Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Crisis Thread was the "Is Israel right" thread

New_Departure06

kaiser1 wrote:

Has anyone forgotton that the core aim of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is for the total destruction of Isreal??

So lets take a theory that Isreal approches Hamas with a peace offer...gives them the full atonomy for the west Bank and Gaza...hands over Jeruselem removes all military posts from the Golan heights and removes all her artillery within range of Leb. Now do you not think that such a suitation would not be taken advantage off by the extremists/Syria/Iran??

Hamas will never give up thier struggle untill Isreal is totally wipped off the planet! Its not just a case for Isreal to return to her 1967 borders or whatever year she captured the occupied territories...its her survival and this is at the heart of the Isreali people.They fought for thier exsistence and won against huge odds. Isreal holds the balance of power in the middle east and that is no bad thing.Lets say she didnt and lets say that a country like Syria held the Balance of power there.What does anybody think would be the consequences for the region?

They wouldnt be good thats for sure!

Nonsense. At the outset of a negotiation process or before it, sides take a harder line than they ultimately tend to. For example SF was saying for decades that the struggle would continue until they got a UI. That they would not even sit in Dail Eireann because it didn't govern all of Ireland. They have reversed those positions and their concessions in the 1998 Agreement is the culmination of that. So Hamas's utterances should be seen in that context.

Hmmmmm, maybe they believe that the Jews have a right to live peacefully in their own country?

Then it's current actions will make that increasingly a remote prospect I feel.

Ping Chow Chi

Deleted User wrote:

Are you concerned about him?

The answer to that is simple, yes I am, I hope he does get returned safe and sound. I am more concerned that there are people who think that the kidnap and possible murder of a soldier is justifcation for virtual genocide though.

By the way - I do find it slightly strange that someone advocating genocide shouldn't be the subject of a ban, I think I find that more distastfull than a personal slur.

Ping Chow Chi

Ping Chow Chi wrote:

By the way - I do find it slightly strange that someone advocating genocide shouldn't be the subject of a ban, I think I find that more distastfull than a personal slur.

So you think that advocating a military response is inappropriate on a political site?

I don't find it strange that someone defending terrorists and suicide bombers shouldn't be the subject of a ban at all on a political site. That's what I would expect in political debate, that opinions will differ.

fly_agaric wrote:

I don't really care what you think about all this

I kinda guessed that!!

Okay, can you name one country that would have a different attitude to Israel but is having its arm twisted by the US?

Ping Chow Chi

Deleted User wrote:

I don't find it strange that someone defending terrorists and suicide bombers shouldn't be the subject of a ban at all on a political site. That's what I would expect in political debate, that opinions will differ.

humm, I wasnt awear that I had defended terrorists or suicide bombers in any of my pervious posts. I was just pointing out how shocked and quite sickend by your carpet bombing remark. Though if you would care to point out where I had, then I stand corrected.

CrazySka

I think perhaps the fact that you have a sister in Israel is giving you a blinkered view of the situation there Conor.
Israel is no more belonging to the jews than Ireland belongs to people of Viking descent they were a race that had a big prescence in that area many years ago. They were allowed to return there (in large numbers, i know a certain amount arrived before the war) due to the guilt of the western world after the holocaust and have since made it a mission to take more and more land.
They ve oppressed a financially weak race with advanced weapons given to them by a country with a vested interest in having a strong ally in the middle east.
While i totally disagree with suicide bombers and other guerilla tactics used by Hamas i can also see how they are driven to it, they cant fight an all out war using battered 4x4 s against APC s, helicopters and tanks now can they? so what would you do in their situation, allow Israel to just take land and dump your people out of their homes or change your tactics? Dont forget that if we had taken the conventional approach to warfare during OUR occupation British rule would have lasted a lot longer.

These people along with Hamas , Islamic Jihad and Al-Queda all have just one goal and that is to destroy OUR ideals and values

No they dont that's quite honestly bul****, we have always had a good relationship with Palestine, theres a large number of Irish aid workers there now, Jihad was originally due to the jews moving into sacred areas(correct me if im wrong), whats that got to do with us?? I think your confusing Ireland and America, You ever heard of Bobby Sands road Tehran??

http://www.labournet.net/events/0402/sands1.html

Ping Chow Chi

Ping Chow Chi wrote:

humm, I wasnt awear that I had defended terrorists or suicide bombers in any of my pervious posts.

Well you linked advocating a strong military stance with supporting genocide. You surely don't mind me linking a refusal to condemn the actions of terrorism with support for that group?

If Palestine distanced themselves from terrorism then of course my opinion might change. As long as they remain bound up with muderers, then they determine their own future. And the more and more they align themselves with terrorists, then the more terrible the reaction should be.

my_house

If Palestine distanced themselves from terrorism then of course my opinion might change. As long as they remain bound up with muderers, then they determine their own future. And the more and more they align themselves with terrorists, then the more terrible the reaction should be.

doesnt that exact idea also apply to Israel? Arent they terrorists in palestinian (and to a degree) the worlds eyes?

bonkey

Sand wrote:

In short Kaiser, Palestinians are right, Israelis are wrong. Always.

Both sides are wrong.

I would hazard that most of those objecting to Israeli actions here would agree with that, but whether or not thats true doesn't really matter.

Frederico wrote:

What are you talking about?

Why do people have such respect for so called "strength"

You seem to have misunderstood my position, and thefore presumably my comment also.

Allow me to reiterate.

Both sides are wrong.

New_Departure06

Deleted User wrote:

Well you linked advocating a strong military stance with supporting genocide. You surely don't mind me linking a refusal to condemn the actions of terrorism with support for that group?

If Palestine distanced themselves from terrorism then of course my opinion might change. As long as they remain bound up with muderers, then they determine their own future. And the more and more they align themselves with terrorists, then the more terrible the reaction should be.

Conor suppose some foreign people's religion said that Ireland was their "Promised Land", promised to them "by God". Suppose the US/Russia/China then supported giving them a state in our country. Suppose hundreds of thousands of Irish people were expelled from their lands to make way for this and settlements were built. Suppose we then fought back. Would we be "terrorists"?

Israel is behaving like Cromwell and is equally deserving of condemnation for its actions.

john_dub

john_dub wrote:

They were allowed to return there (in large numbers, i know a certain amount arrived before the war) due to the guilt of the western world after the holocaust and have since made it a mission to take more and more land.
They ve oppressed a financially weak race with advanced weapons given to them by a country with a vested interest in having a strong ally in the middle east.
While i totally disagree with suicide bombers and other guerilla tactics used by Hamas i can also see how they are driven to it, they cant fight an all out war using battered 4x4 s against APC s, helicopters and tanks now can they? so what would you do in their situation, allow Israel to just take land and dump your people out of their homes or change your tactics? Dont forget that if we had taken the conventional approach to warfare during OUR occupation British rule would have lasted a lot longer.

Agree with a lot of your post. Except the bit about the founding of the state being as simple as 'post WWII guilt' and that it was almost accidental that they settled on the area we now call Israel. Furthermore huge numbers who moved to Israel were Jews expelled from other Arab countries.

CrazySka

If Palestine distanced themselves from terrorism then of course my opinion might change. As long as they remain bound up with muderers, then they determine their own future. And the more and more they align themselves with terrorists, then the more terrible the reaction should be.

Your using the American/Israeli definition of palestinians, they are not terroists, they re just using different tactics in a war, the only tactics available to them.
Are the Israeli s any less terrorists because they use gunships and tanks instead of suicude bombers?

Both sides are wrong.

Agreed but imo Israel is more wrong.

hat it was almost accidental that they settled on the area we now call Israel.

I never said that, i said they were allowed to return.

New_Departure06

Deleted User wrote:

Agree with a lot of your post. Except the bit about the founding of the state being as simple as 'post WWII guilt' and that it was almost accidental that they settled on the area we now call Israel. Furthermore huge numbers who moved to Israel were Jews expelled from other Arab countries.

That was tit for tat. Israel started it with its colonial aggression.

But the status quo is now that the state of Israel exists. It may have been a mistake in policy, but we can't undo it. Palestinians are going to have to recognise that. We can't shake our fist at the past, we can only hope to move forward and deal with the realities. And for me the reality is that, whatever else has happened, on this particular issue Hamas should intervene and insist that the soldier be returned. That is the only correct and appropriate response.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Okay, can you name one country that would have a different attitude to Israel but is having its arm twisted by the US?

It is not a matter of active US arm-twisting or whatever way you seem to be trying to spin it. There are a few factors at work.

Electorates in EU countries have marginal interest in this issue and who is right or wrong at any given moment.

The US govt. up to now always supports Israel. In fact, the US govt. are really the only outside party that Israel listens to anyway (because others have not always supported them unconditionally).

If a few EU govts. make the moral choice to punish Isreal for its actions in the occupied territories or even just condemn it strongly at the UN or something they will píss off the US for no gain at all, maybe for a loss as it might anger their business lobbies also.

Why would they (EU countries' govt's) shoot themselves in the foot in this way?

It is all about self-interest. Nation states' policies almost always are.

CrazySka

But the status quo is now that the state of Israel exists.

Doesnt make it any less wrong, the geography of the world has changed many times through history, are you suggesting this is the way itll stay forever?

It may have been a mistake in policy, but we can't undo it. Palestinians are going to have to recognise that.

Why should they? Its not their fault they ve been invaded, "Them damn palestinians just wont accept they should be walked all over"

We can't shake our fist at the past, we can only hope to move forward and deal with the realities.

Is that not just what Israel is, a fist shaking at the past? Come on "God promised us this place, weve been oppressed for millenia", covers both shaking a fist at the past and not dealing with reality no?

on this particular issue Hamas should intervene and insist that the soldier be returned. That is the only correct and appropriate response.

Copout, "our soldier s worth more than your political prisoners"

ghost26ie

Deleted User wrote:

Well you linked advocating a strong military stance with supporting genocide. You surely don't mind me linking a refusal to condemn the actions of terrorism with support for that group?

If Palestine distanced themselves from terrorism then of course my opinion might change. As long as they remain bound up with muderers, then they determine their own future. And the more and more they align themselves with terrorists, then the more terrible the reaction should be.

thats assumes all palestinians are linked too and agree with the terrorists, which i seriously doubt. Israel simply assumes they are all terrorists, and treats them all the same which is wrong. Israel doesn't discrimate, and thats its problem. i don't condone terrorism or such but in my opinion all Israel does is state sponsored terrorism. i agree with the second post of this thread, all they are going to do is create more suicide bombers.

LegacyUser

John dub...you replied to a statement I made regarding the the aims of extremist groups like Al-Queda,Hamas,Islamic Jihad...etc..etc and said that they do not want to destroy our ideals,morals etc. I made that staement in the context of us...us being western in outlook,non-islamic,u.s friendly,not us as a nation.

I watched sky news tonight and watced report after report on how the Palestinian people are terrified of whats going to happen ,how they fear the "Bulldoze em all" mentality of the Isreali army in thier methods to avoid street to street fighting.They showed clips from Jenin in 2002 where the Isreali army instead of trying to take street after street in dangerous urban warfare just sent in the bulldozers and flantened every building.That seems pretty bad....and its looking like the same thing is going to happen again.

But then you see footage of palestinian gun men standing on buildings watching the buildup of Isreali armour,troop buildups,fighter jets flyiong overhead.....and what does Hamas do...do they make every effort to release the soldier???....do they drop thier demands for the release of terrorists in Isreali jails????....no they dont..but what they do do is make threats,make demands and last but not least(and this made me laugh) gave Isreal an ultimatium to withdraw its troops!!!!!!

If Hamas had the best intentions of its people at heart it would be bending over backwards to find this soldier and to avert a major ass whooping!!

They know where he is,they know who is holding him and they know that they can avoid all the misery,hurt and anguish that goes with conflict. But no...they want to draw Isreal into a scrap that will only lead to more people being killed....Im sorry but the blaim lies squarely with Hamas with this one!

New_Departure06

But then you see footage of palestinian gun men standing on buildings watching the buildup of Isreali armour,troop buildups,fighter jets flyiong overhead.....and what does Hamas do...do they make every effort to release the soldier???....do they drop thier demands for the release of terrorists in Isreali jails????....no they dont..but what they do do is make threats,make demands and last but not least(and this made me laugh) gave Isreal an ultimatium to withdraw its troops!!!!!!

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

CrazySka

But then you see footage of palestinian gun men standing on buildings watching the buildup of Isreali armour,troop buildups,fighter jets flyiong overhead.....and what does Hamas do...do they make every effort to release the soldier???....do they drop thier demands for the release of terrorists in Isreali jails????....no they dont..but what they do do is make threats,make demands and last but not least(and this made me laugh) gave Isreal an ultimatium to withdraw its troops!!!!!!

If Hamas had the best intentions of its people at heart it would be bending over backwards to find this soldier and to avert a major ass whooping!!

They know where he is,they know who is holding him and they know that they can avoid all the misery,hurt and anguish that goes with conflict. But no...they want to draw Isreal into a scrap that will only lead to more people being killed....Im sorry but the blaim lies squarely with Hamas with this one!

I feel like kicking the computer at this stage, the fact is that if it wasnt this incident there would be another one for Israel to use for its expansionism.
Answer me this, do you think that the people being held in israel as "Terrorists" are just that? Do you realise that a lot of these people are locked up because they object to the occupation of their country? And your talking about a soldier who has been trained by Israel with the intention of using him in a campaign against the palestinians, and you call them terrorists for using him as a bargaining tool.

Hamas is the legally elected goverment of palestine, there are members of Hamas locked up in Israeli jails, a jewish soldier in palestine territory therefore can be taken prisoner in the same way.
You seem to be looking at the situation from the point of this one incident, to look at the bigger picture, Hamas would not be there if Israel didnt spend all their time trying to take as much land for themselves as possible.

Palestine is a country with as much right to exist as Israel, your coming down on them for doing once what Israel have down many times.
They can make demands if they want, the same as Israel have made demands the whole time its been in existence.
Mybe you just cant grasp the concept that there are people in the world who would rather fight than allow a foriegn power the right to tell them what to do and when to do it, do you think its correct for a country to have total power over another countries borders?? is that fair?

If the situation was that Israel had always been fair to them i could maybe see where your coming from, but your defending a country that regularly stops supplies coming in to Palestine because they forced them into a corner and they decided to fight. Make no mistake that the ideal situation for Israel is to take over Palestine completely and expel the Palestinan people to the outlying Muslim countries.

Sand

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

And one mans insightful comment is another man's clapped out cliche.

wes

Sand wrote:

And one mans insightful comment is another man's clapped out cliche.

Cliche it may be, but its true.

yomchi

Deleted User wrote:

I presume you're being deliberately obtuse. Good one.

But as with DOLEMAN and clown bag, this thread will be shut down if it's just used for personal comments.

No I wasn't. I believe anyone with half a brain who makes comments like I think Israel is right for *silly reasons* is uneducated about the whole Israel/Palestinian conflict. No right minded Human being can condone Israels behaviour .

sceptre

New_Departure06 wrote:

That was tit for tat. Israel started it with its colonial aggression.

That's shockingly simplistic. Too simplistic. One would almost assume from that that there were no troubles before May 14 1948 (or Nov 29 1947 depending on who's being blamed).

sceptre

Jon wrote:

No I wasn't. I believe anyone with half a brain who makes comments like I think Israel is right for *silly reasons* is uneducated about the whole Israel/Palestinian conflict. No right minded Human being can condone Israels behaviour .

No right minded human could condone the idiocy on either side. There are few people with half a brain with the ability to type so we could probably do without the exaggerated sense of whimsy. Personally I tend to think that anyone who says that either side is just plain right could do with a labelled drawing of an arse and an elbow for reference but then I've pretty high standards.

I'm a little more sympathetic, as a moderator, to people who take the time to explain and develop their own views on-site rather than just dedicate a majority of their posts in one thread merely telling someone that "your (sic) uneducated" without bothering to take the time to illustrate how their own view is comparatively more valid. Please remember that when replying. I'm fine with short constructive replies from people. The key word is "constructive". Obviously I have my own views on this topic, I've explained them before with a nice declaration of tea invites so I probably won't bother to do so again but merely telling somenoe else that they don't know what they're talking about isn't worth a hill of tea in this world, which most contributors on both sides of this discussion (and those in the middle) appear to realise.

New_Departure06

sceptre wrote:

That's shockingly simplistic. Too simplistic. One would almost assume from that that there were no troubles before May 14 1948 (or Nov 29 1947 depending on who's being blamed).

There were tensions and violence sure, but nothing on the scale of what followed. The great powers just rushed into this momentous decision without adequate consultation with the Arabs.

aidan24326

Make no mistake that the ideal situation for Israel is to take over Palestine completely and expel the Palestinan people to the outlying Muslim countries.

That is surely Israel's real aim. Whether they will be allowed to get away with it is another matter. But with the USA firmly on their side they have been given license to do almost as they please. The only way this conflict will (or could) ever be sorted out is with diplomatic talks where a peace agreement is brokered and a genuine effort towards compromise on both sides.

But herein lies the nub of the problem. As with most such conflicts of interest, neither side are too keen to compromise. The Israelis in particular have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of ever compromising on this issue as they consider the land which now includes Israel and the Palestinian territories to be theirs by birthright i.e Some guy called Jesus who lived a couple of thousand years ago said that it's supposed to be theirs.

Now for as long as the Israelis adopt this arrogant and blatantly supremacist attitude towards the Palestinians (and towards Muslims in general) there is little hope of any satisfactory resolution to this problem. And of course to be fair (I try to be fair!) this attitude isn't totally one-sided. Many muslims in the Middle East, be they Palestinian, Iranian, Syrian or whatever else, do not recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel in any way and no doubt there's alot of them who wouldn't mind to see the Jewish population of Israel go up in a cloud of smoke. However they may have good reason to not recognise Israel, as it's very legality as a sovereign nation state is open to question.

Israel have thus far thwarted all attempts at a diplomatic resolution as this would involve compromise (yes that word again) and the words compromise and Israel don't sit well in the same sentence. The current situation is probably going to get worse before it ever gets better, and it will never be resolved while the Americans are covering Israel's ass and preventing the rest of the world from pulling them into line. However, if this ever escalates into conflict with Syria and Iran (who have a mutual defence treaty so it would have to be both) the situation in the Middle East could get horribly messy. The US would come to Israel's aid (which they are already anyway,on an ongoing basis) and the Russians and Chinese have defence agreements with Iran, no doubt to protect their oil interests in the region.

Would even this war-mongering US administration dare to p*ss off the Russians and China? Would even they dare, or be so stupid? Let's hope not. But so long as the Middle Eastern countries, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, "swim on a sea of oil", this jostling for position between the big powers will continue to be a threat not just to that region but to those superpower countries themselves and by implication, to us all.

justfortherecor

aidan24326 wrote:

Would even this war-mongering US administration dare to p*ss off the Russians and China? Would even they dare, or be so stupid? Let's hope not.

I think they're more concerned with p***ing off the domestic jewish population who wield a hell of a lot of political clout in the US. A strong Israel is important for the US both in terms of domestic political gain and geographical presence in the middle east.

New_Departure06

justfortherecor wrote:

I think they're more concerned with p***ing off the domestic jewish population who wield a hell of a lot of political clout in the US. A strong Israel is important for the US both in terms of domestic political gain and geographical presence in the middle east.

Well there are only around 6 million Jews in the US. The people they are really afraid of are the 40% of the US population defining themselves as "Christian fundamentalists" in US polls. These are the really hardline supporters of Israel. American Jews themselves are supposedly not as hardline as them. To the extreme Christians, support for Israel is necessary to bring about the "second coming of Christ", which they want to happen as soon as possible. It sounds weird but documentaries, including on the History Channel, have made mention of this.

A central part of the pro-Israel lobby is AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) which includes both Jews and non-Jews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC

AIPAC's stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation that are in the best interests of Israel and the United States. It regularly meets with members of Congress and holds events where it can share its views. It also provides analysis of the voting records of U.S. federal representatives and senators with regard to how they voted on legislation related to Israel. AIPAC has been effective in gaining support for Israel among members of Congress and White House administrations.....The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."................In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner had to resign when he was tape recorded boasting about his political influence, saying he had "cut a deal" with the Bush administration to give more aid to Israel. He had arranged for "almost a billion dollars in other goodies," he added and was "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over appointing a pro-Israeli Secretary of State. Steiner also stated AIPAC had "a dozen people in (the Clinton) headquarters. And they are all going to get big jobs."..............Haim Katz told the Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it."....AIPAC has a wide base of supporters both in and outside of Congress. Support among congressional members includes a majority of members of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. ....AIPAC also has critics, including United States Representative Cynthia McKinney and journalist Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch, who claim that AIPAC was instrumental in helping to defeat Congressional candidates that AIPAC deemed unfriendly to Israel, Representative McKinney of Georgia (after her first term as a Representative) and former Representative Earl F. Hilliard of Alabama...In August 2005, former AIPAC policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman were indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel.

sceptre

New_Departure06 wrote:

There were tensions and violence sure, but nothing on the scale of what followed. The great powers just rushed into this momentous decision without adequate consultation with the Arabs.

Obviously the violence wasn't going to be anything on the scale of what followed - no Arab state was going to invade a territory administered by the British. There were, however, plenty of terrorist actions by the Irgun, Haganah (one member of which was the last Israeli PM) and Lehi/the Stern Gang while Amin al-Husayni in particular was making his own efforts on the other side. They're easily comparable with recent efforts by the more exhuberant supporters of their own side (read as "idiots with guns and bombs that aren't afraid to use them") in that the achievements slightly exceed what's currently going on and the intended achievements easily exceed them.

As for the great powers rushing into the decision, momentous or otherwise, there are a number of factors to consider that you didn't bother listing. The 1922 mandate (which precedes the creation of Israel by 26 years) has as one of its two main aims the creation of a Jewish homeland. That in particular can hardly come as news to anyone in 1947 (or 48). Territory east of the Jordan was exempt from various provisions, territory west of it wasn't. To preempt any questions of what my views are on the creation of a Jewish state or state for Jewish people or whatever way people care to put it, a state has a right to exist. The current state has a right to exist. One may argue about the territory that should be controlled by that state at your whim.

The ending of that mandate is where most of the intelligent historical arguments arise. It's important to remember that in 1947 the UK had seventy thousand trops stationed in the Palestine mandate. That's a big troop outlay even by today's standards, at the time it was even more so. The terrorist actions of the time were the reason most of them were there, as well as regular calls by al-Husayni, who by then was heading the Arab Higher Committee (representing Arabs in the territory) to kill as many Jews as possible. For years the British administrators had ignored attacks by Fawzi Al-Qawuqji and his ilk on the basis that these weren't attacks on their own personnel, which oddly enough backfired on that particular side of the conflict later on as it led to a pretty organised militia. Meanwhile the British were making major PR errors like sending the Exodus ship to Germany in 1947. Faced with that the UK had little option but to turn the mandate over to the UN.

Now let's talk about the actions of the "great powers". The 1947 partition plan was neither drafted nor organised by the "great powers". The 1937 Peel recommendations (which offered more territory to the Arabs than any other proposal since) were but these were pretty much forgotten about by 1947. There were some big states like Canada involved in the 1947 proposals but none of the eleven members of the UNSCOP committee could be classed as "great powers" in the way that term ic usually interpreted. Most Jewish organisations accepted the plan (though none of the extreme types did), all of the Arab ones and countries rejected it. Had the Arab organisations and countries accepted the plan they'd control far more territory now than they are ever likely to in the future. This was followed by the 1947 Jerusalem riots where a number of Arab militants burned the commercial centre of Jerusalem and attacked a number of residental areas, followed by the Jewish group Haganahdeciding to use terrorist tactics to stop future attacks on Jews (it's always surprised me that when the Shinners side with one party in this argument on the basis of an occupied people that they forget the comparison that can be made with their own resurgence here on the other side of the whiney argument). Resolution 181 was passed by the UN General Assembly. It may well be the last Resolution that Israel agreed with, for the sake of argument and a little humour let's assume it was.

The declaration of the state of Israel is based on that mandate. It's a unilateral declaration but most declarations of independence tend to be - from an internal legal perspective (though not an international one) ours was for example. Everyone on the planet knew months in advance that the British mandate was due to expire on May 15 1948. The Israeli militants and Arab militants certainly knew, they were pretty much all ready for war the day after.

As soon as independence was officially declared the 1948 war officially started. Whether partition would have been implemented or not is largely irrelevant and certainly unknown as it would never have been accepted.

Since then we've had almost nothing but trouble (though the standard of oranges has been getting better) with two sides led by idiots claiming that God is on their side and promised them the land they want (and presumably also authorised the dealings with the Americans or Russians), including the crappy bits. The militant Jews claim that God promised them the bits west of the Jordan while the militant Arabs swear they were promised everything from Senegal as far east as Kuwait. Israel controls land they shouldn't control and their competitors claim land they shouldn't claim. I've sen children co-operate more, even without a mother with a wooden spoon hanging over them. These children have access to guns, tanks, bombs and the odd nuclear device. Even with my dislike for corporal punishment I'd make an exception here and hand out a good dose of the wooden spoon.

It's a relatively simple thing, which is probably why almost no-one agrees with it - the Arabs recognise Israel's right to exist, Israel recognises the right of the Palestinians to have an independent country that isn't bothered by loud sirens at night, both sides stop killing each other, both sides stop desecrating religious sites of the other side and they've both got access to lots of fish. And a few smaller things, not a single one of which is as important as the first three things I've listed there. The current borders are de facto, may as well make them de jure and basically recognise most of the green line as the actual border.

Who started it? Who cares. We could look back and even if we could manage to agree on what constitutes "starting it" we'd have trouble agreeing on that. And lots of people would be disappointed and say it doesn't matter because the people on the other side are REAL BAD PEOPLE who do REAL BAD THINGS whereas the side they've sympathy for are good people forced to do some bold things by the REAL BAD PEOPLE on the other side. Young children argue that way and seek justification for their actions in that manner. Neither governments nor anyone with the capacity to use a keyboard should be able to justify their own myopia in that manner. I expect better. People in that region of the world should do likewise but a certain percentage of them want all the pie. If the Palestinian militants stop shooting people tomorrow they still get less than they could have had for free in 1948 or at a smaller cost in 1993. The Israelis likewise have to face up to flipping the bird at world opinion for longer than most of us have lived and have managed to lose quite a bit of the sympathy they paid for in advance prior to 1945, especially since 1993. If we had the manpower we could have done worse than to build a big wall around the entire area. Instead we keep going back and talking to them like they're not all being led by big children with bombs. And we've all those people on both sides happily saying that the other side are REAL BAD PEOPLE and that the solution should lie with them as "you know, they've no right to be there anyway". Well done, that's helpful.

Wibbs

^Now that's what a post should look like and bang on the money to boot IMO. Sorry if praise is off topic, but the above echoes my sentiments exactly.