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

News What Israel wants?

  1. Mar 14, 2006 #1
    This morning the Israeli attacked a Palestinian jail (under UK/USA controll)and killed a policeman and prisoner. Their goal is to arrest or to kill one of the prisoners who is a member in the Palestinian parliament.

    According to a previous agreement, this jail is put under the control of USA/UK to watch those prisoners … but the American and British left the jail few hours before the Israeli attack!!

    Is that means no respect for any international agreements? What is the crime of the policemen and the other prisoners to be killed?

    The most important question:

    Who started the violence after more than a year of ceasefire!!
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 14, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Do you have any refs?

    I've seriously been wondering if people (on both sides) really want peace?
    If the answer is positive, how come they have chosen the governments they have?
  4. Mar 14, 2006 #3
    Here is a reference

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3722003.html [Broken]

    Palestinian elected in 1996 a goverment which wanted peace. They recognized Israel, but Israel did not recognize Palestine, instead they built more settlements, stole more land and destroyed the infrastructure....
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  5. Mar 14, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thanks for the link. The news are also in Swedish newspapers by now.

    I know what pain and destruction Israel has caused the palistinian people, but electing Hamas...that's just rediculus...like giving up all hope for peace...

    According to Swedish newspapers they had warned long time ago that they would leave if their security wasn't improved. It's not like they left without warning...
    They also claim they didn't know anything about that Israel was planning an attack.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  6. Mar 14, 2006 #5
    There is an agreement between PA, Israel, UK and USA in 2002: Those people will stay in the jail, and Israel promised not to harm them. One of them is the leader of Palestinian Public Front (nationalist-left).

    In 2001, Israel assassinated the leader of this organization, so they revenged by killing the Israeli Minister of tourism (extreme right wing). As intermediate solution, PA accepted to put the new leader of this organization in the jail under USA/UK control.

    Even the Palestinian Christian gave their votes to Hamas … simply because Israel did nothing since Oslo agreement except bringing of 1 million Russian Jews and building 200 settlements on 60% of WB. They jailed Arafat in his office until his death.

    According to Oslo agreement, Palestine will be Independence State in 1998, but this never happen because of the death of Rabin and the rise of the Israeli extreme right wing in 1996.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2006
  7. Mar 14, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Sure, but if the Americans and British feared for palestinian extremists, and asked for better security from the Palistinian government but didn't get it, I can understand they wanted to leave.

    Do Palestinians actually think the situation will become better with Hamas in power? I do not see the logic?
    Both sides just seem to be filled with hate...
  8. Mar 14, 2006 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The interim PM of Israel is continuing the unilateral pullout from the occupied territories in an effort to pin-down the borders by 2010. That's breathtakingly generous of them considering the recent advance of terrorism to public policy for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people are soon going to get that homeland they have been fighting for generations to avoid.
  9. Mar 14, 2006 #8


    User Avatar

    Have you ever given any thought as to why Israel decided to pull out of the Gaza Strip? Do you really think Ariel Sharon was the kind of man to make
    unilateral moves just to be nice?? :rolleyes:

    Israel was worried about the high Arab population in the strip and the higher birthrate amongst the Palestinians and feared losing overall control of Israel through the ballot box.
  10. Mar 14, 2006 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm one of those cynics who doesn't think anyone ever does anything just to be nice. Certainly it is to Israel's benefit to establish permanent borders. But that doesn't make it any less generous to force the Palestinians to have what they've always said they wanted.
  11. Mar 14, 2006 #10
    We want 22% of Palestine (Gaza and WB) according to the UN resolutions, also we want to let our refugees to return back to their houses ... are you sure Israel accepted that? Did you look on the map before arguing about the generous Israeli withdrawal?

    Is there any State in this world without border and constituent except Israel?

    Israel will determine its ultimate borders in 2010, who knows where these borders will exist?
  12. Mar 14, 2006 #11
    I thought the main reason he gave up the strip was so that he could take the better part of the land and keep that for Israel.
  13. Mar 17, 2006 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    This morning, I heard an interview with Ambassador Arye Mekel, Consul General of Israel, who elucidated the issue with the attack on the jail in Jerico.

    On October 17, 2001, Israeli Minister of Tourism Rechavam Ze'evy was assassinated and members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a faction of Arafat's PLO, took responsibility for the murder. Upon its successful election to power, Hamas promised to release the two men who were being held in the jail, under surveillance of US and British auditors, because Israel did not trust the Palestinian Authority to keep these two in jail. Ostensibly they were in jail because they were guilty of the murder. So, Israel decided to arrest these two who are now on trial in Israel for the murder.

    As for what Israel wants. According to Mekel, Israel wants peace and peaceful coexistence with neighboring Arab peoples and states. That simple!
  14. Mar 17, 2006 #13
    I dont doubt that, but they seem to have no clue how to go about getting peace!
  15. Mar 18, 2006 #14
    Come on now there is no need to lie.
    All your comments are incredibly biased and are obviously fueled by hatred and it amazes me that you will blindly make these comments. I truly believe that there will never be any peace between Israel and Palestine. There happens to be this constant presence of intense underlying hatred that both sides attempt to mask in the public that will never cease. I'm well aware that there are people on both sides that want peace, but I strongly doubt that those people are a part of the present governments and they certainly don't represent the majority. Also your comments seem to extend to Israeli people as whole rather than a specific attack on the government.

    I'm absolutely gobsmacked at your comments, which make it seem that the Palestinians (along with Arafat) are poor innocent victims. Both sides are guilty of some 'dodgy' actions to say the least. Arafat was by no means a great leader and he certainly did not want peace with Israel. I will refrain from presenting my opinions on him because I don't particularly want to initiate the pointless exchanging of insults that would most likely occur as a result.

    To tell you the honest truth my sympathies lie with Israel. For Israelis to have to defend themselves against attacks from arabs of various surrounding nations (from the Arab League) is quite something. Especially after the mass persecution in Europe. The arab nations of the Arab League were quite intolerant when it came to accepting a reasonable proposal from the United Nations to divide Palestine (previously under British control) into two states. Before you say how it was Palestinian land and that they had the right to be mad about it, I want you to realise that people that want peace don't usually mount an alliance to exterminate the Jewish population that "stole" their land. While I say that my sympathies lie with Israel I don't want you to mistake that as "I'm against Palestinians" because I am most certainly not. I'm also aware that small groups of Israelis and Palestinians are working together for the sake of achieving peace, but again this is a minority unfortunately.

    I mainly thought to reply to this thread because I want you to realise that your comments come across as extremely biased, and you seem to sugarcoat all Palestinian actions rather than accept that both sides have been at fault in some cases.

    If this was out of line (in terms of the PF guidelines) I apologise, but I do get a bit shirty when I read, what I perceive to be, incredibly biased and false accusations. Also, I apologise if I have completely misinterpreted your statements Bilal, but that is how it looked to me.

    These comments are all based on my readings of the history of Israel and Palestine and I want to emphasize that I know some books that I've read have been incredibly biased in favour of the Jewish. However, out of all the books I've read from "racially detached and objective" authors tend to support the above views. If you have any other literature from "objective" authors that are strongly against these views I'd appreciate the references.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Mar 18, 2006 #15
    He is born and raised in palestine, he does not need to 'read' about it. :wink: :smile:
  17. Mar 18, 2006 #16
    Yes, he is born and raised in Palestine...how astute of you. :smile:
    I'm sure he'd know of books about the history even if he didn't have to read them :wink:

    But even so I'd say he should be looking to a large variety of literature that documents the history from various perspectives to have an idea of the other side of the story. I was born and raised in South Africa and what is taught in Afrikaans schools of the Boer war (in some cases) is a great exaggeration of the facts, and in some cases, there are omissions of disgraceful events. Same would go for some British accounts of actions by the British military. So all you can do is vary your sources of information and make your own decision on the events, and even then, they will be inaccurate in some details.
  18. Mar 18, 2006 #17
    You call him bias and a lier, then you come out with statements like "I want to emphasize that I know some books that I've read have been incredibly biased in favour of the Jewish"

    Although you are way off base with you whole post, I dont think I will bother responding as the contridictions throughout your post are easy for anyone to see...
  19. Mar 18, 2006 #18
    yeah, sorry about the lie thing...it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek statement showing that i disagreed with his comments.

    There are some contradictions in my post, but the point of my reply was to point out that everyone is biased so there is no point in trying to pass it off as the absolute truth. At the end of my post I tried to indicate that my views expressed were based on my readings and that I know in some places it will be biased.

    Also I did write it over a bit of time, and therefore the beginning of my post was the more irrational and incoherent response to Bilal's posts, while towards the end I was trying to understand that he had reasons for his views and was trying to show him my reasons for my views.

    You may say that the whole post was incoherent and, upon review, I'd agree to a certain extent, however I feel you can still identify the general point of the reply.
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2006
  20. Mar 18, 2006 #19
    Peoples on both sides of the situation hold deeply rooted religious beliefs about their "right" to the lands in question. While publicly proclaiming to want peace, both sides want peace on their terms at the expense of the other.

    Sadly, my own belief is that there will not be lasting peace in the region.
  21. Mar 18, 2006 #20
    I personally think the best solution is one state solution, since by then any violence will be resisted by police, and one army protect all. By looking at history, the region from River Jordan will the Mediterranian Sea was most stable when it was under the role of one goverment. Such as Kingdom of Israel, or Ottomans ..etc

    Regarding what Israel wants, i can see by refusing to accept UN peace forces [hope terminology is right] there an implicit agenda to not respect the international law there.

    and in an expilict sense, to continue unjustified violence on a state level against humans without state, by the excuse of unjustified actions by some of them. However, that excuse is not justified as well.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook