to be party to the Arabs' claims of genocide, but more importantly, you don't get killed in the fighting or in the crossfire.  The latter seems pretty important.  But the important thing is, you're not a combatant.  You're not fighting in the war, even if you agree with it.  You're also probably not providing the invading army with any resources, either.  So why should yours be taken from you?

Israel was perfectly justified in seizing the assets of enemy combatants, unless the rules of warfare are somehow exempted for their sake. We've seized Afghan and Iraqi assets in this country, why should Israel do differently?

Okay, sure.  But what about the property and assets of the non-combatants?

And just to clarify, since many don't know to distinguish between Israeli Arabs and the Palestinian refugees: There are over 400,000 Israeli Arabs living in Israel, complete with their own towns and leaders. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are other people entirely. For the arabs who stayed, they live in peace with their neighbors. For the refugees, they are the ones engaging in bombings and terror.

Too bad they're often second-class citizens.

The refugees are also living without hope, and in abject poverty.  Each generation that passes with refugees living in these conditions just breeds more contempt, fear, and hate.

#36 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:42 AM

Quote

prolog:Where do you get your news, Enmar? There are numerous incidents involving Jewish settlers killing Palestinians. (and these are just the ones that a quick googling picked up from reputable sources, ie, no biased middle-east publications)

I get my news from many sources, and they appear to be better than yours. Some settlers are criminals and they are treated as such by the Israeli police. This isn't done on the other side. There are no "numerous" incidents, there is one I can think about in the last year, and IIRC there are few who admitted to be part of the group who did it, but they are hiding the identity of the one among them who did (they were all in a car and they hit a passer by on the head).

Some of them do walk around armed and intimidate the population, that's nasty and stupid, but legal.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#37 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:53 AM

I was just replying to this:

Quote

The only point is, unlike Israel, they don't have to defend themselves. They are not attacked, just pushed back when they try to attack army posts or settlements.

I was just supplying a counter-example or two.  Your post made it seem as if the Israelis were blameless.

#38 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 07:14 AM

Enmar, on Jun 11 2003, 07:14 PM, said:

Zack's post a little scrambeled (sorry :blush: )

Quote

The problem, IMHO, is that you have two peoples in one small space, who both have a legitimate claim to the same land...

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 ).

I don't think anyone is going to wipe anyone out or has any hope of doing so (except the lunatics on both sides, but without them life will be boring), the Israelis don't have anywhere else to go and the Palestinians don't seem to be welcome anywhere else (That is exactly what king Abdalla of Jordan needs, another 2.5 million to the Palestinians majority he rules :p)

I can link the rest of your post in a long sentence:

The extremists of the Israelis still hope for some magic solution of population transfer that will make the Arabs disappear and that's what they're maintaining the status quo for, at the same time the people who believe that the final solution is two states use the bi-national solution to threaten the other Israelis that if they don't agree to separation, they will find themselves a minority in their own land.
I think this is exactly right, Enmar.  Arguments about the moral rightness or wrongness of each side's tactics or historical claims to the land are in the end, beside the point.  The bottom line is that there are two peoples in the same tiny space, and neither side is going anywhere without a massive act of genocide or ethnic cleansing.  So at the end of the day, the two parties are going to have to reach some sort of an accomodation that doesn't make anyone entirely happy.

The "Eretz Israel" people will have to give up their dreams of a greater Israel on all the former land of Israel, Judea, and Samaria.  Settlements will be evacuated, and some sort of creative sleight-of-hand will probably be used to deal with Jerusalem.

And Hamas and Islamic Jihad will be sorely disappointed by a Palestine that's limited to the West Bank and Gaza (with some kind of negotiated land corridor between them), and the 1948 refugees and their descendants who were driven out (contrary to myth, there were no broadcasts from Arab leaders telling them to leave-- Israeli historians debunked this one a long time ago) will have to settle for compensation or relocation to the West Bank or Gaza.

The rough outlines of the eventual settlement aren't hard to see.  That's what's so maddening about the lives being lost on both sides.  

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

#39 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 07:31 AM

Quote

Zack:(contrary to myth, there were no broadcasts from Arab leaders telling them to leave-- Israeli historians debunked this one a long time ago)

That's right, but the rumors ran crazy and they left, some of them, like my grandparent's neighbors, despite the fact they were offered shelter and friendship.

Quote

Zack:The rough outlines of the eventual settlement aren't hard to see. That's what's so maddening about the lives being lost on both sides.

There's now a civil movement that says exactly that. They try to get a million on each side to sign a rough agreement along these lines, hoping to force the "leaders" to follow the people.


Right and wrong are irrelevant, they usually are in politics, I'm afraid, they only serve as shiny excuses :(

The really maddening thing is that most people on both sides agree with these terms and understand that this will be the end. But they also support Sharon and Arafat, because drastic times call for "strong" leadership and we're still stuck at the violent=strong phase.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#40 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 07:37 AM

prolog, on Jun 11 2003, 10:57 PM, said:

I was just replying to this:

Quote

The only point is, unlike Israel, they don't have to defend themselves. They are not attacked, just pushed back when they try to attack army posts or settlements.

I was just supplying a counter-example or two.  Your post made it seem as if the Israelis were blameless.
They aren't, but don't believe everything you read, this is, more than everything, a public opinion war and there are many lies going around. You might think that being an Israeli I'm exposed to more biased media and that's probably right, but I also see all the follow ups that discover the truth behind some of the stories when the world has moved its attention somewhere else. And there's a lot of information coming from Israeli peace activist (God bless the internet :) ) and mailing lists I'm on, it gives me a good picture on this reality (or so I think :p)

Edit: Just wanted to share with you the fact that my "last ten posts" has just turned completely usless :p

Edited by Enmar, 12 June 2003 - 07:39 AM.

Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.



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