Need for wars by Israel

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

And they should take that Pat Kenny off TV, while they're at it. Not gonna happen, TBH. So we change the channel, or buy Sky Movies, or go out. Compromise with yourself.

You compromise,

1. Condemn the racists settlers in the west bank on stolen land
2. Show us the israeli plan to remove this scum from palestinian land

Otherwise shut up with your trolling prattle and justification of daily Israeli human rights abuses .

El Stuntman

a couple of questions (to divert from the Boards internecine warfare on this thread ):

1. Does anyone think that the Palestinians have been poorly served by their own leaders (both military and political) since 1948? I'm especially thinking of Arafat here but also the current crop of Hamas/Fatah leaders.

2. Does anyone think that the Palestinians have been poorly served by their Arab 'Brothers', decades of whom have promised assistance while at the same time refusing Palestinian refugees right of citizenship in their own countries?

3. Is the Arab world fundamentally flawed from a political structure point of view?

Judt

El Stuntman wrote:

a couple of questions (to divert from the Boards internecine warfare on this thread ):

1. Does anyone think that the Palestinians have been poorly served by their own leaders (both military and political) since 1948? I'm especially thinking of Arafat here but also the current crop of Hamas/Fatah leaders.

2. Does anyone think that the Palestinians have been poorly served by their Arab 'Brothers', decades of whom have promised assistance while at the same time refusing Palestinian refugees right of citizenship in their own countries?

3. Is the Arab world fundamentally flawed from a political structure point of view?

Yes, yes and ohh yes.... Israel, as I've said umpteen times before, is only one of the two it takes to tango here.

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

Yes, yes and ohh yes.... Israel, as I've said umpteen times before, is only one of the two it takes to tango here.

Israel is a heavily armed racist state which occupied Palestine territory.

The only neighbour it deal a deal it honoured with is its largest one, Egypt . It prefers to line up the smaller ones for more wars in the future You cannot deal with Israel any more than the Judenrat could "deal" with the Nazis in 1940 in Warsaw or maybe you can try but its pointless because the israel that did a deal 30 years ago is not more , it has become a religious fundamentalist freakshow .

If the Palestinaians were perfectly functional as a state the Israelis would use the F16s on them as they did to Lebanon last summer ...well beyond the Hezbollah areas .

Palestine was never allowed to function as a state, and now its incapable of it, thats Israels fault in the main.

I note that YOU still absolutely refuse to condemn the racists west bank settlers or detail any plan that Israel had to get this vermin off the west bank.

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote:

A proper functioning state? He had the opportunity to build one when the PA was formed. The creation of a Palestinian Police force, control over the civilian population, access to many facilities, and Israeli troops withdrawing gradually from Palestine. He had that opportunity to build a state where Palestinians could grow without violence, and seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Instead, he didn't try to restrict the attacks on Israel, the police force was corrupted, and the money assigned to the civilian authority was squandered. There was no desire to build a viable state, except for one that contained all of Palestine proper. All or Nothing.

It wasn't a viable state that was on offer.
The proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of cantons, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers.
Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank. Its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.
Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end.

Any peaceful resolution by any party in Palestine will initially generate more violence. People talk about Palestinians wanting peace, and yet whenever Israeli troops withdraw there's actually more attacks. You say that had he agreed to the proposal there would have been more violence.... I totally agree. I'm completely skeptical about most of the violent groups in palestine. Personally I believe they're more interested in keeping the situation unstable to keep their own positions of power. It may be that most palestinians want peace, but I dont think the ones with the guns do.

And eventually for this conflict to start being resolved, some faction is going to have to agree to a similiar proposal. Less than they want but something to build from.

In my opinion there would be less violence if a final agreement could be reached. As the majority of civilians on each side i think want peace. The extremists on both sides would of course try to disrupt it but they would
have little support among the wider population in my opinion. Although, you probably see it as the opposite on the Palestinian side. Because it's seemingly divisible to this for you: Palestinian's are intransigent. Israel Bends over backwards to seek accomdation.

Yet, wasn't Barack the one to walk away from the Taba Agreement because he couldn't sell it to his own people? Do you criticise him for doing this? or will you seek to portray it as something else- like blaming the Palestinians?

El Stuntman

El Stuntman wrote:

a couple of questions (to divert from the Boards internecine warfare on this thread ):

1. Does anyone think that the Palestinians have been poorly served by their own leaders (both military and political) since 1948? I'm especially thinking of Arafat here but also the current crop of Hamas/Fatah leaders.

2. Does anyone think that the Palestinians have been poorly served by their Arab 'Brothers', decades of whom have promised assistance while at the same time refusing Palestinian refugees right of citizenship in their own countries?

3. Is the Arab world fundamentally flawed from a political structure point of view?

You're unlikley to get an answer simply because its easier to paint Israel or Zionists as the evildoers, rather than actually acknowledge anything negative about Palestine. Remember Israel has done everything wrong on its own, without the influence of either the surrounding arab nations or Palestine itself....

Sponge Bob

Sponge Bob wrote:

Israel is a heavily armed racist state which occupied Palestine territory.

Technically, they occupied the land from the other arab nations after the 1967 war. As for being racist, I doubt a country can be described that way. some people are, and some people aren't.

The only neighbour it deal a deal it honoured with is its largest one, Egypt . It prefers to line up the smaller ones for more wars in the future

Actually, Israel has dealt with Jordan also on a number of occasions.

If the Palestinaians were perfectly functional as a state the Israelis would use the F16s on them as they did to Lebanon last summer ...well beyond the Hezbollah areas .

Not if Palestinians acted against the "freedom fighters" launching attacks across their borders. Just as Lebanon could have avoided the last war, by preventing Hezbollah from using their country to launch attacks on Israel. Notice how Egypt doesn't get attacked since their own military patrols their borders in the effort to prevent their country from being used as a launch-pad.

Palestine was never allowed to function as a state, and now its incapable of it, thats Israels fault in the main.

Rubbish. Palestine lost the opportunity when the Arab nations invaded and later occupied those remaining parts of Palestine themselves. The greatest opportunity for a Palestinian state was at the time of Israel's creation. There was no Palestinian state at the time that Israel occupied those territories held by the other arab nations.

And that its now incapable of it rests with the PA, Hamas, the other "freedom fighters" and Israel.

Sponge Bob

Sponge Bob wrote:

You compromise,

1. Condemn the racists settlers in the west bank on stolen land
2. Show us the israeli plan to remove this scum from palestinian land

Otherwise shut up with your trolling prattle and justification of daily Israeli human rights abuses .

Banned for a month as this must be your 3rd offence.
I won't pm you as I'll assume that you will find your way to this post un logged in.
You can pm me or one of the other mods when the time is up to regain your posting rights.

philologos

Deleted User wrote:

I love these examples. They never make any sense.



Pretty much. IMO the problem with the Palestinian desire for their own state is that, its all or nothing. There is no compromise. Anything less than what they want is not worth considering. I believe the Camp David terms would have been a step in the right direction, rather than the last period of violence since then. I believe that if Arafat had accepted the terms it would have placed them in a position to negotiate further concessions from Israel. It would at least have been better than whats happened since.

The Camp David Accords state that Israel should stop settling in Palestinian areas, they violated the agreements with Egypt practically as soon as they were agreed. I believe that it is Israel who don't want a lasting peace with the Palestinians (as opposed to the other way around), since the Palestinians have nothing to negotiate with now. Israel can continue to say no as no agreement the Palestinians come up with will ever benefit them.

They have also rejected peaceoffers such as the one from the Arab League in 2002 stating that they were willing to pursue peace with Israel through negosiations. Israel however rejected it.

El Stuntman

That was an educational little exchange

obviously not much chance of getting an answer then

wes

El Stuntman wrote:

That was an educational little exchange

obviously not much chance of getting an answer then

What you are talking earlier about is some what off topic. Perhaps you should create a separate topic to discuss it if you want. The topic we are discussing is about whether Israel's wars are necessary or not. The mistreatment of Palestinians by other Middle Eastern nations is a different issue.

wes

wes wrote:

What you are talking earlier about is some what off topic. Perhaps you should create a separate topic to discuss it if you want. The topic we are discussing is about whether Israel's wars are necessary or not. The mistreatment of Palestinians by other Middle Eastern nations is a different issue.

Actually, I would consider it on-topic, since most of the claims are that Israel is a warmonger without any real influences from other factors. Many of the posts about Israel paint them as seeking conflict at every turn. If other Arab nations and the Palestinians themselves have influenced Israel over the decades to commit to a series of conflicts then its relevent, especially if its the ruling bodies of the Palestine that continue the conflict (whether intentionally or unintentionally).

wes

Deleted User wrote:

Actually, I would consider it on-topic, since most of the claims are that Israel is a warmonger without any real influences from other factors. Many of the posts about Israel paint them as seeking conflict at every turn. If other Arab nations and the Palestinians themselves have influenced Israel over the decades to commit to a series of conflicts then its relevent, especially if its the ruling bodies of the Palestine that continue the conflict (whether intentionally or unintentionally).

Israel by the act of its creation seeked conflict. If a bunch of people showed here tomorrow saying there ancestors conquered the place a couple thousand of years ago and then took over there would be conflict. Israel wants land. They can take on all the neighbors so don't need peace and hold out in the hope that they will get more territory. They want as much as the West Bank as possible, I am sure they would take the Gaza strip if there weren't so many Palestinians there (I think it is very densely populated with a huge birth rate).

There neighbors aren't nice people either and treat the Palestinians badly, but there actions hardly excuses Israel treatment towards them.

wes

wes wrote:

Israel by the act of its creation seeked conflict. If a bunch of people showed here tomorrow saying there ancestors conquered the place a couple thousand of years ago and then took over there would be conflict.

The cheek. Bit like the Irish asking for our land back 80 years ago when the Brits had it for almost 1000 years before that. I presume I will find a 'the Irish are warmongerers' thread you have created somewhere?

wes

Deleted User wrote:

The cheek. Bit like the Irish asking for our land back 80 years ago when the Brits had it for almost 1000 years before that. I presume I will find a 'the Irish are warmongerers' thread you have created somewhere?

The Palestinians didn't take there land from the Israeli's that was the Romans, Assyrians and various other groups well over 2000 years ago. That piece of land changed hands several times during the period before and after initial Jewish rule. They conquered the land from a different group at the time as well. There claim to the land is that there ancestors lived there a couple of thousand years ago. The people in Israel are mainly European Jewish immigrants. They lived in Europe for 100's of years.

There were always Jews in Palestine specifically in Jerusalem, but they were the minority until the creation of Israel.

The Israeli's came from Europe and kicked a whole bunch of Palestinians out off there land. This was done as many were fleeing the Holocaust and anti-semitism in Europe and wanted a home land of there own. There people already living there so they tossed them out. These where the Palestinians who were living there for hundreds of years previous. This is were the conflicts comes from.

Don't compare the Israeli situation to the Irish one its not even close. I don't even know how you could think the 2 could compare, there very different.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

The Camp David Accords state that Israel should stop settling in Palestinian areas, they violated the agreements with Egypt practically as soon as they were agreed.

Which Camp David accords? 1978 - which proposed various answers to the Palestinian problem, and the Israeli settlements which were never followed up on. Or a formal agreement was made regarding the settlements themselves. The accords led to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty which make very little reference to the resolution of Palestine.

I believe that it is Israel who don't want a lasting peace with the Palestinians (as opposed to the other way around), since the Palestinians have nothing to negotiate with now. Israel can continue to say no as no agreement the Palestinians come up with will ever benefit them.

What have the lost that they had before to negotiate with? The belief that they would adhere to an agreement, perhaps? They still have the ability to prevent further attacks on Israel which has been a core part of any agreement proposed.

Palestinians never had anything else to offer Israel....

They have also rejected peaceoffers such as the one from the Arab League in 2002 stating that they were willing to pursue peace with Israel through negosiations. Israel however rejected it.

Rejected? From what I gather the Arab Peace Initiative was pretty much ignored by most parties including Palestine. I don't think it was actually rejected by Israel... I think they said that they would have to see a decrease
in attacks by Palestinians before they would consider the initiative properly. (In light of the Netanya suicide attack that occured the same day of the initiative)

Or we could look at the "Road Map" for peace also in 2002? Afterall, the Palestinians were meant to show a visible effort of preventing attacks on Israel before Israel would start dismantling the settlements. The PA didn't manage to reduce the attacks, so they didn't give Israel any real momentum to destroy the settlements....

If you're going to complain about Israel breaking or not agreeing to proposals, perhaps you should look to see where Palestinians have failed aswell. And Israel did fail this agreement, it just didn't fail alone.

wes

wes wrote:

The Israeli's came from Europe and kicked a whole bunch of Palestinians out off there land.

You (one might say conveniently) forgot all the Jews who were expelled into Israel from neighbouring Arab states...

InFront

The only reason some people want to bring Palestinian relations with other countries into this debate is to detract focus from Israel. As wes said, it's not a thread about Palestine and its international relations, it's about Israel's need for wars, so if you don't like the way Israel is being painted why not prove it wrong?

Originally posted by Deleted User
The cheek. Bit like the Irish asking for our land back 80 years ago when the Brits had it for almost 1000 years before that. I presume I will find a 'the Irish are warmongerers' thread you have created somewhere?

I presume this was sarcasm?? As wes said, the two are not alike. Maybe if the Irish had left this country 2,000 years ago, and their descendants arrived back here one morning demanding the whole gaff, you might have a comparison there. Are you saying the Zionists have a divine right to this land? Why?

Originally posted by Deleted User
But I would like to see Palestinian groups that make agreements actually commit and follow through on them.

This seems to be the whole crux of your argument, and I agree that the Palestinians have sometimes not pulled their weight. But most people do not blinker themselves from the fact that neither has Israel. And since Zionists are the guys who instigated this whole conflict along with the American and the British governments, I think the onus should be on them to instigate the resolution - the famous two UN resolutions to be specific.

Judt

it's about Israel's need for wars

Are you saying that the Israeli people wake up in the morning with the urge to hit someone?

Now that's laughable.

philologos

Deleted User wrote:

Which Camp David accords? 1978 - which proposed various answers to the Palestinian problem, and the Israeli settlements which were never followed up on. Or a formal agreement was made regarding the settlements themselves. The accords led to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty which make very little reference to the resolution of Palestine.

Apologies, there is infact little or nothing on the settlements in the Camp David Accords (just reading over them in the Appendixes of Palestine - Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter). However there is plenty on Palestine in there, Egypt and Jordan were meant to be partaking in negosiations on the situation in Palestine. It also calls for Israel to carry out a transition of power from them to the Palestinians so that they can rule the 1967 area and end the occupation within 5 years of the agreement being made. This however did not happen, so yes Israel have violated the Camp David Accords.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

Apologies, there is infact little or nothing on the settlements in the Camp David Accords (just reading over them in the Appendixes of Palestine - Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter). However there is plenty on Palestine in there, Egypt and Jordan were meant to be partaking in negosiations on the situation in Palestine. It also calls for Israel to carry out a transition of power from them to the Palestinians so that they can rule the 1967 area and end the occupation within 5 years of the agreement being made. This however did not happen, so yes Israel have violated the Camp David Accords.

The Accords weren't agreements in themselves. They were negotiations that led to a formal agreement/treaty. There was no formal agreement to give anything to Palestinians, rather than there would be further discussions as to how to resolve the conflict. Israel violated nothing there.

Especially since the accords ran without the direct input of the Palestinians (Apart from some input from the PLO), so nobody was capable of making promises that they would be willing/capable of keeping.

InFront

InFront wrote:

The only reason some people want to bring Palestinian relations with other countries into this debate is to detract focus from Israel. As wessaid, it's not a thread about Palestine and its international relations,it's about Israel's need for wars, so if you don't like the way Israel is being painted why not prove it wrong?

Not really. The reason why I'm (I don't know the other peoples reasons) raising other factors to "reason" Israeli "aggression" or conflict is because if you look at their actions alone its a very one-sided viewpoint. Nothing acts without external influences. The creation of Israel couldn't have occured just from zionist movements, but needed the Holocaust, Britain withdrawing from Palestine, and the support of the US for it to occur.

Just as the War of Independence in Ireland wouldn't have succeeded as it did without the strain that WW1 created on the British. Without the losses that Britain received in manpower and other resources, Britain would have been less likely to release Ireland to partial independence. God knows, they managed to hold on to Ireland for long enough as it is. It was with those points in the recent past that brought the chance for freedom to the fore.

Just as Israeli conflicts cannot operate in a vaccum of reasons. You cannot realistically look at Israel having conflicts with other countries without looking at the points behind previous relations, and the steps leading up to the conflicts themselves. If you want to ignore the other influences apart from israel's own actions then you're not being realistic. Just about every conflict that has occured in history has ties to actions of another country or people.

For example, if you look at the recent Lebanon conflict. You could take out the previous invasions by Israel into lebanon, take out Israeli kidnapping of Lebanese civilians, the Israeli incursions into Lebanese territory etc. If you take all of these out of the equation, and only focus on the Hezbollah attacks over the border, the previous attempts at kidnapping soldiers, and the most recent kidnapping (& the resulting deaths)... If you did this, you could paint Hezbollah as being the bane of the complete situation. This is what you're trying to do with Israel, because you're not willing to show or allow any
other factors to the conflicts...

Its a thread about Need for Wars by Israel, so the reasons why Israel would commit to and continue a war are important. If it is the governmental corruption within Palestine that is a block to peace, then that is an aspect of what keeps Israel in Palestine, and in turn prolongs the conflict.

This seems to be the whole crux of your argument, and I agree that the Palestinians have sometimes not pulled their weight. But most people do not blinker themselves from the fact that neither has Israel. And since Zionists are the guys who instigated this whole conflict along with the
American and the British governments, I think the onus should be on them to instigate the resolution - the famous two UN resolutions to be specific.

But most people do not blinker themselves from the fact that neither has Israel...... Think about that for a second. You and many posters here are only focusing on Israel, ignoring the actions of the other countries or peoples involved. To suggest looking at these other factors is to go off topic. Very convenient.

Is that just a way to place everyone else in the Middle east that has dealings with israel as being victims, regardless of their own actions?

Edit: You said that sometimes that palestinians haven't pulled their own weight. Can you tell me the times that they have?

nacho libre

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you, kept getting sidetracked.

nacho libre wrote:

In my opinion there would be less violence if a final agreement could be reached. As the majority of civilians on each side i think want peace. The extremists on both sides would of course try to disrupt it but they would have little support among the wider population in my opinion. Although, you probably see it as the opposite on the Palestinian side. Because it's seemingly divisible to this for you: Palestinian's are intransigent. Israel Bends over backwards to seek accomdation.

I don't believe i've claimed that Israel bends over backwards to seek an accomdation. I've said in the past that their settlement programme is one of the worst threats to peace. Just as I've said that they've had their fair share of breaking ceasefires, and indiscriminate attacking of civilians. Added to this their holding of civilians without trial just encourages the conflicts with both Palestine to continue.

Nah. I don't see Israel as being an innocent. They've messed up a hell of alot of times. I just get annoyed seeing the amount of blindness to Palestinian or other Arab counties' actions. This singleminded focus on Israeli actions to the exclusion of any other involvements....

If peace was agreed, I would expect the attacks from Palestine to decrease over time, however, only if the controlling government implemented their own actions to reduce them. Without a proper push by Hamas or whichever controlling government to reduce attacks, I would actually believe attacks would increase, and Israel would go back in once more.

Yet, wasn't Barack the one to walk away from the Taba Agreement because he couldn't sell it to his own people? Do you criticise him for doing this? or will you seek to portray it as something else- like blaming the Palestinians?

Actually I would criticise the Israeli people for not accepting the agreement, moreso than his inability to convince them.

As for blaming the Palestinians over the agreement, nope. Perhaps if we were talking about the earlier negotiations which Arafat rejected, but not for that agreement.

You see, if posters here throw up an agreement or proposal which Israel either failed or rejected, I'll talk about it. Like above with regards to the Road Map for peace, which both sides failed on, but its mostly the Israeli failures that are highlighted. I will usually seek to show the Palestinian failures because there is such a lack of it being shown on these boards.... And its a very important segment for the continuing conflict.

wes

Deleted User wrote:

You (one might say conveniently) forgot all the Jews who were expelled into Israel from neighbouring Arab states...

They were not all expelled, most fled to Israel to flee the backlash after the creation of Israel. Most didn't leave right away either.

Some also left to go to the promised land. So it isn't that they were all expelled.

Also not all the Palestinians weren't all expelled either, a lot fled to avoid the war with Israel. As I mentioned the beginning of the conflict started with the creation of Israel.

Simply put the Jews in Arabs states were treated better than European ones at the time. They didn't herd them into camps and gas them like in Europe. The conflict was caused by European Jews fleeing the holocaust, and its aftermath, when most countries wouldn't take them in. This led to the situation in Palestine and subsequent war. So you can try and paint the Arabs as evil or whatever, they were miles ahead of Europe in treatment of Jews and the hatred there today is due to propaganda fed to them by there governments and anger toward Israel.

wes

wes wrote:

Simply put the Jews in Arabs states were treated better than European ones at the time. They didn't herd them into camps and gas them like in Europe. The conflict was caused by European Jews fleeing the holocaust, and its aftermath, when most countries wouldn't take them in. This led to the situation in Palestine and subsequent war. So you can try and paint the Arabs as evil or whatever, they were miles ahead of Europe in treatment of Jews and the hatred there today is due to propaganda fed to them by there governments and anger toward Israel.

Ahead of Europe? Surely you mean ahead of the Germans under Hitler and Russia under Stalin? Rather than painting all of Europe with the same brush.

In regards to the part in italics, surely by this logic, the other arab nations are very responsible for the continuing violence regarding Palestine because they refused to let the Palestinian refugees settle in their countries, and instead kept them in camps ensuring that they would remain refugees? (with the partial exception of Jordan who allowed in a fair number)

wes

Deleted User wrote:

Ahead of Europe? Surely you mean ahead of the Germans under Hitler and Russia under Stalin? Rather than painting all of Europe with the same brush.

In regards to the part in italics, surely by this logic, the other arab nations are very responsible for the continuing violence regarding Palestine because they refused to let the Palestinian refugees settle in their countries, and instead kept them in camps ensuring that they would remain refugees? (with the partial exception of Jordan who allowed in a fair number)

Several occupied European nations joined in on the slaughter of the Jews. I was using Europe as short hand, didn't mean to paint the whole. Still Anti-semtism was rampant in Europe in those days. It didn't always translate into pogroms.

Having said that there were many Europeans who did what they could to save as many Jews as possible under impossible circumstances.

As for the Palestinian situation, the violence within the territories wouldn't lessen if they were more welcomed by Arab nations. Hatred toward Jews in those nations might not be so bad. They would still be Palestinian and I am sure they would still want there right to return. I don't think the violence would lessen dramatically. The only way is for a fair resolution for both Israeli and Palestinians.

Ditto. TBH, I don't think it has much influence over the parties involved. I think the main issue is territory, and the attacks themselves.

wes

Deleted User wrote:

Ditto. TBH, I don't think it has much influence over the parties involved. I think the main issue is territory, and the attacks themselves.

Exactly the attacks have to stop, but the Palestinian leadership is such a mess that even if Hamas renounced violence and recognized Israel I don't think they could stop all the militants. Israel success at beating the Palestinians has back fired in that there is no group with authority to stop attacks at this time.

I can only hope that the Palestinians get some decent leaders who can unite them and finally start sorting the situation out.

InFront

Deleted User wrote:

The creation of Israel couldn't have occured just from zionist movements, but needed the Holocaust, Britain withdrawing from Palestine, and the support of the US for it to occur.

Right. So what? These are no reasons for the Zionist takeover of the Arab territory. Why wasn't Israel created in Poland? Germany? France? England? The USA? Russia? New Zealand?
The Palestinians had nothing to do with the anti-jewish Europe, had nothing to do with the Holocaust. It was Europeans who were complicit in these things, it was Europe who, if a state was even needed, should have created Israel from themselves.

If you want to ignore the other influences apart from israel's own actions then you're not being realistic. Just about every conflict that has occured in history has ties to actions of another country or people.

The problem with Zionism is that it was artifically introduced, it did not stem from the region, but was sent from Europe.
That is why this problem in the Middle Eastern context, really did just begin 'all of a sudden' unlike most others. It flared up from nowhere.

But most people do not blinker themselves from the fact that neither has Israel...... Think about that for a second. You and many posters here are only focusing on Israel, ignoring the actions of the other countries or peoples involved.

Involved? Yes, the same way that any country is "involved" with an invader.

Tell me an Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the cause of the conflict did not ultimately stem from the initial Zionist invasion and subsequent artificial creation of the state of Israel? If you want to talk about the whole book, start at the beginning.

Is that just a way to place everyone else in the Middle east that has dealings with israel as being victims, regardless of their own actions?

Why don't you create a thread about Palestinian relations with other nations if you want to talk about it?
It actually isn't relevant whether you like it or not. Nor is there a whole lot to discuss on the matter.
Going by the fact that you still haven't brought anything like that up so far yourself shows you're probably well aware of both points. To be honest it looks like diversion.

Edit: You said that sometimes that palestinians haven't pulled their own weight. Can you tell me the times that they have?

I think one would invariably have to begin by mentioning the amount of Palestinians who recognize Israel, and the relatively short time it took for that to happen on a significant scale.
That makes a huge statement. I'm just unsure whether it says more about the forgiving nature of the Palestinians, or the overbearing fascism of the Zionists. Both, probably.

You should be well aware of Palestinians pulling their weight. It is a mark of their restraint, and the restraint of the Muslim states of the Middle East that Israel is even tolerated despite the injustice of its creation, its quest for lebensraum, and its interminable aggression to its neighbours.
Palestinians have sat, and still sit across from Zionists at meeting tables. They shake the hands of the Zionists. They entertain diplomatic relations with the people who have brought with them nothing but unwanted misery.

Do you think there are many occupied societies who would go along with that, and so soon? Peace is actually (even remotely) possible in the middle east, and this just 60 years after Israel was declared, that is down to Palestinians pulling their weight.

Why is Israel not answerable to the UN?

InFront

InFront wrote:

Right. So what? These are no reasons for the Zionist takeover of the Arab territory. Why wasn't Israel created in Poland? Germany? France? England? The USA? Russia? New Zealand?
The Palestinians had nothing to do with the anti-jewish Europe, had nothing to do with the Holocaust. It was Europeans who were complicit in these things, it was Europe who, if a state was even needed, should have created Israel from themselves.

What are you on about? Palestine was part of the British Empire until they decided to move from the region. Why aren't you blaming the British for accepting the proposal to use their former mandate as a placement of the Jewish homeland? Or the United Nations for proposing and voting on the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine? How is it that the Jews have received your undivided attention, due to the polling of a number of zionists who convinced the UN that Palestine was a good destination for the Jews?

It wasn't only the Europeans involved. It was the United Nations with a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions.

The 33 countries that voted Yes were: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The 13 countries that voted No were: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

The ten countries that abstained are: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

A bit more than Europe.

The problem with Zionism is that it was artifically introduced, it did not stem from the region, but was sent from Europe.

Yup.. If Napoleon suggested it first, then it must have been sent from Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_and_the_Jews#Napoleon_and_a_Jewish_state_in_Palestine

That is why this problem in the Middle Eastern context, really did just begin 'all of a sudden' unlike most others. It flared up from nowhere.

I haven't disagreed with you on this.

Involved? Yes, the same way that any country is "involved" with an invader.

Again, you ignore it. Involved as in the actions of other countries that lead up to the conflict, and how those actions aggravate or even start a conflict.

Tell me an Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the cause of the conflict did not ultimately stem from the initial Zionist invasion and subsequent artificial creation of the state of Israel? If you want to talk about the whole book, start at the beginning.

Wait. Now...... I'm not to talk about non-palestinian conflicts, when this thread has mentioned many times the aggressiveness of Israel with regards to its neighbours, and how they were victims of "zionism"? This isn't a palestinian conflict only thread....

So your whole belief that every bit of conflict in the middle east that Israel has been involved in, is all Israel's fault because their state was created there? Perhaps you should start blaming the UN instead since, they would be more suitable a target for that responsibility. Had the UN decided Israel would be created in Africa, then thats where it would have been created...

Why don't you create a thread about Palestinian relations with other nations if you want to talk about it?

Because its applicable to this thread. You just seem to want to bash Israel. Even when its the case that the Arab armies that invaded Palestine, you want to place the blame on Israel. No, sorry. The Arab armies invading palestine doesn't matter since Israel's creation is the part of the problem worth talking about.

It actually isn't relevant whether you like it or not. Nor is there a whole lot to discuss on the matter.

Only because you're not willing to discuss it, because anything outside of your viewpoint is irrelevent.

Going by the fact that you still haven't brought anything like that up so far yourself shows you're probably well aware of both points. To be honest it looks like diversion.

Whatever. getting tired of repeating myself, to someone not willing to listen.

I think one would invariably have to begin by mentioning the amount of Palestinians who recognize Israel, and the relatively short time it took for that to happen on a significant scale.
That makes a huge statement. I'm just unsure whether it says more about the forgiving nature of the Palestinians, or the overbearing fascism of the Zionists. Both, probably.

Wooptie do. Has the Palestinian government recognised the state of Israel? How many agreements made with Israel have the Palestinians followed through on? How many times have the Palestinians arrested or blocked their own factions from attacking Israel?

You should be well aware of Palestinians pulling their weight. It is a mark of their restraint, and the restraint of the Muslim states of the Middle East that Israel is even tolerated despite the injustice of its creation, its quest for lebensraum, and its interminable aggression to its neighbours.
Palestinians have sat, and still sit across from Zionists at meeting tables. They shake the hands of the Zionists. They entertain diplomatic relations with the people who have brought with them nothing but unwanted misery.

Wow. They've shown restraint? Don't make me laugh. Obviously the attacks by Palestinian militant forces over the decades isn't relevent either... And they maintain relations in the hope that they'll gain more concessions.

Do you think there are many occupied societies who would go along with that, and so soon? Peace is actually (even remotely) possible in the middle east, and this just 60 years after Israel was declared, that is down to Palestinians pulling their weight.

Rubbish. When have the Palestinians gone along with anything Israel proposed...? Its because Israel has provided the Palestinians with a platform in which to make that movement away from violence, firstly in allowing the creation of the PA, and secondly the elections of Hamas. I'm curious to know what Hamas, Fatah, and other palestinian factions have actually done to promote peace?

Why is Israel not answerable to the UN?

I never said they weren't. How is it that the Palestinian "resistance" groups are unanswerable also....? The UN has many times requested for a stopping of attacks which have continued regardless. Ahh.. but thats acceptable.

But I'll say that I believe that Israel should be answerable to the UN, and its resolutions. I can't actually see where you got that I didn't believe it....