Is Israel's Sacrifice of Territory for Ceasefire a Triumph for Terrorism?

  • News
  • Thread starter schwarzchildradius
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Map
I agree that most likely want it to just go away, but this seems unlikely. I think that this is a problem that will be passed on from generation to generation. It is an intractable problem. But you are wrong about the fanatics. It is the fanatics who have no solutions that are refusing to let it go. The people I talked to on this flight, and others, all seem to want some kind of a solution. I don't know, but I certainly don't think that we should be helping to make it worse by promoting the deterioration of Israeli power against the Palestinians.In summary, Israel has recently given up control
  • #1
schwarzchildradius
Recently, Israel has sacrificed the town of http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20030701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians [Broken] on the west bank to Palestinians, in exchange for a cease fire that was broken by the Palestinians. Fleeing Israelis destroyed their 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
It was Clinton's plan - appease the Palestinians with land concessions - and it failed to achieve lasting peace, only a long cease-fire.
Actually, when Clinton tried to implement 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.
 
  • #3
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:
  • #4
Greetings !
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Recently, Israel has sacrificed the town of http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20030701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians [Broken] on the west bank to Palestinians, in exchange for a cease fire that was broken by the Palestinians. Fleeing Israelis destroyed their 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.
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.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
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.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Originally posted by drag
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.

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.

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.

This seems to ignore the core issue of the entire Middle East - land disputes.
 
  • #6
Greetings !
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
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.
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.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This seems to ignore the core issue of the entire Middle East -
land disputes.
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.
 
  • #7
I would say that you are biased and ignorant on this
Ha! Touchet.
1. This has nothing to do with Clinton.
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.
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.
More appeasement. More capitulation to terrorists. Jihad seems to have won.
Actually, when Clinton tried to implement a similar plan, the result was a new Jihad, not a cease fire.
There was definitely a cease fire. I'm not contradicting you that there was also a Jihad ;)
 
  • #8
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Clinton had the same approach to the situation: pressure the Israelis to withdraw. It was a failure then as it is now.
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 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'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:
  • #9
Greetings !
Originally posted by russ_watters
What failed then and what failed now? Then, the Israelis didn't withdraw from anywhere and a new Jihad started.
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.
Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm not seeing any parallels there.
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).
Originally posted by russ_watters
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.
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.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by drag
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.

I am not sure about the history here, but to whom did the land now known as Israel belong before 1948?
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I am not sure about the history here, but to whom did the land now known as Israel belong before 1948?

Yeah, who was the moron who decided to put Israel in the middle of Arab-owned lands?
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

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?
 
  • #14
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.

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.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by drag
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).
I'll certainly give you that one.
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.
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.
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.
jcsd, I sort of 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.
 
  • #16
jcsd, I sort of 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.

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.
 
  • #17
Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
Do actually have any knowledge of the Israel-Palestine conflict?
Just a tiny little bit...
Originally posted by jcsd
For astart Israel has been systematically destroying the Palestinian infrstructure ...
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 !
Originally posted by jcsd
Likudist regime
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...
Originally posted by jcsd
For a start, it was Israel who started the 1967 war, their claim of pre-emptive action is not completely unjustified but still contentious.
You're right... They should've waited until the Egyptian
air force was bombing Tel Aviv and the Syrian tank columns
were entering Haifa...
Originally posted by jcsd
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.
Hmm... Maybe they just forgot to put it in the mail box ?

Any other history lessons ?

Peace and long life.
 
  • #18
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 [Broken]

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Originally posted by jcsd
For a start, it was Israel who started the 1967 war, their claim of pre-emptive action is not completely unjustified but still contentious.
I'm sure you're equally aware that who "started" the 1967 war is equally contentious?
Originally posted by jcsd

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.
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.
Originally posted by jcsd

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.
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?
Originally posted by jcsd

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.
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:
  • #20
Originally posted by jcsd
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.
Yes...? Thats my question. Why didn't Egypt and/or Jordan create a "Palestine"? You didn't answer the question.
For a start, it was Israel who started the 1967 war, their claim of pre-emptive action is not completely unjustified but still contentious.
Israel started the war? Hitler said the Poles started WWII... Sorry, but when someone lines tanks up on your border, that's an act of war. Israel may have fired the first shot, but the war was already on.
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
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."
If immigrants came into your country...
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).
The two main areas of Palestinian infrastructure ...
"Palestinian infrastructure..." HA HA ! HA ! HA ! What's that ? A sand dune ?
I wouldn't even go that far, drag. A figment of one's imagination can't have any infrastructure at all.
..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.
Interesting point, kat - why didn't the UN take any act- harsh language against Egypt an Jordan when they occupied that territory?
 
  • #21
Greetings !

Guys/Gals I do not know whether jcsd is indeed a history
major and I do not know whether if he is then he's maybe
a history major from a Muslim country but it is clear
from his adressing of the water issue for one thing that
he does have extensive knowldge on the conflict and that
he is and will use it and twist it to justify his enitially
(without the info) biased opinion. Thus arguing with such a
person is mostly useless which is why I stopped doing that.

BTW, just to refer to his last message which I did not answer:
I was talking about all infrastructure not just water. Besides
even despite the poor amount of water pumped to the Palestinians
and the bad status of the infrastructure - much of which is
there because of Israel in the first place, and the partially
understandable restrictions on wells and exploitation, Israel
still takes action to supply the Palestinians which under the
curcampstance is quite commendable. The water from the Mountain
Aquifier that is partially taken from Palestinian territories
is not that great if you ragard the practical borders rather
than those of 1967, and after all Israel is still in control
as long as the Palestinians don't wise up quit the terror and
get a grip. Some shamefull cases with the water supply are known
but the rest is just a clear result of the security situatation.
Noone will go fix a pump or a tube when he will surely get shot in
the process.

As for the Sauidi intiative I did not deny it, but it was never
seriously offered or considered by all the relevant parties
involved. It was a cheap publicity trick and that's it. Only
someone with complete misunderstanding of the whole issue
(and of the way the Arab mentality works), and you do not
appear to be such a person :wink:, would claim that it was a real initiative that ever had any chance.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #22
I'm a history major from England (I was orginally a physics major but I changed after the first year, long story).

You say there never was such a country as Palestine (well actually there was, but it wasn't independant) but does that mean that someone can just come along and throw the Palestinians off their land because they don't have their own country or deny them basic human rights and attack their infrastructure (btw Israel has never been involved in Palestinian infrastructure, the Palestinians and various aid agencies built it up). The amount of water per settler in the OT is roughly 5 times the amount per Palestinian.

I'm afraid the Saudi initiative was serious, though the Muslim countries did recognise that a Likud government was unlikely to accept it, even though it was pretty much exactly the same as a UN touted peace plan.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by kat
I'm sure you're equally aware that who "started" the 1967 war is equally contentious?
[/B] 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.[/b]

Well Jordan and Egypt claimed to be holding the West Bank and Gaza in trusteeship for the P{alestinians howevre the UN generally recognized territory won in 1948, though not explusion from the territories.
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?

Recognition, co-operation.
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.
Is that anyway analogus? I do not think so. What happened is hundreds of thoudands of peole where forced off their ancestral lands so that foreign immigrants could live there and that an artifical Jewish majority could be maintained in those lands. Where not talking about the building of munmicpal works here. What's more analogous is German policy in the East during the second world war when slavs where thrown off their land so that ethnic Germans could settle there.
 
  • #24
I really do advise people to look more at the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has consistently broken Un resolutions and has keeped what amounts to a third of the population it contols in a state of limbo with no legal rights.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by jcsd
I really do advise people to look more at the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has consistently broken Un resolutions and has keeped what amounts to a third of the population it contols in a state of limbo with no legal rights.

I hate to tell you, but most of the people on this thread are going to support any and every action by Israel, no matter what. Even the crimes of individual Israelis against Palestinians seem to be justified, somehow. If I were you, I would just give up, because they aren't interested in any facts(no even their own), that contradict the false notion that Israel is nearly always in the right.

The fact that Israel was established as a racist state never even occurred to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
Originally posted by jcsd
Well Jordan and Egypt claimed to be holding the West Bank and Gaza in trusteeship for the P{alestinians howevre the UN generally recognized territory won in 1948, though not explusion from the territories.
could you expand on this a bit? I'd like to be sure that I'm fully understanding your statement.

Originally posted by jcsd

Recognition, co-operation.

You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"? and Again, I ask you, what was the initiatives resolution to ROR?



Originally posted by jcsd

Is that anyway analogus? I do not think so. What happened is hundreds of thoudands of peole where forced off their ancestral lands so that foreign immigrants could live there and that an artifical Jewish majority could be maintained in those lands. Where not talking about the building of munmicpal works here. What's more analogous is German policy in the East during the second world war when slavs where thrown off their land so that ethnic Germans could settle there.

I think the loss of homeland is an apt comparision, unless you somehow equate a Palistinian Arabs loss as greater then that of Southern United states blacks and a handful of Irish-Cherokee descendants who had lived on the same miles upon miles of land for generations, my cherokee gr-grandmother on the land of her ancestors and all that being removed AGAIN would entail. IF you wish to make that irrelevant in the debate fine...
I can put that aside,
BUT during the same decade as that which gave birth to the palestinian-arab refugees hundreds of thousands of Jews who survived the holocaust were put into refugee camps and finally resettled elsewhere, (some to Israel but many to other areas as well) they were not returned. The complete German speaking population of Czechoslavakia was expelled, and sent to Germany. They were not returned to Czechoslavakia. Millions of Hindus left what became Pakistan and were resettled in India, and millions of Muslims left India and were resettled in Pakistan/Bangladesh. People were also displaced by governemnt actions in China and Russia in that decade, and the overwhelming majority were resettled, not returned. Overall, of all the millions of human beings who lost their homes as a result of the conflicts in the 40s, as far as I can tell, only a very small minority were able to ever return to their original villages.


As for future dialogue it is IMO better to leave WW2 analogies on the side as there are lots of examples of war time occupations that have nothing to do with germans and nazis. By using other examples there is a greater chance of lowering the level of animosity in replies and keeping the conversation civil.
 
  • #27
The ROR was to be dealt with under resolution 242, but would of probably of been reliquinshed (the phrase was "a fair settlement").

So it's ok for the Israelis to say "you can't live here because your an Arab", in the exam[ple you mentioned you were talking about the displacements of minorities, not the displacement of the majority.

Yes Zero that's what I hate the slavish support of Israel even to go as far as supporting ethnic cleansing, particularly when only a patchy knowledge of the conflict is possesed.

Lebensraum is exactly analogous as it is the settlemnt and the displacemnt of the majority by the minority in order to rebuild some real or imagined homeland.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Zero
I hate to tell you, but most of the people on this thread are going to support any and every action by Israel, no matter what. Even the crimes of individual Israelis against Palestinians seem to be justified, somehow. If I were you, I would just give up, because they aren't interested in any facts(no even their own), that contradict the false notion that Israel is nearly always in the right.

The fact that Israel was established as a racists state never even occurs to them.

I'm quite sure that I can speak for all of the people on this forum when I thank you for your absolutely unbiased and thought provoking comments, Mr. mentor. It is an absolute gift to have someone guiding this thread, nay, this forum, with such thought provoking comments as put forth by yourself. I applaud you and all of your "factually" based comments and your obvious support of open and productive, civil discourse. I'm equally grateful for you uncanny ability to read all of our minds, unite us together in one collective unit and aptly identify all of our faults and weaknesses! Thank you, thank you!
 
  • #29
Originally posted by kat
I'm quite sure that I can speak for all of the people on this forum when I thank you for your absolutely unbiased and thought provoking comments, Mr. mentor. It is an absolute gift to have someone guiding this thread, nay, this forum, with such thought provoking comments as put forth by yourself. I applaud you and all of your "factually" based comments and your obvious support of open and productive, civil discourse. I'm equally grateful for you uncanny ability to read all of our minds, unite us together in one collective unit and aptly identify all of our faults and weaknesses! Thank you, thank you!

All part of the service, me pointing out your blind spots when it comes to Israel. You guys are so insightful otherwise.

Oh, and those shoes don't match your outfit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Originally posted by Zero
All part of the service, me pointing out your blind spots when it comes to Israel. You guys are so insightful otherwise.

Oh, and those shoes don't match your outfit.

There would likely be less blind spots if you were to find occasion to back your statements up with more facts and references and less vitriolic hyperbole. FZ does a great job of interacting in civil discourse, he even occasionally changes my opinion on this topic as well as a few others, maybe you should consult with him on occasion. At any rate, I believe it is often less about being "right" and more often about an exchange of ideas. Civil discourse vs. hyperbole has a greater chance of allowing for productive exchanges.

Oh, btw, you need to have your eyes checked sweetie, a T, barefeet and polished toes are a natural match.:wink:
 
  • #31
Originally posted by kat
There would likely be less blind spots if you were to find occasion to back your statements up with more facts and references and less vitriolic hyperbole. FZ does a great job of interacting in civil discourse, he even occasionally changes my opinion on this topic as well as a few others, maybe you should consult with him on occasion. At any rate, I believe it is often less about being "right" and more often about an exchange of ideas. Civil discourse vs. hyperbole has a greater chance of allowing for productive exchanges.

Oh, btw, you need to have your eyes checked sweetie, a T, barefeet and polished toes are a natural match.:wink:

Yeah, I was a little over the top. Continue.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by jcsd
The ROR was to be dealt with under resolution 242, but would of probably of been reliquinshed (the phrase was "a fair settlement").
Well, my memory has "a fair settlement" being mentioned on the one side and mention of ROR on the other, but surely you don't equate this ambigious statement "fair settlement" as a resolution to ROR and "covering all the concessions" Israel was looking for?

and once more I will ask you,
"You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"?'

Originally posted by jcsd

So it's ok for the Israelis to say "you can't live here because your an Arab", in the exam[ple you mentioned you were talking about the displacements of minorities, not the displacement of the majority.
If you want to ask this in a less simplistic manner, recognizing the nuances of the various situations I might be inclined to answer it. Arab's do live in Israel, as active members of the government and with full voting rights, so your question is an intentional "set up" I'm not buying into.

Originally posted by jcsd

Lebensraum is exactly analogous as it is the settlemnt and the displacemnt of the majority by the minority in order to rebuild some real or imagined homeland.

Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO


Bah, I've run out of time. I will get back to you on this later.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by kat
Well, my memory has "a fair settlement" being mentioned on the one side and mention of ROR on the other, but surely you don't equate this ambigious statement "fair settlement" as a resolution to ROR and "covering all the concessions" Israel was looking for?

and once more I will ask you,
"You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"?'

If you want to ask this in a less simplistic manner, recognizing the nuances of the various situations I might be inclined to answer it. Arab's do live in Israel, as active members of the government and with full voting rights, so your question is an intentional "set up" I'm not buying into.



Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO


Bah, I've run out of time. I will get back to you on this later. [/B]

What other concessions do you expect them to make, conceding Israel's right to the pre-1967 land is a huge concession.

I am well aware of the Israeli constitutional situation in Israel (though Israeli citizen Arabs are subject to quite a lot of discrimanation and racism including laws targetted against them), I was referring to the fact israel has ruled over the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories for 35 years yet they have absolutely no rights.

The situation is analogous and is the only historical analogy I can tjink of, just because the perpetrators are Israeli doesn't make it right.
 
  • #34
Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
You say there never was such a country as Palestine (well actually there was, but it wasn't independant) but does that mean that someone can just come along and throw the Palestinians off their land because they don't have their own country or deny them basic human rights and attack their infrastructure
That is a lie. They were not thrown off their land, they did
have their own country for a very short while (on paper, at least)
they are not denied basic human rights and their infrastructure
is not attacked unless you mean their terrorist government
lead by Yaser Arafat, until now.
Originally posted by jcsd
I'm afraid the Saudi initiative was serious, though the Muslim countries did recognise that a Likud government was unlikely to accept it, even though it was pretty much exactly the same as a UN touted peace plan.
That is also a lie. Anyone with as considrable knowledge
as you appear to have should know that NEVER would a leading
Israeli political party and its government (whatever that
party is Likud/Labour) accept such an initiative. Which is
of course due the simple fact that Israel is a democratic
country and the majority of Israelis will NEVER support a
full retreat to the 1967 borders under current conditions.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by jcsd
(though Israeli citizen Arabs are subject to quite a lot of discrimanation and racism including laws targetted against them),
That is a lie. There are no discriminating laws, there are
laws that are there for security reasons. You could call some
of them discriminating but that is a clear mistake and
ignores the reasons for these laws. If you had citizens inside
your country who don't want it, you wouldn't let them serve
in the military force that defends it or allow them access to
secret military installations. Since security means people's lives
I'd regard this as a lot less racial than for example immigration
laws in western countries which exist for political and economical
reasons.
Originally posted by jcsd
I was referring to the fact israel has ruled over the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories for 35 years yet they have absolutely no rights.
They granted basic human rights. Some violations may exist
when it comes to legal and government situation, but then
again, it's not like there's an alternative until the Palestinians
are ready to co-exist with Israel and form a reasonable
government that will not nagotiate through murder.
Originally posted by jcsd
The situation is analogous and is the only historical analogy I can think of, just because the perpetrators are Israeli doesn't make it right.
Well your analogy sucks. Which is probably also an indication
of the one who made it. Purhaps there weren't enough suicide
bombers blowing up on the streets of your country recently.
Not to mention what countries like the US or UK would do
if that happened.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top