Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

All Map, No Road

  1. Jul 1, 2003 #1
    Recently, Israel has sacrificed the town of Bethlehem on the west bank to Palestinians, in exchange for a cease fire that was broken by the Palestinians. Fleeing Israelis destroyed thier roads and bridges as well as homesteads and fruit crops. This will be seen as a triumph of terrorism over Israel. The principle of the road map is that Israel gives back territory she has held for 3 years, and eventually push her back to the pre-1968 border. It was Clinton's plan - appease the Palestinians with land concessions - and it failed to achieve lasting peace, only a long cease-fire.
    Israel is losing the war on terror, and Bush is contradicting his campaign against terror by promoting the deterioration of Israeli power against it.
    Effective police are more scarce in the Middle-East than ice-water, and although Israel's empire is imperialistic, it is also sometimes democratic.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 1, 2003 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, when Clinton tried to impliment a similar plan, the result was a new Jihad, not a cease fire.

    I'm not naive enough to believe that this plan has a real shot at achieving lasting peace, but the fact that parts of it are being implimented combined with the willingness of Abaas to condemn the terrorists is promising. The terrorist groups may well have agreed to the cease fire because they knew they would be in some trouble if they didn't.
     
  4. Jul 2, 2003 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have not been following this issue closely, but I sense a real decrease in our support for Israel for the first time in my memory. I don't know what I think at this point, but I know that many Americans are tired of the constant harassment that we endure because of our support for Israel. Neither do I see an end to this problem. Ever!

    A couple of years ago, before 9/11, I was flying from NY to Portland Oregon, and I sat next to a young Israeli man who had just finished his duties for the military. He was in the US visiting relatives and taking a vacation. We talked during the entire flight. At one point I asked him: "What do you think we should do about Palestine?" His answer came in a deep muffled voice, and with his teeth clenched - "kill them all". How can US policy get rid of hatred like this? I am sure that most Palestinians feel the same.

    Why is this my problem?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2003
  5. Jul 2, 2003 #4

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    I would say that you are biased and ignorant on this
    matter and that's it.
    A few minor corrections :
    1. This has nothing to do with Clinton.
    2. The cease fire conditions say that Israel must
    retreat everywhere to the positions before the current
    conflict and Israel indeed removed most of these positions
    already in the Gaza strip and allowed the Palestinians there
    free passage. In the west bank the situation is more complex
    and the retreat is more gradual and done in parts.
    Israel is also supposed to free some prisoners and make
    no military actions at all.
    3. The most likely estimate (not the stupid optimistic) of
    the results of this cease-fire is that the Palestinian terror
    organizations will use it to rebeuild their forces and
    prepare more weapons to begin a new wave of violence.
    Unless of course Abu Abass manages to disarm them which is
    highly unlikely and can be disrupted by a single major
    terrorist attack.
    This emotional response of this young man does not reflect
    the opinion of most Israelis or even, I believe, what he
    truely thinks is a practical solution.

    Most Israelis simply do not want anything to do with
    the Palestinians. They want to totally separate themselves
    from all those propoganda brain-washed muslims around them
    once and for all and get on with their lives. But the
    fanatics on both sides just won't let it go.

    Live long and prosper.
     
  6. Jul 2, 2003 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Perhaps, A survey of one carries little weight. However this did seem to be his preferred solution. I then asked: "Since one can't kill all of them, how will this ever be resolved?" He was silent.

    This seems to ignore the core issue of the entire Middle East - land disputes.
     
  7. Jul 2, 2003 #6

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    Another sign of it being an emotional response. If this
    weren't a message board you'd hear a lot more responses
    of this type, from me too, believe me.
    Land disputes ?!
    The core issude of the middle-east are the brain washed
    Palestinians and other Muslim nations. What land disputes ?
    The only real land disputes are in the mind of these brain-washed
    people who still think that all of Israel is their territory.
    If they weren't so brainwashed and fanatic about their
    religion, their nationality and so on they would've all been
    living in prosperous modern countries by now. Instead their
    dictators and terrortist leaders keep them at a pathetic
    level, make'em live in "refugee" camps after over half a century
    and keep telling them about Jihad and the murder of all
    the unfeightfull who are responsible for their pathetic
    misrable lives.

    The only potentialy successfull way of dealing with these
    people and nations is just puting a wall between them and
    yourself because any contact or intervention will be interpreted
    as a negative sign and call for more violence. The problem
    is that even after you put a "wall" they'll still want
    to get you and hurt you, but that's the optimal solution -
    the same way you deal with drug addicts and drunks - lock'em
    up and wait long enough. Too bad, but true.

    Peace and long life.
     
  8. Jul 2, 2003 #7
    Ha! Touchet.
    I never said it did! Did you read anything? Clinton had the same approach to the situation: pressure the Israelis to withdraw. It was a failure then as it is now.
    More appeasement. More capitulation to terrorists. Jihad seems to have won.
    There was definitely a cease fire. I'm not contradicting you that there was also a Jihad ;)
     
  9. Jul 3, 2003 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What failed then and what failed now? Then, the Israelis didn't withdraw from anywhere and a new Jihad started. Now, the Israelis withdrew from (among other places) Bethlehem and the Jihad started under Clinton has stopped.

    I'm not seeing any parallels there.

    To me the main difference between then and now is the pledge to create a Palestinian state. AFAIK, no US president or Israeli PM has ever stated an intent to aid in its creation until now. And without a Palestinian state, the Arabs would not consider stopping their terrorism.
    I'm not seeing that at all, Ivan. The US has always had Israel on a leash. Otherwise it would have taken an act of God (no pun intended) to keep Israel out of the 1991 Gulf War. The difference now is the direction we are pulling the leash.

    Once more, I must remain pessimistic about the long term prospects, but what we have seen so far is little short of miraculous (granted though, about all that has happened has been the undoing of the damage Clinton did).
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2003
  10. Jul 3, 2003 #9

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    Israel has given relativly considrable territories to the
    Palestinians in full compliance with all the agreements
    before the current conflict began and despite constant Palestinian
    violationsof these agreements. Their ex-terrorist leaders just
    wanted it all.
    There is a parallel here and it is the fact that the
    Palestinians so far have violated every single agreement they've
    ever signed with Israel and they're probably about to do so
    now too(in fact, in strict terms they have already since there
    were attacks carried out since the declaration a few days ago).
    You appear to not understand the problems in this situation.
    If the Palestinians wanted to proclaim a state they could've
    done so many years ago. This is a common misconception - "the
    evil Israel doesn't let us have a state". But, the Palestinians
    do not proclaim their own state because they don't want to.
    First they want to get as much territory, money, Israeli
    infrastructure that today supports them (water, power and so on)
    as possible and then they'll officially proclaim a state.
    Of course, they have internal "differences" of opinion some
    stick to the above reasonable option while many prefer the
    other reasonable option - wage Jihad until there's no Israel
    and them proclaim their state.

    Live long and prosper.
     
  11. Jul 3, 2003 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am not sure about the history here, but to whom did the land now known as Israel belong before 1948?
     
  12. Jul 3, 2003 #11
    Yeah, who was the moron who decided to put Israel in the middle of Arab-owned lands?
     
  13. Jul 3, 2003 #12
  14. Jul 3, 2003 #13
    According to that, the region was under control of Muslims for 1200 years...seems sort of stupid to try to force a Jewish homeland on land that by any logical standard belongs to Arabs...I say we reverse the foolishness and ship all the Israelis back out. Maybe they would like to live in Texas?
     
  15. Jul 3, 2003 #14

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do actually have any knowledge of the Israel-Palestine conflict????

    For astart Israel has been systematically destroying the Palestinian infrstructure and far from supplying them with water has infact been taking water from to supply Israel and the settlements which has left them with a severe water shortage.

    Israel has absolutely no right to be in the West Bank and Gaza it already stole most of the Palestinians land in 1948 and ethnically cleansed many areas. Israel could end this conflict or at least sevrely reduce this by withdrawing to it's 1967 borders but many includong the current Likudist regime believe that the land of the occupied territories belongs Israel.
     
  16. Jul 3, 2003 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'll certainly give you that one.
    Don't get me wrong here, drag - I'm on Israel's side. They are the ones under constant attack from all of their neighbors. And it is certainly true that the *ARABS* could have set up a Palestinian state at any time in the past 50 years rather than perpetuate this war. The difference now is the *US* and *ISRAEL* are going to do it for them. There has never before been such a commitment from the US/Israeli (previous plans had called for giving the land back to Israel's neighbors which would allow THEM to decide what to do with it). I didn't say the US/Israel have been trying to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state.

    The land that will likely become a Palestinian state (if this dice roll pays off) is land that soon after WWII was part of Israel's arab neighbors. And rather than turn that land into a Palestine THEN, the Arabs attacked Israel and Israel took the land in a series of defensive wars. But now the US/Israelis are going to force the Arabs to turn that land into a Palestine.

    The point is, the end result of this peace process if it works will look a lot like what the UN mandated when Israel was created - the Arabs could have avoided all of this had they accepted it 50 years ago.
    jcsd, I sorta hinted at this above, but if the 1967 borders were acceptable to the Arabs, why did they start a war in 1967? Why didn't they instead create a country and call it "Palestine"? Palestine has never existed because the Arabs have never wanted it to exist.
     
  17. Jul 3, 2003 #16

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For a start, it was Israel who started the 1967 war, their claim of pre-emptive action is not completely unjustified but still contentious.

    Why 'the Arabs' didn't create a country is not the subject that can be fitted into one post but more likely an essay entitled: "Israel and Pan-Arabism", in short before 1967 Egypt and Jordan occupied the WB and GS.

    It's to completely misunderstand the Likud party and the settlemnt movement to say that Israel is willing to give back the OTs to the Palestinians, just a couple of years ago Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries offered all the concessions that Israel demanded in return for a withdrawal from the OT, the offer was turned down flat.

    If immigrants came into your country and forced you off your land you'd try to get it back wouldn't you? Don't you think even a return to the 1967 borders Israel are getting by far the better end of the deal as before 1948 Jews in mandate Palestine were only about a third of the population and even then, nearly all of them were recent immigrants.
     
  18. Jul 3, 2003 #17

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    Just a tiny little bit...
    HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! Wait... HA! I got'ta
    breath.... HA ! "Palestinian infrastructure..." HA !
    HA ! HA ! HA ! What's that ? A sand dune ? HA ! HA ! HA !
    Yeah, yeah... And the Bush regime should surrender itself
    to Kadafi or Bin-Laden (if he's alive) so that the world
    could live happily ever after...
    You're right... They should've waited until the Egyptian
    air force was bombing Tel Aviv and the Syrian tank columns
    were entering Haifa...
    Hmm... Maybe they just forgot to put it in the mail box ?

    Any other history lessons ?

    Peace and long life.
     
  19. Jul 3, 2003 #18

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    History major here, I think it's you who are unaware of history or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To assert that the Israelis had helped the Palestiians at all in terms of water rather than diverting it for there own use shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of the issues here.

    So I see you've not actually bothered to refute just posted a rtaher inane and childish response.

    The two main areas of Palestinian infrastructure that have been targeted by the Israelis are agricutltural and commercial with the destruction of 1000s of donums of farmland and the demoliton of Palestian buisnesses.


    So your denying the Saudi Arabia offer hapened I notice and yet you're telling ,me that you have knowledge of this conflict.

    http://www.btselem.org/Download/Policy_of_Destruction_Eng.doc

    http://www.btselem.org/Download/Not_Even_A_Drop-2001.doc

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm
     
  20. Jul 5, 2003 #19

    kat

    User Avatar

    I'm sure you're equally aware that who "started" the 1967 war is equally contentious?
    hmm, can you point out the U.N. resolutions against the jordanian and Egyptian occupation during this period? I'm having an awful time finding them.
    all the concessions? interesting, what type of concessions were they offering to insure Israel's security? and what were they offering in place of ROR?
    You know, this is always an interesting study. I have a real life American parallel for you..
    In the late 1930's during all of the wonderful civil service projects my families homeland (almost 300 acres of farmland in Prince William Co, VA area) was taken in order to build a beautiful park for all to visit, it was touted as an opportunity for the poor blah blah. Basicly what it all amounted to was booting the poor blacks, Irish and the few native americans that had somehow managed to similate off their own land, most of which had been held for at least a hundred or more years for a pittance and often nothing in return. My father and his father and all of the uncles are bitter about this (many bitter right into their own graves) but not once, not ever did they consider suicide attacks against the park patrons. instead they did what the majority of refugees have done and still do, make do, resettle somewhere, anywhere and make the best of it. So, not to tell the palestinians to settle and make do, only to point out it's a **** analogy when comparitively few refugees have been offered re-settlement, ever.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2003
  21. Jul 6, 2003 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes....? Thats my question. Why didn't Egypt and/or Jordan create a "Palestine"? You didn't answer the question.
    Israel started the war? Hitler said the Poles started WWII.... Sorry, but when someone lines tanks up on your border, thats an act of war. Israel may have fired the first shot, but the war was already on.
    Well they can't give land *BACK* to the "Palestinians" because the "Palestinians" have never had any land (like you said - it was Syrian and Jordanian land) - but they have already started giving land *UP* to the "Palestinians."
    What country? There has never been a country called "Palestine." Like you said - it was Syra and Jordan. Why didn't Syria and/or Joran create a "Palestine"? Why does Israel have to? In any case, Israel *IS* going to create one because that is what is needed for peace (I hope).
    I wouldn't even go that far, drag. A figment of one's imagination can't have any infrastructure at all.
    Interesting point, kat - why didn't the UN take any act- harsh language against Egypt an Jordan when they occupied that territory?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: All Map, No Road
  1. To All Canadians! (Replies: 2)

  2. Nice Map Article (Replies: 3)

  3. Silk Road Shutdown (Replies: 7)

Loading...