Problems began with Israel.

  • News
  • Thread starter tumor
  • Start date
  • #71
russ_watters
Mentor
21,853
8,816
jcsd said:
Remeber it is the Israreli army that are doing the most to endanger the lievs of Palestian civlains not Palestian miltants.
To some extent, the Israelis are faced with the same choice as the militants: fight or not fight. Since not fighting means not protecting their civilians from terrorism, the decision is a fairly easy one. The decision on where to fight is made by the militants, so its the militants who are responsible for the civilian deaths in the camps. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but thats the way it works. The same applied in Iraq to Saddam garrisoning troops in civilian areas: and he's going to answer for that.
One of the main problem is that the Palestians have little option on how they can fight the Israelis
You makes your choices and accepts your consequences. If the terrorists are ok with being terrorists (and clearly they are), then they are going to have to accept the consequences. One of those consequences is the possibility of a war crimes tribunal.
and with the exception of Labor in the nineties no Isreali government has ever been willing to consider peace.
That is, of course, absurd - obviously, the one and only reason the Israelis are fighting is because they want the constant terrorists attacks to end: peace is their only goal. Contrast that with the goals of the terrorists: 1. establish a Palestinian state. 2. Kill all the Jews. Clearly, #2 is the overriding goal, as they had #1 given to them and chose #2 instead. Decades of failure at both is starting to change some attitudes though...
Again you prove my point IT IS IGNORANCE, Israel refused to allow Hamas to be involvedint he peace process in anyway during those talks, howvere the PA for their part negoiated a semi-ceasefire with Hamas (in which they agreed not to attack civilian targets in Israel) which Israel refused to recognize officially (though itdid scale back operatins aginst Hamas). However Hamas ended the ceasefire after a Hamas student leader was shot in the back whilst in the custody of the Israeli border police.
Its a bit like the IRA and Sinn Fein - it is perfectly legitimate to not ever deal directly with terrorists, and it is also perfectly legitimate to deal with the political wing only when the political wing shows they can speak for/have authority over the terrorists. The Palestinians are choosing to play that game, not the Israelis: if Hamas ever became civilized, they themselves would be invited to the neotiating table. Its a catch-22 and the terrorists are, by their on choices, on the short end of it.
Isreal though has tried to destroy the PA rather than allow it to be in a psotion where it can meet Israeli demands. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that...
Why should Israel believe that the PA has either the desire or the ability o do that? When have they ever demonstrated it in the past?
But the point is that Sharon, from the very beginning has always tried to undermine the PA, they were certaintly the authority in palestine, but mainly due to the efforts of Israel that is not hte case anymore (you have to rember that Sharon has always been against negoitaing with Palestians and even to get him into the roadmap which he paid only lip service to from the start took major diplomatic pressure from the US who at the time he accused of 'appeasing terror')
Sharon is a hard-liner, its true - but he's justified in being demanding to people that are killing his civilians on a virtually daily basis. His lack of trust to people who have never shown that they are worthy of trust is quite understandable.
The Palestians do not trust Israel either, so there must be some sort of bilateral movemnt rather than putting the expectaions on the Palestians who after all are more sinnined agianst than sinners.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Who'se fault is it? Is it the people who are blowing up busses full of civilians who are more at fault, or the people who are defending themselves against this terrorism who are at fault? Remember, if the Arabs hadn't chosen this path, we wouldn't be on it.

Until the Arabs recognize that killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is wrong, there won't be an end to this conflict.
The PA has many problems, but it certainly was not a front for terroirst (though it certainl does have mebers involved in miltant organistaions),
That's self-contradictory.

I'll drop the Hebron issue - I must admit you know more of the history than I do. But I still think (as kat showed), you're only reading half the history. People of different races, ethnicities, religions live side-by-side in cities all over the US and the civilized world. Why not in the middle-east? Why does the presence of a Jew (or a Christian, for that matter) near an arab require the arab to kill the Jew?
 
Last edited:
  • #72
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
russ_watters said:
To some extent, the Israelis are faced with the same choice as the militants: fight or not fight. Since not fighting means not protecting their civilians from terrorism, the decision is a fairly easy one.
So what should the Palestinians do? They have a stae that refuses to negoiate with them, kills it's civilains destoys their homes and steals their land. Anyone in this situation would fight back.

The decision on where to fight is made by the militants, so its the militants who are responsible for the civilian deaths in the camps.

Hardly, it is the Israeli army who come into these areas to fight, also you seem completly unconcerned by the complete disregard of civilain life shown by the Israeli army or that many of the civlians killed were not even killed during opertaions agianst milatnts but during protests.


I'm sorry if you don't like it, but thats the way it works. The same applied in Iraq to Saddam garrisoning troops in civilian areas: and he's going to answer for that. You makes your choices and accepts your consequences.
Rubbish you say it is that way because you say it is that way. You are seeming to give Israel a carte blanche to commit atrocities.

If the terrorists are ok with being terrorists (and clearly they are), then they are going to have to accept the consequences. One of those consequences is the possibility of a war crimes tribunal.
While of course Israel should suffer no consequences for it's actions :uhh:
That is, of course, absurd - obviously, the one and only reason the Israelis are fighting is because they want the constant terrorists attacks to end: peace is their only goal.
Again rubbish what do you think those settlemnts are there for? why do you think that they are perfectly happy to abandon Gaza which is the main base of the milinats yet not move out of the West Bank?
Contrast that with the goals of the terrorists: 1. establish a Palestinian state. 2. Kill all the Jews. Clearly, #2 is the overriding goal, as they had #1 given to them and chose #2 instead.

Israel did not offer a fair deal, you cannot expect them, just to take any dela whether it is fair or not. infact the dela did not even end the occupation entirely. I see you have choosen to repeat the propaganda of the Israeli extreme right i.e. " they wnat to kill all Jews", thsat is simply unfounded nonasense to obsecure thereal cause of the conflict.

Decades of failure at both is starting to change some attitudes though... Its a bit like the IRA and Sinn Fein - it is perfectly legitimate to not ever deal directly with terrorists, and it is also perfectly legitimate to deal with the political wing only when the political wing shows they can speak for/have authority over the terrorists.[.quote]
The PAlestians have many, many legitamte grievances against isarel and the behaviour of the IDf has hardly been any better than the terrorist groups. You cannot expect peace when you refuse tp negoiate.
The Palestinians are choosing to play that game, not the Israelis: if Hamas ever became civilized, they themselves would be invited to the neotiating table. Its a catch-22 and the terrorists are, by their on choices, on the short end of it. Why should Israel believe that the PA has either the desire or the ability o do that? When have they ever demonstrated it in the past?

You have to rmeber that Israel also has nnevr shown any desire for peace, so unles some trust can built there never will be peace.
Sharon is a hard-liner, its true - but he's justified in being demanding to people that are killing his civilians on a virtually daily basis. His lack of trust to people who have never shown that they are worthy of trust is quite understandable.
comapre the staistics: this year for every single Israel civilain killed by a Palestian (49) the IDF has killed two Palestina children (112 children killed by the IDf inbetween jan and sept this year), it's completely dispropotionate, you simply cannot compare what the IDF are doing to the PAlestians to what Palestian terorist have done to Israel.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Who'se fault is it? Is it the people who are blowing up busses full of civilians who are more at fault, or the people who are defending themselves against this terrorism who are at fault? Remember, if the Arabs hadn't chosen this path, we wouldn't be on it.

Israel has also made it's choices, but what other paths were avaiable to the Arabs, consideing that Israel has contiunally shown beligenrce anmd has only on rare occasion shown any inetrest in peace.

Until the Arabs recognize that killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is wrong, there won't be an end to this conflict.

So why is killing Israel civlians worse than killing Arab civilains?


That's self-contradictory.

No it isn't the PA does not function as a moutpice for the miltants its a simp,e as that.
 
  • #73
kat
39
0
jcsd said:
The previous settlemnt arrived in the 1830's and left in the 1920's during the race riot (after the Hebron massacre) , the latest settlemnt started in 1967, the vast majority of these settlers had absolutekly no connection with the previous ettlemnt (as evinced by the fact that the previus settelers were Mizari whereas the current settlemnt is predomiantely Ashkenazi immigrants, many from the US).

jcsd, your history needs some revision (or maybe that's the issue and it needs to be UN-revised) Lets start with the return of the Jewish community upon Mamelukes' conquest of the city in 1260 where they lived until the Ottoman Turks' conquest of the city in 1517 when there were violent pogroms which included deaths, rapes, and robbing/destruction of Jewish homes. The Jews that survived fled to Beirut until 1533 when they then returned to rebuild their community.

Despite the progoms of 1517, and the poverty of the Jewish community (not to mention a disabling plague in 1619) the Jewish community in Hebron continued to grow and in 1540 a group of Jewish exiles from Spain purchased the site of the "Court of the Jews" and built the Avraham Avinu synagogue.

During the Turkish period of 1517 thru 1917, groups of Jews from other parts of Israel as well as the Diaspora moved to Hebron and joined the existing community. The city became a world renowned "rabbinic center".

Then, violence struck the Hebron Jewish community again when they suffered from a "blood libel" in 1776. The Jews were falsely accused of murdering the son of a sheikh and the jewish community was made to pay a huge fine which increased poverty and decreased their economic standing. In spite of its poverty the Jewish community still managed in 1807 to purchase the lot where the city's wholesale market stands today and then again in 1811 over 200 acres of land were purchased for the cemetery. By about 1817 the Jewish community numbered around 500, and by 1838, it had grown to about 700, DESPITE the pogrom which took place in 1834 as a result of Mohammed's rebellion against the Ottomans.


In 1870, a rich Turkish Jew moved to Hebron and purchased a plot of land and built the "Beit Romano". The Beit Romano later held a synagogue until it was taken over by the Turks. During the Mandatory period of the british occupation the building was held by the British as a police station and court house.

In 1893 Beit Hadassah was built by the Hebron Jewish community as a clinic, and a second floor was added in 1909. The Hadassah organization helped pay the salaries of the medical staff, which served both Jews and Arabs.

During World War I before the British occupation the Jewish community lived under the Turkish administration and their young men were forced into the Turkish army. When the British occupied in 1918 the Hebron Jewish community had been reduced to under 500 people. Under the occupation of the British the populaiton began to recover and in 1925, Rabbi Mordechai Epstein established a new yeshiva. By 1929, the population had returned to about 700.

Then in August of 1929 local Arabs absolutely devastated Hebrons Jewish community through a large-scale, organized, pogrom.

Of the 67 victims 23 had been murdered in one house alone and then dismembered by the arabs. The surviving Jews fled to Jerusalem. There were heroic Arabs during this period such as Haj Issa who hid almost 3 dozen jews in his basement to protect them from rioting mobs.
In 1931 thirty one Jewish families returned to Hebron and reestablished their community. Then again, as a result of rising tenstions and afraid of another Arab massacre of Jews in April 1936 the British evacuated Jews from their homes in the community.

In 1948, with the invasion by Arab armies Hebron was captured and occupied by the Jordanians and until 1967, Jews were not permitted to live in the city, or despite the Armistice Agreement visit or pray at the Jewish holy sites in the city.
 
  • #74
MiGUi
168
0
We have to do something to blow muslims from the map. Its they or us.
 
  • #75
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
kat said:
jcsd, your history needs some revision (or maybe that's the issue and it needs to be UN-revised) Lets start with the return of the Jewish community upon Mamelukes' conquest of the city in 1260 where they lived until the Ottoman Turks' conquest of the city in 1517 when there were violent pogroms which included deaths, rapes, and robbing/destruction of Jewish homes. The Jews that survived fled to Beirut until 1533 when they then returned to rebuild their community.

Despite the progoms of 1517, and the poverty of the Jewish community (not to mention a disabling plague in 1619) the Jewish community in Hebron continued to grow and in 1540 a group of Jewish exiles from Spain purchased the site of the "Court of the Jews" and built the Avraham Avinu synagogue.

During the Turkish period of 1517 thru 1917, groups of Jews from other parts of Israel as well as the Diaspora moved to Hebron and joined the existing community. The city became a world renowned "rabbinic center".

Then, violence struck the Hebron Jewish community again when they suffered from a "blood libel" in 1776. The Jews were falsely accused of murdering the son of a sheikh and the jewish community was made to pay a huge fine which increased poverty and decreased their economic standing. In spite of its poverty the Jewish community still managed in 1807 to purchase the lot where the city's wholesale market stands today and then again in 1811 over 200 acres of land were purchased for the cemetery. By about 1817 the Jewish community numbered around 500, and by 1838, it had grown to about 700, DESPITE the pogrom which took place in 1834 as a result of Mohammed's rebellion against the Ottomans.


In 1870, a rich Turkish Jew moved to Hebron and purchased a plot of land and built the "Beit Romano". The Beit Romano later held a synagogue until it was taken over by the Turks. During the Mandatory period of the british occupation the building was held by the British as a police station and court house.

In 1893 Beit Hadassah was built by the Hebron Jewish community as a clinic, and a second floor was added in 1909. The Hadassah organization helped pay the salaries of the medical staff, which served both Jews and Arabs.

During World War I before the British occupation the Jewish community lived under the Turkish administration and their young men were forced into the Turkish army. When the British occupied in 1918 the Hebron Jewish community had been reduced to under 500 people. Under the occupation of the British the populaiton began to recover and in 1925, Rabbi Mordechai Epstein established a new yeshiva. By 1929, the population had returned to about 700.

Then in August of 1929 local Arabs absolutely devastated Hebrons Jewish community through a large-scale, organized, pogrom.

Of the 67 victims 23 had been murdered in one house alone and then dismembered by the arabs. The surviving Jews fled to Jerusalem. There were heroic Arabs during this period such as Haj Issa who hid almost 3 dozen jews in his basement to protect them from rioting mobs.
In 1931 thirty one Jewish families returned to Hebron and reestablished their community. Then again, as a result of rising tenstions and afraid of another Arab massacre of Jews in April 1936 the British evacuated Jews from their homes in the community.

In 1948, with the invasion by Arab armies Hebron was captured and occupied by the Jordanians and until 1967, Jews were not permitted to live in the city, or despite the Armistice Agreement visit or pray at the Jewish holy sites in the city.


I'd like to know wher you get this from, because alot of that is highly contentious to say the least. The crusaders destroyed Hebron's Jewish population when they arrived in the 13th century. After the Crusaders left there wer sevral Jewish settlemnts of Hebron, but there is no evidnce of continious Jewish settlemnt of Hebron throughout this period until the arrival in the 19th century of a Jewish community from what is now the Gaza Strip.

I have to admitt that I didn't know there was small jewish settelmt between 1931 and 1935
 
  • #76
tumor
126
1
MiGUi said:
We have to do something to blow muslims from the map. Its they or us.


Looks to me like in your veins still flows little bit of that reconquista blood.
 
  • #77
kat
39
0
jcsd said:
I'd like to know wher you get this from, because alot of that is highly contentious to say the least. The crusaders destroyed Hebron's Jewish population when they arrived in the 13th century. After the Crusaders left there wer sevral Jewish settlemnts of Hebron, but there is no evidnce of continious Jewish settlemnt of Hebron throughout this period until the arrival in the 19th century of a Jewish community from what is now the Gaza Strip.

I have to admitt that I didn't know there was small jewish settelmt between 1931 and 1935

I actually pulled this off my hard drive, it's something I had put together awhile ago. I believe it came primarily from the discovery channel, pbs, israel myths and facts and the israeli ministry of affairs. I try to use multiple sources to check one another and confirm each other. I'm curious as to what specificly you find "highly contentious"?
 
  • #78
kat
39
0
MiGUi said:
We have to do something to blow muslims from the map. Its they or us.
There's just no room for this type of crap. A majority of muslims just want to live their lives like everyone else, work, raise their famlies and in general get along with their neighbors. I think it'd be far more productive to just blow all of the bigots off the face of the earth and then see if maybe we can all get some peace and quiet for awhile.
 
  • #79
Jenab
Science Advisor
114
0
russ_watters said:
Well, you got one thing right: [almost] All of the trouble in the middle east comes from the arabs' desire to annihilate Israel. A little comes from the corruption that goes with having oil though.
They have reason. The Arabs were living on the land, albeit under the oppression of the Turks, as the 20th century began. Then the British came with WW1, chased away the Turks and made promises to the Arabs in Palestine as well as contrary promises to the Jews in London. Guess which promises were kept? All that has changed, really, is that the USA took over as the Zionists' major backer. The game all along has been Jews push, Arabs fall down. Jews shoot, Arabs throw a few rocks. Jews kill 10 Arabs, 3 of them children, while Arabs kill maybe 1 Jew in reprisal. And when there's an occasional Westerner who gets in the way, as Rachel Corrie and Tab Hurndall did, the Zionist international propaganda machine goes into high gear with lies and distortions.

My impression is that the Arabs are in the moral right. Violent they may be, but I'd be violent too, were I in their place.

Jerry Abbott
 
  • #80
studentx
5
0
Jenab said:
My impression is that the Arabs are in the moral right. Violent they may be, but I'd be violent too, were I in their place.

You would also be violent as an Israeli, confronted with a violent arab. You would kill you wife for cheating on you, your daughter for having premarital intercourse. Hey we can all understand why you'd want to kill them all, but its WRONG.
 
  • #81
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
The game all along has been Jews push, Arabs fall down. Jews shoot, Arabs throw a few rocks.

Really? So you're saying the Arabs never started any wars with Israel? They've mostly been doormats letting Israelis do whatever they want?
 
  • #82
gravenewworld
1,127
25
All 3 arab-israeli wars were either a) started by Israel or b) started by Arab countries in response to Israeli agression. People have an image of Arabs being terrorist because of suicide bombers etc. but what is the difference between a suicide bomber and an israeli tank running over a house? Honestly what the hell gave Israel the right to invade Lebanon and pound Beirut inthe 80's ?
 
  • #83
MiGUi
168
0
tumor said:
Looks to me like in your veins still flows little bit of that reconquista blood.

Hmm, maybe. In 14-15-16th century, here we knew very well how to do with that people. Today maybe not.
 
  • #84
gravenewworld said:
All 3 arab-israeli wars were either a) started by Israel or b) started by Arab countries in response to Israeli agression. People have an image of Arabs being terrorist because of suicide bombers etc. but what is the difference between a suicide bomber and an israeli tank running over a house? Honestly what the hell gave Israel the right to invade Lebanon and pound Beirut inthe 80's ?


Firstly, you are now back tracking, and I am pointing it out. You just changed your original statement. ARAB COUNTRIES HAVE ATTACKED ISRAEL FIRST. Now you add the caveat of "Israeli Aggression", but we'll get back to that flawed hypocritical justification in a second.

To educate you, the reason that Israel invaded Lebanon in the 1980's was, to use YOUR words, ARAB aggression. More specifically the PLO training forces, stationing and stockpiling in Southern Lebanon, and then breaking the 11 month cease fire (the most notable of incidents that resumed fighting being the killing of an Israeli officer).The attempted assasination of Israel's ambassador led to the pounding of Beirut, where the strongholds were. The response to this pounding was shelling of Israeli cities with mortars. Israel then invaded to cut off the artillery and mortar attacks.

You justify the Arab actions, by citing Israeli aggression, but then do not condemn the Arabs for their aggression.

Both sides are in the wrong. I am going to flat out say that ANYONE who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fool. To continually try to justify one side or the other is to ignore the facts, and the possibility of a solution.
 
  • #85
Mirabilia
4
0
Israel should just give up the land the "Arabs" want! Why not?
 
  • #86
Mirabilia said:
Israel should just give up the land the "Arabs" want! Why not?

Sure, that's all the reasoning in the world that is needed.
Guess what, I want Canada to be part of the USA. They should just give it up. Why not?
 
  • #87
kawikdx225
83
0
phatmonky said:
Sure, that's all the reasoning in the world that is needed.
Guess what, I want Canada to be part of the USA. They should just give it up. Why not?

Nooooooooo!!!!!! :cry:
 
  • #88
kawikdx225 said:
Nooooooooo!!!!!! :cry:

Shutup, give us your pountine and Tim Horton's!!!
 
  • #89
kawikdx225
83
0
phatmonky said:
Shutup, give us your pountine and Tim Horton's!!!

The reason I said Noooo is because I'm from the US. lol

Take-off...eh
 
  • #90
russ_watters
Mentor
21,853
8,816
kat, all that is pretty interesting, but I'm mostly concerned with what happened after WWII. I don't think it changes the basic problem though: the Jews are there and the Arabs don't want them there, so the Arabs are (depending on which ones you ask) trying to drive them out or trying to kill them.
 
  • #91
Qyamat
17
0
Oh yaaa i accept what tumor says.It is a state in which the palestinians are desparate and they donot know what to do and the world calls this terrorism but no heed is paid what israili soldiers do. We must see what motivates these palestinians to blow them selves.It is simply the life which they r facing.They think it is better to die like a lion than to stay hiding and act as a jackle.
 
  • #92
russ_watters
Mentor
21,853
8,816
Qyamat said:
They think it is better to die like a lion than to stay hiding and act as a jackle.
There is nothing even remotely honorable about murder.
 
  • #93
Smurf
396
3
Which is why bush should be arrested.
 

Suggested for: Problems began with Israel.

  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
491
Replies
5
Views
223
Replies
1
Views
400
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
476
Replies
99
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
604
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
468
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
381
Top