Israel

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

The reference to 'liebensraum'. It has one very obvious connotation significant to Jews and highly offensive to them, and that's because it is almost exclusively used with reference to the Nazis. I suspect you have never heard of Genghis Khan and Liebensraum, or the Moors and Liebensraum, or current US policy and Liebensraum. One could speak about 'invasions' or 'land grabbing' or used any other phrase to demonise Israeli policy and avoided raising the Nazi issue. Hence I say the word is deliberately used to invoke the massacre of 6 million Jews and to score points.

However Genghis Khan, the Moors and the current US administration have never monopolised the behaviour of the Nazis as a personal political asset. The Mongols never accused people of anti-Semitism when their Khan was criticised and the Moors never sought reparations for the injustices inflicted upon them by Germany.

On the other hand, Israel, as self-appointed representative of Jews everywhere (whether they like it or not), has - and this leaves them morally open to such criticisms. So that when hypocrisy meets irony, we get the satire of Israeli Lebensraum.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

On the other hand, Israel, as self-appointed representative of Jews everywhere (whether they like it or not), has - and this leaves them morally open to such criticisms.

I don't know how true that is. Maybe it has happened, but it's not a constant charge made against the opponents of Israel. I can't remember Sharon or any Israeli leaders throwing the allegation of anti-semitism around at, say, leaders in the UN who pass motions against Israel. Yes it has been (imho incorrectly) used on this thread, but I certainly have not used it, Either way, you must accept that some criticism is based on anti-semitism, though I appreciate that valid criticism can be made completely without reference to it being a pro or anti-Jew thing.

meditraitor

Deleted User wrote:

The reference to 'liebensraum'. It has one very obvious connotation significant to Jews and highly offensive to them, and that's because it is almost exclusively used with reference to the Nazis. I suspect you have never heard of Genghis Khan and Liebensraum, or the Moors and Liebensraum, or current US policy and Liebensraum. One could speak about 'invasions' or 'land grabbing' or used any other phrase to demonise Israeli policy and avoided raising the Nazi issue. Hence I say the word is deliberately used to invoke the massacre of 6 million Jews and to score points. Btw I don't think that makes you a 'twat' at all, I don't even know you, but I know I strongly disagree with your use of that word.

So from my previous posts you have summised and intimated that I am both anti-semetic and ignorant....
I still dont take the Twat reference back , the main reason being

I didnt use the word Liebensraum(probably never typed it before now either), even though I am not ignorant of it,- the original use post 1871 and the bastardised version post 1930,

meditraitor

meditraitor wrote:

So from my previous posts you have summised and intimated that I am both anti-semetic and ignorant....
I still dont take the Twat reference back,

Where do I start?

I have never ever remotely suggested you are anti-semitic. As I repeatedly said, you used a word that is highly offensive to Jews, that's it. If you are going to fake outrage about an accusation I never made, and use those crocodile tears to justify repeatedly abusing me, I think it better to end this one now tbh. When I was younger I would have reacted, but age mellows one...

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

I don't know how true that is. Maybe it has happened, but it's not a constant charge made against the opponents of Israel. I can't remember Sharon or any Israeli leaders throwing the allegation of anti-semitism around at, say, leaders in the UN who pass motions against Israel. Yes it has been (imho incorrectly) used on this thread, but I certainly have not used it,

But it does happen and is used by supporters of the Israeli state on a pretty regular basis and, TBH, if you can’t remember it being used then it’s quite probable that you’re not been paying attention - for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3595958.stm

Either way, you must accept that some criticism is based on anti-semitism,

I accept this is altogether possible as there are certainly people out there with anti-Semitic views. However, how much is as a result of anti-Semitism is open to debate, especially as supporters of present Israeli policy towards the region behave as the proverbial boy who cried wolf on the subject.

though I appreciate that valid criticism can be made completely without reference to it being a pro or anti-Jew thing.

The point is not so much a pro or anti-Jew thing, but when someone uses a political boogieman for political capital and then ends up behaving like that very political boogieman, i.e. hypocrisy.

OK

MOD WARNING

Anymore auto pilot linking in this thread without contributing to the discussion is going to get a Ban.

I'm also not going to tollerate any further posts that are being used as a hit and run Rant.
Posters here can either debate whats here for debate or they can go away.
One or the other.

If that simple instruction is not followable, we can effect it by banning those that ignore it.

And we WILL.

Carry on now folks, more in the style of the last page than the preceding ones-Thank you.

Pazaz 21

I think it is wrong that if you have a criticism of the Israeli State that you are automatically being anti-semitic. I am aware that Israel is a Jewish state but that does not mean that if i have a problem with Israel's treatment of the palestinians that i have a problem with every Jew in the world. One has nothing to do with the other and people who hide behind a false veneer of persecution are only welcoming it. I have no strong viewpoint either way in this disscussion although i do have an avid interest in the middle east. I agree with The Corinthian, that:

It’s a valid observation. To quote Nietzsche (another irony, I know), “do not do battle with monsters lest ye become a monster”, which reminds us that there really is a fine line between opposing and becoming the very people we oppose. Unfortunately, the demonization of the Nazis has only served to create a myth that they were in some way a supernatural evil, as if implying that no one else could ever do anything akin to them. When parallels, such as the Israeli version of Liebensraum are cited, these are often dismissed as simply offensive for this reason.

People usually do become what they hate to defeat it. America attacked Afgahnistan and Iraq in retaliation for terrorist attacks, yet they are "terrorising" innocent people in these countries, acting like barbarians torturing and detaining people.

Just because Jews suffered (and there is no denying that they suffered an enormous and unjustified amount of persecution throughout history) that does not give Isreal a free hand to do what they want, now that they are the ones with the power.

Does anyone not see the Irony of it all?

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

TBH, if you can’t remember it being used then it’s quite probable that you’re not been paying attention - for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3595958.stm

Not sure about that particular link which is a valid attack on growing anti-semitism in France, as opposed to attacking France as anti-semite for criticising Israeli policy. The recent anti-semitic murders of young Jewish males in Paris in pretty shocking stuff.

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Just because Jews suffered (and there is no denying that they suffered an enormous and unjustified amount of persecution throughout history) that does not give Isreal a free hand to do what they want, now that they are the ones with the power.

I completely agree. I'm not asking for Israel be given a carte blanche, merely that we show more restraint in our language regarding one sensitive issue in their history. I mean, one can validly and legitimately print cartoons in Western media showing Muhamed depicted as a terrorist, but it doesn't make it respectful. Similarly, one may argue that the Jews are copying tactics used against them, but use of Nazi symbolism or imagery in making a point about Jews is gratuitous imo - there are other ways of making the exact same point.

Pazaz 21

Deleted User wrote:

Similarly, one may argue that the Jews are copying tactics used against them, but use of Nazi symbolism or imagery in making a point about Jews is gratuitous imo - there are other ways of making the exact same point.

I agree that it may be gratuitous to use such symbolism but i would also think that the fact that Israel is being compared, in certain circumstances, to protraying a certain degree of likeness to Nazi tendencies would shock Israeli's/Jews into perhaps seeing what there are doing in another light. Perhaps comparing them to Nazi's will help them to realise that the situation that they find themselves in with the palestinians is similar to the situation that they would have found themselves in if they had been in Nazi germany in the late 1930's / early 1940's. This realisation may help them to have some empathy with the palestinians rather then be taken in a negative and offensive view.

Pazaz 21

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Perhaps comparing them to Nazi's will help them to realise that the situation that they find themselves in with the palestinians is similar to the situation that they would have found themselves in if they had been in Nazi germany in the late 1930's / early 1940's. This realisation may help them to have some empathy with the palestinians rather then be taken in a negative and offensive view.

Interesting point, hadn't thought about it like that tbh.

Pazaz 21

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Isreal has a peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, so it is not "Keeping them at bay" as you say, it is only fighting terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank and wouldn't you think that the US would have less of a headache in the middle east if Isreal wasn't there?

Peace treaties don't last forever, and both Egypt & Jordan probably have their own resentments for getting beaten by an "inferior" nation.

However.....

You're not looking at the broader picture here. Without Israel the M.east would comprise only of Arab States, all of which have some degree of hostility towards the West. Whether its memories dredged up about the Crusades, British/French/portugese/dutch colonialism in the area, or the Suez canal "crisis". Arab nations don't have a whole lot of love for the West even if Israel had never been settled there (I'm not getting into that subject, since I've argued it to death before).

So with this lack of love for the west, how does that affect the US ability to get Oil? The majority of its imported Oil come from the M.East. Without Israel being there, the US & Europe has no foothold on that region of the world. These Arab Nations refusing to sell the US any oil, would have buckled the US economy at any stage throughout the last 40+ years. (Since they could sell that same oil to China or other Asian countries)

Israel is the only "democracy" in the M.East (debatable I know). Its the only country with any connection to Europe & the US, and provides us with a presence there. What the US are paying to Israel is a small price to pay, to have some sort of insurance should their ability to import oil from there disappear.... (Although now that they've brought democracy to Iraq, and possibly iran in the future, their oil could be secured soon)

..............


One last thing to consider. IF Israel hadn't been there, do you think the Arab countries may have advanced themselves better, no longer needing to focus their attention on the enemy in their midst, but rather focusing on the creation of a power in the M.East? Afterall they do have the worlds most valuable commodity. They're some of the richest nations in the world already, what would have prevented them from pursuing a military objective like Soviet Russia did, while having the monetary resources to support it?

Israel may have prevented the Arab nations from becoming unified and powerful enough to compete with Europe, or the US.

ChityWest

Deleted User wrote:

You're not looking at the broader picture here. Without Israel the M.east would comprise only of Arab States, all of which have some degree of hostility towards the West. Whether its memories dredged up about the Crusades, British/French/portugese/dutch colonialism in the area, or the Suez canal "crisis".

I dont have a problem with a middle east consisting of only arab states and cant imagine why anyone would - anymore than they would have a problem with africa consisting only of african states. It could also be argued that were it not for israel those same arab nations would not be nearly as hostile to the west as some of them appear to be. Its also worth noting that the one issue that tends to be a common thread in criticism of the west is its tacit support of israel.

I just thought I would make that point to try and add some balance (or what I would call balance at least - also debatable).

Deleted User wrote:

So with this lack of love for the west, how does that affect the US ability to get Oil? The majority of its imported Oil come from the M.East. Without Israel being there, the US & Europe has no foothold on that region of the world. These Arab Nations refusing to sell the US any oil, would have buckled the US economy at any stage throughout the last 40+ years. (Since they could sell that same oil to China or other Asian countries)

Considering Israel do not supply oil to anyone - I think its debatable that israel are europe/US's foot hold in the region. It is hard to say whether other relationships would now be in a more advanced condition were it not for israels thorny relationship/history with most of its neighbours.

Deleted User wrote:

Israel is the only "democracy" in the M.East (debatable I know).

Completely agree that thats a debatable one -there are plenty of palestinians who would not consider israel a democratic state. For a start it's immigration laws discriminate on the basis of religon.

Deleted User wrote:

Its the only country with any connection to Europe & the US, and provides us with a presence there. What the US are paying to Israel is a small price to pay, to have some sort of insurance should their ability to import oil from there disappear.... (Although now that they've brought democracy to Iraq, and possibly iran in the future, their oil could be secured soon)

I agree there is a connection there - I honestly dont think that its a beneficial connection fom a european viewpoint. I would not agree that democracy has been brought to iraq - nor would I agree an invasion of iran by western armies would be in the european interest.
..............

Deleted User wrote:

One last thing to consider. IF Israel hadn't been there, do you think the Arab countries may have advanced themselves better, no longer needing to focus their attention on the enemy in their midst, but rather focusing on the creation of a power in the M.East? Afterall they do have the worlds most valuable commodity. They're some of the richest nations in the world already, what would have prevented them from pursuing a military objective like Soviet Russia did, while having the monetary resources to support it?

Israel may have prevented the Arab nations from becoming unified and powerful enough to compete with Europe, or the US.

I have no issue with economic or technological advances made by countries in the middle east (any of them) nor do I agree that they pose a threat of uniting in a CCCP style anti-west alliance. If they wanted to I doubt israel could stop them.

PS I am not sure if this is the correct place to put this next part - ( if mods say it belongs in a seperate thread I will happily remove it )- its from abcnews today - and states that :

JERUSALEM Apr 21, 2006 (AP)— In a growing barrage of Israeli pressure against Hamas, a senior military commander said Israel is actively preparing to reoccupy the Gaza Strip and a powerful lawmaker said the entire Palestinian Cabinet could be targeted for assassination after the appointment of a wanted militant to head a new security force

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1870207&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

* (edit) PPS the reason I add that last link is that it does relate directly to a discussion on israel/palestine - as a lot of the discussion is on or around the historic rights and wrongs so I thought I would add something which is hot off the presses. I think it would be a severely negative development (were it to happen) and would be curious to see if anyone here would be in support of this ? And if so what would their reasoning be for this to be a positive move.

ChityWest

ChityWest wrote:

I dont have a problem with a middle east consisting of only arab states and cant imagine why anyone would - anymore than they would have a problem with africa consisting only of african states. It could also be argued that were it not for israel those same arab nations would not be nearly as hostile to the west as some of them appear to be. Its also worth noting that the one issue that tends to be a common thread in criticism of the west is its tacit support of israel.

I just thought I would make that point to try and add some balance (or what I would call balance at least - also debatable).

Sorry I was introducing a thought I had when i was writing my reply. It wasn't anything definite, but rather an alternative as to if Israel wasn't there. Its funny though that your reply refers to Israel quite a bit, as a balance.

the thing is that I listed three reasons as to why Arab nations mistrust the west. The Crusades is often cited by muslim posters for some of the hatred assigned to the West, as is the colonialism (Britain & Egypt for example) of the Western Nations... There m.east has plenty to pick and chose with why to have issues with the west. Even if you're talking about modern times, we have the Suez Crisis, and now Iraq for them to find fault with the West. We've done more than our fair share to cause distrust for them.

And all this is without mentioning israel's existance.

Considering Israel do not supply oil to anyone - I think its debatable that israel are europe/US's foot hold in the region. It is hard to say whether other relationships would now be in a more advanced condition were it not for israels thorny relationship/history with most of its neighbours.

Nope. they don't and their economy is hardly remarkable. They don't really offer the US or Europe all that much. Actually its not really worth mentioning Europe, since they don';t really try to help Israel. The US then.

But its a territorial foothold. The US started supplying Israel after it had defeated a number of Arab armies. Israel had shown it had the capability to exist, and the US rightly saw the advantage of that. Israel is a favourable ground had the US ever wished to land large amounts of troops for a ground invasion. That to ME is the reason. The US is likely to have different reasons like democracy and all that.

Completely agree that thats a debatable one -there are plenty of palestinians who would not consider israel a democratic state. For a start it's immigration laws discriminate on the basis of religon.

Why do you keep bringing up Palestine? You say you're commenting to keep a balance, but nothing I've posted has boosted Israel in any way. And yet you can't resist throwing in Palestinian issues.....

I agree there is a connection there - I honestly dont think that its a beneficial connection fom a european viewpoint. I would not agree that democracy has been brought to iraq - nor would I agree an invasion of iran by western armies would be in the european interest.

Ditto. I didn't wish to say they actually brought democracy. Just that they kinda forced it on them. I actually agree with all your quote above.

I have no issue with economic or technological advances made by countries in the middle east (any of them) nor do I agree that they pose a threat of uniting in a CCCP style anti-west alliance. If they wanted to I doubt israel could stop them.

It was a far out of reality thought. I forgot I wasn't on after-hours. lol. its been a while since i've been a regular poster here, and I'm rusty.

ChityWest

Deleted User wrote:

the thing is that I listed three reasons as to why Arab nations mistrust the west. The Crusades is often cited by muslim posters for some of the hatred assigned to the West, as is the colonialism (Britain & Egypt for example) of the Western Nations... There m.east has plenty to pick and chose with why to have issues with the west. Even if you're talking about modern times, we have the Suez Crisis, and now Iraq for them to find fault with the West. We've done more than our fair share to cause distrust for them.

I agree the reasons above are often cited but I dont think they would bring up a grievance dating back to medieval times were they not trying to put current events into context and its the current/recent events where their real grievance remains. And that in my opinion has a lot to do with israel and the percieved support it recieves from the west and in particular the united states. The suez canal issue is seen as a victory for the arab states - considering they did get it back and france, uk and israel were to a degree humiliated.

Deleted User wrote:

But its a territorial foothold. The US started supplying Israel after it had defeated a number of Arab armies. Israel had shown it had the capability to exist, and the US rightly saw the advantage of that. Israel is a favourable ground had the US ever wished to land large amounts of troops for a ground invasion. That to ME is the reason. The US is likely to have different reasons like democracy and all that.

I think post cold war the strategic value to the west of israel has decreased (imo). There was a paper published a few weeks ago which goes into detail on the decreasing strategic value - here (as an fyi) is a link to the abbreviated version in the London Review of Books :

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

The reason I include that link is because I found it very informative and happen to agree with pretty much all of it.

Deleted User wrote:

Why do you keep bringing up Palestine? You say you're commenting to keep a balance, but nothing I've posted has boosted Israel in any way. And yet you can't resist throwing in Palestinian issues.....

I think that your post (which was a reply as you mentioned) could probably be described as a 'what if israel didnt exist' type of post - it mentioned what in your view were the benefits which the west would not otherwise have enjoyed - in that respect I think it could be seen as a boost to israel. That was the way I read it at least. The reason my reply to yours mentioned palestine is because its central to a discussion about israel - not every single discussion but this one imo.

Deleted User wrote:

It was a far out of reality thought. I forgot I wasn't on after-hours. lol. its been a while since i've been a regular poster here, and I'm rusty.

I know what you mean ! tell me about it!

Parsley

As a student of german and history i just though i'd point out that the term is lebensraum not liebensraum. The former means living space, the latter means loving space.

The reason palestinians blow themselves up is because most of them have been living in squalid camps for 50 years because refugees' houses were given to foreign jews after the 1948 and '67 wars instead of being returned to the arabs. Living in a ****hole under military occupation, enduring constant humiliation, poverty, squalor and random death leads to quite a different mindset to that which can calmly sit here and say that violent resistance is wrong. It is quite ironic that the ridiculous strength of israel relative to the palestinians does not secure israel but rather ensures that civilians bear the brunt of palestinian resistance.

Sand

The reason palestinians blow themselves up is because most of them have been living in squalid camps for 50 years because refugees' houses were given to foreign jews after the 1948 and '67 wars instead of being returned to the arabs.

Actually its because the refugees and their descendants have been refused citizenship and assorted rights by their host countries. Israel on the other hand integrated its influx of 600,000 jewish refugees. Hence the descendants of those refugees arent living in refugee camps 50 years later, while the Palestinians are denied basic rights by their so called "allies".

Parsley

Are you suggesting that it's all right to evict people without compensation from their homes and just expect them to happily move to another country, and that the other country should just let in a few million more people? The fact is that the refusal to allow the return of refugees, and the subsequent treatment of them, is illegal, immoral and the cause of palestinian terrorism.

It is not the Arabs who are depriving the palestinians of their human rights, most of the camps are on Israeli-occupied territory- Rafah et al. The other Arab countries have pretty much nothing to do with the refugee question.

Parsley

Parsley wrote:

The reason palestinians blow themselves up is because most of them have been living in squalid camps for 50 years because refugees' houses were given to foreign jews after the 1948 and '67 wars instead of being returned to the arabs.

You're conveniently forgetting their losing a war that they helped to create. Its amazing that you can forget the responsibility of the Palestinian people for the situation they created. Had they not been involved in the war, Israel wouldn't have had the opportunity to sieze their land.

And before you talk about Israel's creation, both Israel and Palestine were created by UN mandate. Before that the country of Palestine was British territory and the people were british citizens. I know you're going to try refute that, but thats the reality, no matter how far you want to go back in history.

Living in a ****hole under military occupation, enduring constant humiliation, poverty, squalor and random death leads to quite a different mindset to that which can calmly sit here and say that violent resistance is wrong.

And if you turn the tables, and apply many of those conditions to numerous jewish settlers, we're still aghast at the responses that they've made to Palestinian attacks, and even their general governance of the region. Palestinian resistance isn't noble or just. Its brings about the same repeated violence that Israeli actions do.

I'm not disputing what Israel has done to the Plaestinian people, but on one hand you're justifying 50 years of resistance (which has encouraged harsher responses by Israel) and yet saying that Israel has no reason to act as they do. You really have picked your side to support, haven't you?

It is quite ironic that the ridiculous strength of israel relative to the palestinians does not secure israel but rather ensures that civilians bear the brunt of palestinian resistance.

Not really. The time of being able to pacify a occupied country is long gone. Israel isn't the first to find this out. But if you look at it like that, you might find it ironic that the very futile resistance by Palestinian groups, ensures that Palestinian civilians bear the brunt of Israeli reprisals. :rolleyes:

I know I'm pro-Israel, and yet I'm capable of keeping an open mind of what they do, and how they do it. I wonder are you capable of doing the same regarding Palestine.....

Parsley

Parsley wrote:

Are you suggesting that it's all right to evict people without compensation from their homes and just expect them to happily move to another country, and that the other country should just let in a few million more people? The fact is that the refusal to allow the return of refugees, and the subsequent treatment of them, is illegal, immoral and the cause of palestinian terrorism.

Not really. Israel should have made accomadations in its occupation of palestine to provide adequate housing for Palestinians. The resettlement programs were wrong, and shouldn't have been done. There should have been some move to provide compensation to those people when it had occured, if Israel was that intent on it.

And you're being foolish. The cause of Palestinian terrorism is because of Israeli occupation following the war, and the continuing rhethoric about the destruction of Israel. Have you even noticed that those calls for Israel's destruction have never stopped even at the peace table?

Why the hell should Israel trust a people that wont welcome peace?

It is not the Arabs who are depriving the palestinians of their human rights, most of the camps are on Israeli-occupied territory- Rafah et al. The other Arab countries have pretty much nothing to do with the refugee question.

I think the point that sand was making that while Israel absorbed its own refugees, its arab neighbours failed to do the same for Palestinians.

I can understand though notr wishing to allow Plaestinians free access to the country, when they've vowed to destroy the Israeli People off the face of the land. Kinda hard to support such an allowance when you're not sure they're going to commit attacks once within the borders.

Suff

this is for all:

Please read the following LINK before stating what is Anti-Semetic and whats not!
and this link
and another link
here's one regarding anti-semeticlink
by the way....Arabs are Semetic people so its very silly to accuse them of being anti-semetic!
not all Jews in the world follow and agree with Israel, actually there are a number of protests every year in The USA and within Israel itself organised by Jews demanding the removal of the state of Israel!

clonycavanman

Israel does not 'cherish all the children of the nation equally'.5.0 million jewish israelis rule the country of 9.8 million Palestinians - 5 million of these still live within Palestine and 4.8 million are international refugees demanding their right ( which they have under UN charter) to return to their homes. Israel is a severely gerrymandered state.
The international community has been extremely generous towards the activist dreamers of the Israeli project- but in 1967 when Israel, already in possession of 78% of Palestine occupied the remaining 22% ( the West Bank and Gaza), the international community blew the whistle. Resolution 242 demanded that Israeli forces return to the lines they held in 1966.
Since 1967 Israel has pursued many wrong policies in the West BanK and Gaza, has caused enormous suffering in it's attempts to force out the remaining Palestinians, has fostered enormous bitterness and encountered a desperate resistance.
Mercifully the israeli project in the West Bank is in trouble. Israeli politicians debate with each other which parts of the West Bank they will annex 'permanently', and where and in what conditions , they will allow Palestinians to live. But no right has been given to Israel to make these decisions. None of Israel's neighbours support these policies.

LordSutch

I spent a whole year in Israel and I sympathise 100% with the Israelis cause and the right to survive ie: constant threat of Bus bombing, Cafe bombing, assissinations etc . . .

There are two sides to the story (as usual) just like Northern ireland!

How many Americans come over here thinking that the IRA are great people protecting the poor Irish people from the Unionist oppressor, only to find that the "Real Story" is very different from the republican propaganda that they are being fed! and that in reality it was the IRA and other assorted terrorist groups that were planting Bus Bombs, Pub Bombs, etc, and not the wicked Brits (as they had been told)!

I was on a Kibbutz in Haifa in the North of Israel, and just six weeks before I arrived, some Palistinian terrorists had parachuted into the Kibbutz machine gunning the site ~ unfortunately one Israeli was killed, but it could have been a lot worse.

I wish the Israelis all the best in their quest to keep those "misguided" Palistinians at bay, and I support the Wall to keep the Bombers OUT!

I do admit however ~ that if I had spent a whole year in Gaza or the West bank my sympathies "might" be different?

The Israelis became my friends, and that is my personal experience.

Dirk Gently

I respect your experiences Arthur but as you say, a year spent with the Palestinians and you would probably have the opposite opinion. You were seen the fear and resentment from one side only. Experience can be a good thing but a one side experience isn't really healthy. Most of the time a knowledge of the situation from both sides and an unbiased perspective is more constructive. I’m not for a moment belittling your experiences; just think you will agree that you were always going to come out sympathetic to the Israeli side after living there for a year.

clown bag

clown bag wrote:

I respect your experiences Arthur but as you say, a year spent with the Palestinians and you would probably have the opposite opinion. You were seen the fear and resentment from one side only. Experience can be a good thing but a one side experience isn't really healthy. Most of the time a knowledge of the situation from both sides and an unbiased perspective is more constructive. I’m not for a moment belittling your experiences; just think you will agree that you were always going to come out sympathetic to the Israeli side after living there for a year.

But pretty much anyone with an opinion on the Palestinian issue, has sided to some degree. I'm pro-israeli myself, in that I recognise their right to exist, however I'm quite capable of seeing what they do wrong, or rather whenever they **** up. Just as the other posters here that have highlighted Palestinian issues, and are clearly pro-palestinian. I think its impossible to look at the overall issue without choosing a "side" to have more sympathy for.

Pazaz 21

I'm interested to know why the Palestinian People are not more vocal about having Jordan, which consists of 3/4 of what used to be Palestine, returned to them and extremely vocal about gettin the less then 1/4 of what used to be Palestine back from the Israeli's ?

I am aware that Jordan is virtually a Palestinian state in all but name but why don't the Palestinians want it to be renamed Palestine and therefore give them somewhere to live ? I know that they want East Jerusalem as their capital but surely if they had a palestinian state in Jordan it would give them more power to bargain and the threaten with ?

Any comments ?

Parsley

Well pazaz, I suppose that would be because the palestinians to whom you refer are interested in returning to the place they are from- which is empathically not Jordan, regardless of the old British boundary; one could no more expect a palestinian to be happy to abandon home and go to jordan than one would expect a Londoner to happily back up and move to Scotland or Belfast.

Anyway, what would they do in Jordan? There's even less for them there than there is in Palestine!

The reason i generally side with the palestinians- although the violence against civilians is stupid- is mathematical. The palestinians were ejected from their homes and had an institutionally jewish state consisting of foreigners built around them; they were condemned to squalor in camps for decades. The crimes committed against them beggar belief, while their own pale in comparison- and are anyhow a not very difficult to understand reaction as opposed to wanton aggression.

Ping Chow Chi

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I'm interested to know why the Palestinian People are not more vocal about having Jordan, which consists of 3/4 of what used to be Palestine, returned to them and extremely vocal about gettin the less then 1/4 of what used to be Palestine back from the Israeli's ?

I am aware that Jordan is virtually a Palestinian state in all but name but why don't the Palestinians want it to be renamed Palestine and therefore give them somewhere to live ? I know that they want East Jerusalem as their capital but surely if they had a palestinian state in Jordan it would give them more power to bargain and the threaten with ?

Any comments ?

Most of the Palestinains in Jordon are descendants of Palestinian refugees from Israel and the West Bank. Though they do now make up the majority, they where a small minority before the Isreal kicked a load of Palestinians out. (and a load of them fled the fighting)

As for why they do not just change the name of the Jordon etc, well you could ask why doesbt the Isrealies go to a more friendly country (say the USA) and start their own state there?.. I'm sure the answer would be the same, they both see that piece of land as thiers.

I hope that answers your question?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/828763.stm

It is worth a note that, as you point out, Jordon has a large Palestinian majority, yet it is one of the most friendly arab nations to Isreal, which may indicate that not all Palestinians are total hostile to Isreal and that they may be able to live as neighbours given the right environment.

Pazaz 21

one could no more expect a palestinian to be happy to abandon home and go to jordan than one would expect a Londoner to happily back up and move to Scotland or Belfast.

Fair point

Anyway, what would they do in Jordan? There's even less for them there than there is in Palestine!

Whats for them in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (which i assume you mean by Palestine) ?

Parsley

Their houses, for a start. Although many of them are now occupied by Jews