Need for wars by Israel

wes

Deleted User wrote:

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?

Zionists were instrumental in the creation of Israel, they helped illegal immigration, but to be fair it was not something that they did alone. The UN resolution and the holocaust were huge factors in this. The thing about the UN resolution is that quite frankly it was a crime committed against Palestine, no one consulted them about the fate of there country. A lot of the worlds problems and hatred stem from this decision. The destruction of a nation and making these people pay for the crime of Nazi Germany was disgusting and something that many people today defend openly as a great thing. Go figure at least 1 Billion people disagree.

However Israel is there now and the its destruction would be a crime as well and would lead to another group of people who had nothing to do with the destruction of Palestine being punished. So another injustice wouldn't solve it. However the world and the Israeli's have wronged the Palestinians and while the cycle of violence is hardly all Israel fault, but they have contributed to it as well. There have been those in Israel who genuinely wanted peace and those who wanted more land, both exist today. On the Palestinian side they have no real leadership, there choices remain a corrupt group little better than the mafia on the one hand and unrealistic religous/nationlistic nuts who's stupidity have caused there people suffering.

The thing is we can't get away that the destruction of Palestine will always be apart of the problem and a rallying cry for terrorists world wide since it was a grave injustice. It needs to be addressed so that reconciliation can begin.

InFront

Deleted User wrote:

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?

I don't know why you think I'm not blaming the UN or British as well.

I'm blaming Zionism. Balfour and Churchill, for example, were obviously two particularly Zionist leaders, as are the Christian neo-cons. In another related thread recently I referred specifically to this, I'm pretty sure I have done it here as well. If not, there it is again.

But that doesn't excuse the Israeli Zionists' actions. Saying "he helped me do it" might hold some water in a playground scenario, but this is politics, and the Israeli Zionists are the root of the problem.

I would tend to blame the thief with stole from a home as opposed to the accomplice who held the ladder.

How is it that the Jews have received your undivided attention

You should really educate yourself on the differences between Judaism and Zionism before you come out with misleading comments like that. Judaism has no responsibility for the crisis in Palestine.

Most religious Jews, just so you know, have remained very much aloof from the Zionist initiative, seeing it as something that only their Messiah could bring about. Haven't you ever heard of "next year in Jerusalem"? You shouldn't be making those suggestions.

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?

Again, that is a misunderstanding on your part.
Palestinians are responsible for their own actions, and sometimes their actions are unjustified, they have acted badly. But all of this stems from the invasion of Zionism, and the fact that it was tolerated. The entire conflict began with Zionist Opportunism.

Perhaps you should start blaming the UN instead since, they would be more suitable a target for that responsibility.

I don't blame the entire UN for starting the conflict, I blame Zionism and people who subscribed to it in order to bring about and perpetuate the Israeli state, be they American or Polish or whatever else.
But the Israeli Zionists are those who are particularly to blame. They have created this mess.
Again, you should focus blame on the filthy thief, not the man holding the ladder.

Has the Palestinian government recognised the state of Israel?

Hamas do not recognise Israel, but then again, I didn't suggest that, did I. I talked about Palestinians recognising the right of Israel to exist in so short a period of time and under such constant terror as they have done - significantly. You remember Yasser Arafat? Recognising Israel was no big deal when he did it, apparently. And by the way, when have the Israeli Government ever recognised Palestine?

Hamas have said they will deal with Israel, they have said they will reach out to Israel, and I think that alone is something commendable, never-mind the recognition Israel has received from other quarters.

Also, the US are boycotting the Palestinian Government at the moment, I presume you think that's okay?

You seem to find this is all one sided, I have said time and again that the Palestinians have acted badly from time to time. But you misrepresent them and overlook the Zionists'. I am sure the Zionists are aware of how far Palestinians have come, at least partly because of the terror Israel imposed, and so Israel have become confident in their artificial might. But the thing about confidence-building is that you have to encourage confidence if has to be reciprocated.
It is Nuclear Israel's overconfidence that prevents it from instilling confidence in the stone-throwing Palestinians.

Equally, I don't know what encouragement of confidence you see in Israeli attacks from the Lebanese Wars to the wall of seperation to their brutal treatment of Palestinian refugees under siege, to the Hebron Massacre, denial of human rights, land-grabbing, Zionist numbers in the W.B. doubling since Oslo, back to 1967 invasions and back and beyond.

Israel has a history of confidence shattering. As the artificial invaders, and the most guilty belligerents they have a special obligation to begin the process of reconciliation.

How many times have the Palestinians arrested or blocked their own factions from attacking Israel?

Given the amount of times the IDF have attacked the Palestinian security apparatus and Palestinian civilians, I'm not surprised.
Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, the security apparatus were only given the mandate for internal security and public order, they're not there to protect Israel, Israel has many protectors as everybody is aware.
I'm surprised you think they need more.

I'm curious to know what Hamas, Fatah, and other palestinian factions have actually done to promote peace?

When did Israel honour peace agreements? When did they renounce violence against Palestinians? The Israelis are no supporters of Oslo, they are no pacifists. As I said, they don't even recognise Palestine. Of course, they do know a Palestinian when it counts.

Anyway, the Hamas position on peace is unequivocal
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32902
"If Israel evacuates the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and recognises the right of return for refugees and dismantles the new wall, I can guarantee you that Hamas will be ready for serious steps, founded on justice and equality, in view of a permanent peace with the Israelis," Khalid Meshaal, a Hamas leader, told the French newspaper Le Figaro recently.

Why is Israel not answerable to the UN?

I never said they weren't.

I wasn't asking if you said so, I was asking why they are not.

If they are the bigger men, like you suggest, why don't they make themselves answerable to the United Nations?

The International Court of Justice in the Hague issued a non-binding ruling stating that the separation wall was a violation of international law, and the UN passes a resolution to the same effect: Israel ignore it.
The famous resolution 242 telling Israel to give back what is not theirs: Israel ignore it.
Resolution 465, Resolution 498, Resolution 237, Resolution 476, Resolution 673 (that was a funny one), Resolution 608... pick any number, there are many more. Israel doesn't care.

But I'll say that I believe that Israel should be answerable to the UN, and its resolutions.

Right, but that doesn't matter, the fact is they are not answerable, and they do not obey resolutions, when it suits them.

Another question, why are Israel (unlike, say, Iran) not answerable to the IAEA? Why are they not part of the NPT? What about its undeclared WMDs? Where are the UN Sanctions on Israel?

This all goes back to Israeli aggression.

InFront

InFront wrote:

I don't know why you think I'm not blaming the UN or British as well.

I'm blaming Zionism. Balfour and Churchill, for example, were obviously two particularly Zionist leaders, as are the Christian neo-cons. In another related thread recently I referred specifically to this, I'm pretty sure I have done it here as well. If not, there it is again.

Perhaps because you've been commenting on the creation of Israel as being only due to the Zionists? Or rather that the root of all conflict is the zionists fault... But I'm glad to see you also attribute the blame to these other parties.

But that doesn't excuse the Israeli Zionists' actions. Saying "he helped me do it" might hold some water in a playground scenario, but this is politics, and the Israeli Zionists are the root of the problem.

I would tend to blame the thief with stole from a home as opposed to the accomplice who held the ladder.

So you only blame the few zionists that helped create the country, rather than the inhabitants of Israel at the time? Its somewhat confusing since you throw out "zionist" so much, that its hard to tell whether you're blaming the Israeli population at the time of its creation.

You should really educate yourself on the differences between Judaism and Zionism before you come out with misleading comments like that. Judaism has no responsibility for the crisis in Palestine.

Actually I do know the difference, rather I was wondering if you did. Afterall you're talking about Israel, and yet you attribute almost everything to Zionists, which were a rather small portion of the Jewish population at that time.

Again, that is a misunderstanding on your part.
Palestinians are responsible for their own actions, and sometimes their actions are unjustified, they have acted badly. But all of this stems from the invasion of Zionism, and the fact that it was tolerated. The entire conflict began with Zionist Opportunism.

The whole conflict started when Jewish & Arab terror gangs started fighting within Palestine. Thats when the conflict started. If you want the reason, then it was when the UN decided that Palestine was the best destination for the Jews.

i don't blame the entire UN for starting the conflict, I blame Zionism and people who subscribed to it in order to bring about and perpetuate the Israeli state, be they American or Polish or whatever else.
But the Israeli Zionists are those who are particularly to blame. They have created this mess.
Again, you should focus blame on the filthy thief, not the man holding the ladder.

The UN didn't hold the ladder. They took the person, opened the door, pushed the person inside, locked the door, and then disappeared when the neighbours came knocking with shotguns.

You don't blame the UN for starting the conflict. You don't blame the Arab nations for invading Palestine. You don't blame anyone except the zionists that pushed for the creation of Israel in Palestine.

Hamas do not recognise Israel, but then again, I didn't suggest that, did I. I talked about Palestinians recognising the right of Israel to exist in so short a period of time and under such constant terror as they have done - significantly. You remember Yasser Arafat? Recognising Israel was no big deal when he did it, apparently. And by the way, when have the Israeli Government ever recognised Palestine?

Why should they? Really... If the Palestinian government is unwilling to recognise Israel and broker a peace, what is the point of recognising Palestine?

Hamas have said they will deal with Israel, they have said they will reach out to Israel, and I think that alone is something commendable, never-mind the recognition Israel has received from other quarters.

Reach out with diplomacy, or reach out with the gun? Hamas have said alot of things. They just haven't done much about it. The PA were worse.

Also, the US are boycotting the Palestinian Government at the moment, I presume you think that's okay?

Totally. The Palestinian government is refusing to stop the attacks, refusing to commit themselves to past agreements, and refusing to recognise Israel. Even if they did the last two, they'd gain some measure of respect, and Palestine would start receiving some of the aid they've been getting for years already.

You seem to find this is all one sided, I have said time and again that the Palestinians have acted badly from time to time.

Badly from time to time. When? How?

But you misrepresent them and overlook the Zionists'. I am sure the Zionists are aware of how far Palestinians have come, at least partly because of the terror Israel imposed, and so Israel have become confident in their artificial might. But the thing about confidence-building is that you have to encourage confidence if has to be reciprocated.

Zionists. Zionists. Zionists. What is this focus you have with Zionism? I can understand the zionist references with regards to the creation of Israel but the references since in regards to Israel's actions?

And I totally agree about the confidence aspect. Israel needs to gain the confidence that Palestine will follow through on past agreements, and that Palestinians are willing or able to prevent their "freedom fighters" for attacking even were peace come about.

I'll post up about the rest later. Off to work.

wes

Deleted User wrote:

The whole conflict started when Jewish & Arab terror gangs started fighting within Palestine. Thats when the conflict started. If you want the reason, then it was when the UN decided that Palestine was the best destination for the Jews.

So the creation of Israel was okay then? What rights did the UN have to decide what should happen to Palestine? What rights to send Jewish refugee's there? Perhaps the countries who voted for the creation of Israel should have taken them in rather than send them elsewhere. I don't know if they were doing them a favor or if they were glad to be rid of Jews from there countries?

meditraitor

Deleted User wrote:

Zionists. Zionists. Zionists. What is this focus you have with Zionism? I can understand the zionist references with regards to the creation of Israel but the references since in regards to Israel's actions?
.

Because if he is not carefull with his language the old "your anti-semetic" hammer comes out and posters of your ilk dont have to answer the real questions like

Is it ok to steal anothers country and then murder and torture a whole section(previosly the majority) of the country for 60years because they dont want to give up their ancestral lands?

Sand

Is it ok to steal anothers country and then murder and torture a whole section(previosly the majority) of the country for 60years because they dont want to give up their ancestral lands?

Who are we talking about here? The Palestinian people or the Israeli/Jewish people? Because as I understand it Israel is also the Israelis ancestral lands, they would argue they reclaimed their ancestral lands that were stolen from them and that theyre being murdered and tortured by people who want to steal their ancestral land from them?

Is their a statute of limitations on land stealing? When did the Israelis lose their claim on their ancestral lands and it became the Palestinians ancestral lands?

The legality of Israels existence does not matter a single bit. Not a single bit. I could wholly agree Israel has no legal basis to exist [I think it has every right btw] and it wouldnt change a thing. Israel exists, and it has a powerful army and airforce that has defeated every effort by its neighbours to "drive them back into the sea". Until that changes, Israel will continue to exist, regardless of others opinions. End of.

These threads always go back to the legal existence of Israel like it matters at all.

"If Israel evacuates the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and recognises the right of return for refugees and dismantles the new wall, I can guarantee you that Hamas will be ready for serious steps, founded on justice and equality, in view of a permanent peace with the Israelis," Khalid Meshaal, a Hamas leader, told the French newspaper Le Figaro recently.

Hes asking for concrete decisive, dangerous [dismantle the wall that helps keep suicide bombers out? Yeah, thatll fly] and unpopular measures to be taken by the Israelis and offers them....vague undefined promises of possible future actions. Sounds like a non-starter when you consider people will point to the Gaza Strip example where Israel withdrew its miliatary and settlers and the Palestinians simply moved their rockets up to the new border to bomb Israel proper instead of the old settlements. It would be very, very, very hard for an Israeli politician to convince people that a withdrawal like Hamas called for wouldnt simply lead to the Palestinians pushing forward into Israel from new positions.

The Israelis made a decisive move in Gaza and were repaid only with confirmation that withdrawls lead to more attacks. Id support Israel withdrawals from settlements in the West Bank and altering the path of the wall to leave the West Bank on the other side of it, but after Gaza its hard to see that it wouldnt simply be a repeat.

meditraitor

Sand wrote:

Who are we talking about here? .

As usual, another sophist reply avoiding any need for the poster to address the issue,

The fact that isreal is the primary abuser in this disgracefull chapter of middle eastern history should be enough for at the very least a condemnation by anyone with half a brain but from some of the replys here I get the feeling that the pro-zionist movement beleive its ok for isreal to commit ethnic cleansing.
It saddens me to think that such coldness of spirit is alive and well and popular even among the boards.

Sand

As usual, another sophist reply avoiding any need for the poster to address the issue,

Ironically, a pointless side issue.

The fact that isreal is the primary abuser in this disgracefull chapter of middle eastern history should be enough for at the very least a condemnation by anyone with half a brain but from some of the replys here I get the feeling that the pro-zionist movement beleive its ok for isreal to commit ethnic cleansing.
It saddens me to think that such coldness of spirit is alive and well and popular even among the boards.

Youre not looking for objective analysis or condemnation based upon values. You identify Israel as the "primary abuser", implicitly approving Hamas by the way, then ironically denounce anyone who doesnt go along with your one sided condemnation as pro-zionist. Youre just running propaganda for the Palestinians just like every one sided UN condemnation that the General Assembly sends up to be rejected by the US for not including equivalent condemnation of Palestinian terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinians are trapped in catch 22. They each react to each others oppression and atrocities by more oppression and atrocities. The cycle could be broken by either side. Neither deserves to be let off the hook for their actions by the identification of their opponent as the "primary abuser"

wes

wes wrote:

So the creation of Israel was okay then?

I don't know whether it was ok or not. I don't really think about it all
that much. Israel was created there, and I'm more concerned with the events
after that. Its not as if we can go back, and ask them to do otherwise.

What rights did the UN have to decide what should happen to
Palestine? What rights to send Jewish refugee's there?

The same rights it showed to a number of other territories worldwide.
Afterall, they split off part of Palestine and passed it over to Jordan, and
yet there's rarely any complaint about that... In world politics, smaller
countries were always at the mercy of the bigger nations.

Perhaps the countries who voted for the creation of Israel should
have taken them in rather than send them elsewhere. I don't know if they
were doing them a favor or if they were glad to be rid of Jews from there
countries?

Perhaps they should have. But they didn't. Maybe if neither the Jews or the
Arabs had formed terror gangs, then we might have two viable states in
Palestine.

But it didn't happen in any case. I'm more concerned about what did
happen.

Meditraitor wrote:

Because if he is not carefull with his language the old
"your anti-semetic" hammer comes out and posters of your ilk dont have to
answer the real questions like

My ilk? What exactly is that? :mad:

He's not being careful with his language. He's attributing the actions of
Israel to Zionism. He makes the point that there's a difference between
Judism, and Zionism, and yet he doesn't seem willing to make a similiar
distinction between zionists and Israeli's himself. Not all Israeli's are
zionists, despite what you might want to believe.

And nowhere in my post have I called anyone a anti-semetic, or even
suggested it.

Is it ok to steal anothers country and then murder and torture a
whole section(previosly the majority) of the country for 60years because
they dont want to give up their ancestral lands?

No country was stolen by the Jews. Despite all the melodrama by posters like
yourself, the UN placed the homeland of the Jews there, and also proposed
the creation of a Palestinian state. Did the UN break any international laws
at that time in doing so? i don't know. Do you?

Israel further occupied lands attributed to the Palestinians by the
UN, during the 1st Arab war, and later during the 1967 war. It is these
lands that should have been returned to the Palestinians so they could form
a Palestinian state. I have no issue with that.

Dontico

i would advise klaz to read on the zionist movement around i think 1886. before that is when "the jews" started moving over. there is no point argueing over a topic you know little about.

both russia and italy tried to set up a jewish state in thier countries. infact russias is still around. although it has a very small jewish popultion.

also during ww2, portugals facist party, invited jewish people to escape to portugal from the nazis. they set up jewish museums to give them extra jobs.

people are only supportive of israel cause they hate muslims.

meditraitor

Sand wrote:

Youre not looking for objective analysis or condemnation based upon values."

Your not giving either, you surreptitiously use language to avoid giving objective analysis or indeed more importantly condemnation based on VALUES which are plain to see.

Sand wrote:

You identify Israel as the "primary abuser", implicitly approving Hamas by the way,"

Hamas is the red headed bastard step-child of Isreal, without isreal hamas doesnt exist.
my opinion that isreal is the primary abuser does not lend support to hamas or its ways. As usual you try to deflect from the main point

Sand wrote:

then ironically denounce anyone who doesnt go along with your one sided condemnation as pro-zionist."

I only denounce people who find it easy to advocate violence, something you are doing a good job of!

Sand wrote:

Youre just running propaganda for the Palestinians just like every one sided UN condemnation that the General Assembly sends up to be rejected by the US for not including equivalent condemnation of Palestinian terrorism."

LOL,

I condemn Plastine

Sand wrote:

Israel and the Palestinians are trapped in catch 22. They each react to each others oppression and atrocities by more oppression and atrocities. The cycle could be broken by either side. "

Stop the ethnic cleansing of palastine for a couple of minutes and see how much of a catch there is!

Sand wrote:

Neither deserves to be let off the hook for their actions by the identification of their opponent as the "primary abuser"

Isreal being the primary abuser in this conflict has no bearing on palastine attoning for their own crimes.
Who has paid the biggest price in terms of lives and standard of living within the region now known as isreal and palastine?

Dontico

Dontico wrote:

i would advise klaz to read on the zionist movement around i think 1886. before that is when "the jews" started moving over. there is no point argueing over a topic you know little about.

Dontico, what claims did i make about Zionism that were wrong? Actually point them out for me....

both russia and italy tried to set up a jewish state in thier countries. infact russias is still around. although it has a very small jewish popultion.

also during ww2, portugals facist party, invited jewish people to escape to portugal from the nazis. they set up jewish museums to give them extra jobs.

people are only supportive of israel cause they hate muslims.

I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but then i saw the last line. Do you really expect any degree of creditibility with that kind of belief?

How would you repond if I said the only reason people support Palestine is because they hate Jews...? Then, start applying that to your own reasoning... :rolleyes:

InFront

Deleted User wrote:

Perhaps because you've been commenting on the creation of Israel as being only due to the Zionists?

It was.

Again, Zionism is a political opinion. People who voted for the invention of Israel, and people who continue to argue in favour of its development in Palestine, and those who support the current Israeli government and subscribe to their ideology are, in my opinion, Zionists.

I'm not asking what caused Zionism, everbody knows, but it's quite irrelevant to Palestine. Anti-Semitism (long before the Holocaust, long before Dreyfus) in Europe being the principal one. Holocaust guilt amongst Europeans, also, of course. And indeed US Christian Zionism in more recent years, reaching to the highest echelon of the American administration.

Or rather that the root of all conflict is the zionists fault... But I'm glad to see you also attribute the blame to these other parties.

They're the same thing. People who tend to talk in pro-Zionist rhetoric or back the Zionists themselves think in Zionist terms. I'm not differentiating between American Zionists and Israeli or French or Russian Zionists, just the opinion that unites them.

So you only blame the few zionists that helped create the country, rather than the inhabitants of Israel at the time?

I think you're getting confused because I use the word Israeli.

When I say 'British Policy for War', for example, I'm not talking about how a Yorkshire sheep herder thinks they should manage the troops in Basra, I'm talking about Government policy.
Of course there are Israelis who have no responsibility for the conflict. But the Israeli Government do, and Zionists both in Israel and beyond also do have responsibilites.

The whole conflict started when Jewish & Arab terror gangs started fighting within Palestine.

No, it did not.

The conflict began with Zionism. When they came to the Arab territory from around the beginning of the 20th century, and started making demands about their divine right to what was none of their business, that's when the conflict began.

If you want the reason, then it was when the UN decided that Palestine was the best destination for the Jews.

The UN didn't say that, I would hardly think Palestine is the "best destination" for anyone, now or then.
It's interesting how Zionists listen to the UN when they are looking for handouts from other people, or can get something. Ask them to obey a resolution, and it's a different story.

The UN didn't hold the ladder. They took the person, opened the door, pushed the person inside, locked the door, and then disappeared when the neighbours came knocking with shotguns.

Don't exaggerate. The UN didn't force anybody to move to Palestine, they helped to facilitate the movement. The Zionists invented the claim, pursued it, eventually talked politicians around, took their ammunition, and set up shop.

Why should they? Really... If the Palestinian government is unwilling to recognise Israel and broker a peace, what is the point of recognising Palestine?

All that those particular Palestinians are doing is not recognising UN Resolution 181.
Israel has ignored resolutions a great many, many times since its creation. Why should they expect to be treated any differently?

Totally. The Palestinian government is refusing to stop the attacks

They have considerably less power over Palestinians, unlike the Zionists and the Israeli Governments have power over their actions. Why don't the Israelis commit themselves to stopping their attacks on innocent civilians?

, refusing to commit themselves to past agreements,

Israel are guilty of this.

and refusing to recognise Israel.

Israel refuse to recognise Palestine.

Badly from time to time. When? How?

Badly is an understatement. There are Palestinians who have acted with a level of stupidity that anybody would be ashamed to associate with, not least Palestinians.
In-fighting, suicide bombings, attempts to kill pacifist, innocent civilians in revenge for Israeli aggression, which has happened, that is what I would call acting badly.

That's nothing new. But being fully aware of the Palestinian shortcomings is quite revealing, because all it does is open your eyes to the extent of Israeli aggression and Israeli state terrorism.

When you know the very worst of it, and know what the Palestinians have done, and they are no heroes, then you compare that to the crimes and human rights abuses that Israel is responsible for.
The picture is an unsettling one. There is a massive disparity that not even the most ardent Zionist could dispute, they are a state full of constant rage.

Israel is the South Africa of our generation, and worse (don't take my word for it, ask Jimmy Carter). Or the UN http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2019547,00.html, or maybe that comes under "cover-your-ears-coverage"

It is a state in complete defiance of any common sense or justice. I can recognise where the Palestians have failed, but you never blame the Israelis, you seem to be unable to understand the Zionist culpability and guilt.

What is this focus you have with Zionism? I can understand the zionist references with regards to the creation of Israel but the references since in regards to Israel's actions?

Don't you like the name? Zionists are alive and well and among us today, their philosophy is the basis of the continuing atrocities in Israel. I use the term Zionist and Israeli Government/ supporter of terrorism interchangeably.

Originally posted by Sand

"If Israel evacuates the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and recognises the right of return for refugees and dismantles the new wall, I can guarantee you that Hamas will be ready for serious steps, founded on justice and equality, in view of a permanent peace with the Israelis," Khalid Meshaal, a Hamas leader, told the French newspaper Le Figaro recently.

Hes asking for concrete decisive, dangerous [dismantle the wall that helps keep suicide bombers out? Yeah, thatll fly] and unpopular measures to be taken by the Israelis and offers them....vague undefined promises of possible future actions.

Firstly, he's asking them to follow through on UN Resolution 242, subsequent UN Resolutions pertaining to Palestinian refugees, resolutions on the seperation wall, and a ruling by the International Court of Justice at the Hague to the same effect. Is that too much to ask?

What he is saying the Government will give in return is not "vague or undefined". If you read the quote, it is a guarantee of building peace with Israel, a commitment that Israel can hardly refuse, but doesn't have any problem in doing so.

Sounds like a non-starter when you consider people will point to the Gaza Strip example where Israel withdrew its miliatary and settlers and the Palestinians simply moved their rockets up to the new border to bomb Israel proper instead of the old settlements.

You're drawing inaccurate conclusions, according to the recent UN Report I mentioned earlier.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/4session/A.HRC.4.17.pdf

In August 2005, Israel withdrew its settlers and armed forces from Gaza. Statements by the Government of Israel that the withdrawal ended the occupation of Gaza are grossly inaccurate.

Even before the commencement of “Operation Summer Rains”, following the
capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit, Gaza remained under the effective control of Israel.
Thiscontrol was manifested in a number of ways. Israel retained control of Gaza’s air space, seaspace and external borders, and the border crossings of Rafah (for persons) and Karni (for goods) were ultimately under Israeli control and remained closed for lengthy periods. In effect,
following Israel’s withdrawal, Gaza became a sealed off, imprisoned and occupied territory.

InFront

InFront wrote:

It was.

Ok. If you want to go back to the original thought behind a Jewish Homeland in Palestine then yes, it was down to Zionism. Totally with you there.

Again, Zionism is a political opinion. People who voted for the invention of Israel, and people who continue to argue in favour of its development in Palestine, and those who support the current Israeli government and subscribe to their ideology are, in my opinion, Zionists.

Ok. I'm again now understanding your position, and I can agree with you. However, I would say that there is a difference between supporting Israel's right to exist within the original prescribed borders and Zionism. Not sure, if you consider that there's a difference.

I don't really support Israel being in the territories it took from the Arab nations, during their War of Independence, or during the 1967 war. i.e. Palestine.

I think you're getting confused because I use the word Israeli.

Nope, I got confused because you don't use the word Israeli. You use zionists or zionism instead. Thats where my confusion arose. Confusion gone away now that you explained it. Sorted.

No, it did not.

Okies. When did the conflict start? When did Jews and "Palestinians" start fighting?

The conflict began with Zionism. When they came to the Arab territory from around the beginning of the 20th century, and started making demands about their divine right to what was none of their business, that's when the conflict began.

Well, considering the land was considered Jewish at one stage in the far past, its not hard to see where the divine right began. But I can see your point. I just don't agree with you.

I believe that there was a chance at a peaceful settlement with the creation of the proposed two state system of Israel & Palestine, if the Arab Liberation forces hadn't invaded. It would have provided the grounds for further talks/negotiations into formalising better territory distribution for both parties. But it didn't work that way.

The UN didn't say that, I would hardly think Palestine is the "best destination" for anyone, now or then.

What did the UN say? "Well, this one day a Zionist walked up to us and proposed Palestine for the Jewish Homeland, and well, we thought that was a wonderful idea. Wish we had thought of it ourselves"

The creation of Israel in Palestine could not have happened without the support of the UN. Obviously they thought palestine to be the best destination compared to other places in the world....

It's interesting how Zionists listen to the UN when they are looking for handouts from other people, or can get something. Ask them to obey a resolution, and it's a different story.

It works both ways. I'm not defending Israel's past history with the UN and its resolutions. But your post above makes me wonder why you think Palestine is any different. It was the same when the Lebanon conflict was occuring. Posters complaining about Israel posted up about Israel ignoring the UN, but couldn't comprehend that Lebanon has its own history of ignoring the UN, both in resolutions and in general terms.

As you say below there is one outstanding resolution regarding Palestine, and loads regarding Israel. But you're missing a crutial difference. Up until the recent elections, Palestine didn't have a government that resolutions could be applied to. How do you apply resolutions to paramilitary groups?

Even when it comes to the resolution regarding Hezbollah in Lebanon, the resolution is applied to the Lebanese Government, not Hezbollah themselves. Is the same with Palestine.

Don't exaggerate. The UN didn't force anybody to move to Palestine, they helped to facilitate the movement. The Zionists invented the claim, pursued it, eventually talked politicians around, took their ammunition, and set up shop.

Nope. They didn't force them into Palestine. They just created the state of Israel and Palestine. So they opened the door, invited them in, locked the door, and disappeared when the neighbours came knocking with their guns.

They have considerably less power over Palestinians, unlike the Zionists and the Israeli Governments have power over their actions. Why don't the Israelis commit themselves to stopping their attacks on innocent civilians?

Personally I came to the conclusion a long time ago that Israel doesn't really care that much which Palestinian dies. The civilian or the ones carrying the guns. But then I don't believe the Palestinian forces care all that much either.

The only difference I see is that the Israeli government seeks to protect its own citizens, whereas the Palestinian paramilitary forces place other palestinians in harm.

Israel are guilty of this.

Totally.

Israel refuse to recognise Palestine.

Yup.

That's nothing new. But being fully aware of the Palestinian shortcomings is quite revealing, because all it does is open your eyes to the extent of Israeli aggression and Israeli state terrorism.

Thats funny in a sad way. Israel is worse so you'll support palestine as the lesser of two evils?

It is a state in complete defiance of any common sense or justice. I can recognise where the Palestians have failed, but you never blame the Israelis, you seem to be unable to understand the Zionist culpability and guilt.

Never? One Page Back. Number 114.

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....

I post up about Palestinians because I rarely see any such posts on boards about them. Sand, and a few other posters will throw in very balanced viewpoints, but the majority of posts seem almost blind to Palestinian actions. So, Israeli actions are extremely well highlighted. Can't say the same for Palestinian actions.

Sand

Hamas is the red headed bastard step-child of Isreal, without isreal hamas doesnt exist.
my opinion that isreal is the primary abuser does not lend support to hamas or its ways. As usual you try to deflect from the main point

Yeah, and without Hamas Israel wouldnt be so mean to the Palestinians. A terrorist suicide bombs an Israeli pizza parlour because the Israelis bulldozed his brothers house, so the Israelis bulldoze his families house as retaliation and then another Palestinian suicide bomber kills more Israelis because they bulldozed his friends house, yada yadda.

Whose the primary abuser again? Whats wrong with saying "A plague on both your houses?"

I only denounce people who find it easy to advocate violence, something you are doing a good job of!

Really, cos only a post or two ago you were denouncing people who didnt agree with your one sided "primary abuser" view of Israel as lacking half a brain, cold of spirit and pro-zionists calling for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Are you retracting that, or would you agree that all thats necessary to earn the above accolades from yourself would be to not go along with your "primary abuser" spiel?

LOL,

I condemn Plastine

I dont actually, I do condemn terrorism though so when the Palestinians carry it out, or elect a terrorist organisation to lead their government then I condemn that. Palestine itself has every right to exist and hopefully at some future point Palestine and Israel will be peaceful, if not particularly cosy, neighbours.

Stop the ethnic cleansing of palastine for a couple of minutes and see how much of a catch there is!

Or maybe stop the bombing of Israel for a couple of minutes and see how much of a catch there is! Oh , but right - the Palestinians are compelled, forced by some irresistable force to carry out rocket attacks or suicide bombings. They dont have a choice.

Youre aware that treating a people like moral children who dont know right from wrong is fairly patronising and demeaning of those people? The Palestinians and the Israelis are each responsible for their acts, they each have a choice to carry out those acts or not to. Neither gets to opt out of facing up to that responsibility.

Your "primary abuser" crap basically absolves the Palestinians of their own responsibility - they are after all, only the "secondary abuser". Whatever they do, shure the others are worse!

Who has paid the biggest price in terms of lives and standard of living within the region now known as isreal and palastine?

The victims of IDF attacks and Palestinian suicide and rocket attacks Id guess. They are afterall dead, maimed or left grieving for loved ones.

Why, would you say the Palestinians and then handily secure the "Victim" tag for the Palestinians alone? So now its Israel=Primary Abuser, and Palestinian=Victims. A useful starting point from which to analyse the conflict in an objective and even handed manner Im sure.

Sand

Firstly, he's asking them to follow through on UN Resolution 242, subsequent UN Resolutions pertaining to Palestinian refugees, resolutions on the seperation wall, and a ruling by the International Court of Justice at the Hague to the same effect. Is that too much to ask?

In and of itself, no, but in the context of Hamas refusing to recognise Israel [Bar the principle of the thing, the reality is they do exist] or renounce terrorism [which realistically only binds them to peaceful means as much as the Israelis are bound] ?

And in terms of land for peace - which is apparently the supposed basis for a Israeli/Palestinian peace deal - what land would they have left to trade for peace with Hamas in the negotiations after they had already given them the West Bank and Jeruselam? Tel Aviv?

What he is saying the Government will give in return is not "vague or undefined". If you read the quote, it is a guarantee of building peace with Israel, a commitment that Israel can hardly refuse, but doesn't have any problem in doing so.

Actually, he didnt make single concrete offer in that quote. He asked for three clear actions though -

1 - Evacuate the West Bank and East Jerusalem
2 - Dismantle the Israelis security wall
3 - Recognise the right of return for refugees [which makes compensation practically inevitable]

In return Hamas will....

Well I dont know. They promise theyll do something nice, but theres nothing specific. No guarantee they will recognise Israel. No guarantee they will cease rocket and suicide attacks and renounce terrorism. Please, maybe I have misread the quote and theres some specific tradeoff being offered - but I dont see it. The Hamas offer guarantees nothing other than theyll think about being nice.

Not exactly payoff the Israelis would consider all that valuable given they dont trust Hamas anymore than Hamas trust them. If you were an Israeli, would you accept that offer and hope Hamas were as nice as they said they would be later on?

wes

Sand wrote:

Yeah, and without Hamas Israel wouldnt be so mean to the Palestinians. A terrorist suicide bombs an Israeli pizza parlour because the Israelis bulldozed his brothers house, so the Israelis bulldoze his families house as retaliation and then another Palestinian suicide bomber kills more Israelis because they bulldozed his friends house, yada yadda.

Whose the primary abuser again? Whats wrong with saying "A plague on both your houses?"

You ignore the scale of what Israel does when compared to Palestinian terrorists. Scale is very important, the Palestinians are no real threat to Israel and haven't been for a very long time. The Israeli's destroyed there nation not the other way around. So they are the victims of Israel in a very real sense since there is no Palestine, because of the creation of Israel. This can't be ignored as it is the root of the conflict. No this does not excuse Palestinians actions btw, but there situation stems from its creation.

Also Israel gets away with quite a lot, if crippling sanctions were applied to both Palestine and Israel then things would be a lot fairer. Remember Israel is still has illegal settlements in the West Bank and don't seem to want to recognize that as Palestinian territory. So I agree Hamas need to recognize Israel and the sanctions that bring suffering are a results of there actions, but to not place equal sanctions on Israel for violating international law and several UN resolutions shows how one sided the international community can be in this situation. Why punish one side only for there wrong doings and ignore there others.

Simply put Israel is not innocent and neither are the Palestinians. Right now only Palestine is suffering from sanctions. Israel should suffer from sanctions also until they remove settlers from the West Bank or some other similar bench mark.

wes

wes wrote:

You ignore the scale of what Israel does when compared to Palestinian terrorists. Scale is very important, the Palestinians are no real threat to Israel and haven't been for a very long time.

Wes, you talk about scale, but you're missing the point completely. Palestinians are no threat to the state of Israel, but they're a threat to the Israeli people themselves. Every time the Palestinian groups attack Israeli territory they attack Israel's major resource. Its people.

The Israeli's destroyed there nation not the other way around. So they are the victims of Israel in a very real sense since there is no Palestine, because of the creation of Israel. This can't be ignored as it is the root of the conflict. No this does not excuse Palestinians actions btw, but there situation stems from its creation.

Where do you get this from? When did Israel destroy a state of Palestine, cause I'm looking through the history books and I can't find any reference to it.

The possibility of a state of Palestinians came about at the same time as the possibility of a state of Israel. The creation of Israel would have begun at the same time as the creation of a state of Palestine, except that the Arab Liberation army came in and destroyed those hopes.

And after that war, what was there? Israel holding lands outside the original proposed borders, and yes, you guessed it, other Arab Nations occupying lands supposed to go to a Palestinian state. And after that time until the 1967 war, was there a Palestinian state formed from the lands the Arab ountries took? Nope. Not a bit. And then the 1967 war occured and Israel occupied those territories.

Israel didn't destroy a Palestinian state, because such a state was never given a chance to exist. Firstly by the Liberation Army, then by Israel occupying those lands, then the failure to create one by the arabs themselves, and lastly by Israel taking the land from the Arabs later.

You say it can't be ignored as the root of the conflict, and yet I see so many things being ignored. If the Arab Liberation Army hadn't invaded, a Palestinian state would have been formed. If the Arabs had released the lands it took, then a Palestinian state could have been formed. And lastly, if the Palestinians had treated Israel with the same response they gave their Arab occupiers, then the possibility of a Palestinian state may have occured. At least they would have better influence over the Israeli's.

Also Israel gets away with quite a lot, if crippling sanctions were applied to both Palestine and Israel then things would be a lot fairer. Remember Israel is still has illegal settlements in the West Bank and don't seem to want to recognize that as Palestinian territory.

When the EU, the US and others decided to withhold aid that had previously gone to Palestine, because Hamas wasn't playing ball, posters like yourself howled at the unfairness of it all. I can't really see you finding it fair if Israel was treated the same way... Palestine would still be seen as the victim in all of this.

Totally agree about the settlements, btw. When Israel decides to dismantle all the illegal settlements, it'll finally show that they're willing to settle down to peace. However, I would say that Israel will obviously expect that Palestinians make some assurances themselves (see Road Map for Peace).

So I agree Hamas need to recognize Israel and the sanctions that bring suffering are a results of there actions, but to not place equal sanctions on Israel for violating international law and several UN resolutions shows how one sided the international community can be in this situation. Why punish one side only for there wrong doings and ignore there others.

When did Palestinians start receiving these sanctions? When Hamas got elected and didn't oblige the International community. Before that Palestinians were receiving plenty of Aid despite the continued attacks on Israel.

And oddly enough Israel has obliged the International community quite a few times, showing that it will withdraw from territories, and give partial control to the Palestinians. The resolutions against Israel stand against them at every turn, but I think many people can acknowledge the unfairness of many of those resolutions.

Simply put Israel is not innocent and neither are the Palestinians. Right now only Palestine is suffering from sanctions. Israel should suffer from sanctions also until they remove settlers from the West Bank or some other similar bench mark.

Yup, Israel is not innocent, but they've been protrayed as the only bad guy for a number of decades regarding the M.East. Palestinians have been receiving sanctions only since Hamas came to power. And the things they need to do to remove those sanctions are relatively easy in comparison with many of the resolutions that Israel has been hit with.

You talk about fairness, but finally I'm seeing the International community starting to treat Palestinians on the same level as they've been treating Israel for decades.

InFront

Deleted User wrote:

As you say below there is one outstanding resolution regarding Palestine, and loads regarding Israel. But you're missing a crutial difference. Up until the recent elections, Palestine didn't have a government that resolutions could be applied to. How do you apply resolutions to paramilitary groups?

See this is why I say your view isn't genuinely a balanced one, despite your assurances otherwise. No matter how bad or immoral the imposition of the state of Israel was, and it was, most reasonable people agree that there needs to be recognition of Israel. It's already there quite a bit, but there needs to be more of it, and it needs to come from Hamas. Failure to recognize Israel delays progress for peace.
But please do not, if you are so balanced, make excuses like the above for Israel. There is no excuse for the litany of UN Resolutions that they consistently ignore year upon year, resolution upon resolution, with pigheaded self-obsession.
I can see the point in promoting a fairer analysis of the situation than the black and white portrayal many journalists produce. But making an excuse like the above, with factual inaccuracies thrown in, is just as bad.

Thats funny in a sad way. Israel is worse so you'll support palestine as the lesser of two evils?

Oh I don't find that funny. Firstly, it depends what you mean by support. I'm in favour of people recognizing Israel exists, although of course it should not exist.
Zionism was an disastrously unfair imposition on Palestinians, and the creation of Israel that followed was a bid to make *someone* pay for the Holocaust. Picture a gang of European statesmen fumbling in their pockets for some loose change and instead just robbing an Arab.
In the context that I don't blinker myself from the idiocy surrounding the creation of Israel, the cruelty of Zionist apartheid toward the Palestinians, the unmeasured, disproportionate responses of the US-Israeli military both toward Palestinians and Muslim religious sites, then, yes I am more angry with Zionism than Palestinians .

You seem to be in favour of trying to make all things equal, saying that the Palestinians are as bad as the the Zionists, a sort of "ignore the bodycount" stance. What else would the guilty party say but "ignore the bodycount", or ignore the disparity in any other area.
That's an incorrect approach, on a very practical level. If you're going to draw realistic conclusions on the conflict, then you have to be prepared to draw them with accuracy. Like most conflicts, there is really no such thing as equal culpability here.
I am sure we both agree that revenge attacks upon innocent civilians is always, irrefutably wrong. Israel, then, has been wrong a far greater number of times, do you agree with that? Do you not agree also that their responses have been unmeasured? And that less civilian casualties should be expected of a 9 billion dollar military, one of the most enormous in the world?

That's not a forgiveness of Palestinians by any means, it's just placing Israelis in a new category on their own based on the extent of their bloody actions.

I post up about Palestinians because I rarely see any such posts on boards about them. Sand, and a few other posters will throw in very balanced viewpoints, but the majority of posts seem almost blind to Palestinian actions. So, Israeli actions are extremely well highlighted. Can't say the same for Palestinian actions.

Yeah I agree with this, it's important that people take a balanced approach to the conflict. When it comes to Palestine, I think the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity group (as an example) talk a lot of garbage, but I think there's a lot of garbage in what you post too (you would say the same of me). You quite rightly, point out Palestinian shortcomings, and Palestinian apologists should really admit to them. But despite what you suggest, you are much more guarded in admitting Israeli wrongdoing and the extent of it, you must admit that your posts indicate a level of apologeticism towards Israeli/ Zionist atrocities. The attempt to put it on the same scale of the Palestinians just doesn't work.

Originally posted by sand
And in terms of land for peace - which is apparently the supposed basis for a Israeli/Palestinian peace deal - what land would they have left to trade for peace with Hamas in the negotiations after they had already given them the West Bank and Jeruselam? Tel Aviv?

Firstly, I doubt the man who wrote the words of your signature would approve of his sentiments being expressed side by side with your posts on this issue. War is peace Sand, eh?
On the above quote; that's not even a sentiment klaz is expressing, it's even more pro-Israel. At least klaz recognizes that the settler policy and the occupation of Palestinian territories are wrong, you seem, all for hanging onto it.
You're essentially arguing "why should Israel obey the UN or International Court of Justice, they'd have nothing to gain". We clearly have a disagreement of principles right there, and it's probably best to leave it at that.

Originally posted by Deleted User
Where do you get this from? When did Israel destroy a state of Palestine, cause I'm looking through the history books and I can't find any reference to it.

Of course there was a Palestine, it was the region, there just wasn't an independent country named Palestine. Just as there didn't used to be an independent country named the republic or Ireland, or before that The Irish free State.
The people who lived in Palestine owned the Palestinian land up until the British invasion, which brought Zionism and brought Israel. These Zionists were not 'Israeli', they were French, German, Polish, Czech, Russian, American, Italians, whatever. They were not "from" Palestine, there was no divine right to Palestine. The people who lived in the territories in question became overnight refugees, the Germans and Poles and Americans and British and French and Slavs became occupiers of a new, unrecognizable, foreign land. It's that simple.

The resolutions against Israel stand against them at every turn, but I think many people can acknowledge the unfairness of many of those resolutions.

No I don't think so. Resolution 181 is a hard one to swallow, that one is unfair, but it needs to be followed through with. Resolution 242 and the many many others may be hard to swallow too, but they are certainly fair. Can you explain why they are not?

wes

Deleted User wrote:

Wes, you talk about scale, but you're missing the point completely. Palestinians are no threat to the state of Israel, but they're a threat to the Israeli people themselves. Every time the Palestinian groups attack Israeli territory they attack Israel's major resource. Its people.

I never said the Palestinians were not a threat at all. Also looking at the numbers they are not even much of a threat to the people. They are a threat to there sense of security. There actions cause fear more than anything else.

Deleted User wrote:

Where do you get this from? When did Israel destroy a state of Palestine, cause I'm looking through the history books and I can't find any reference to it.

The Israeli had no business being in Palestine. They were illegal immigrants mostly from Europe fleeing the holocaust or its after math. They demanded a state in Palestine. They had no real right to demand such a thing. They didn't exactly destroy a state of Palestine in the literal sense, but I think the people there didn't like the idea of a bunch of foreigners asking for there own country on there land.

Deleted User wrote:

And after that war, what was there? Israel holding lands outside the original proposed borders, and yes, you guessed it, other Arab Nations occupying lands supposed to go to a Palestinian state. And after that time until the 1967 war, was there a Palestinian state formed from the lands the Arab ountries took? Nope. Not a bit. And then the 1967 war occured and Israel occupied those territories.

Again what right did a bunch of European refugee's have to set up a state in a foreign country? What did they think was gonna happen? What they did amounted to an invasion. Of course someone was going to attack.

Deleted User wrote:

Israel didn't destroy a Palestinian state, because such a state was never given a chance to exist. Firstly by the Liberation Army, then by Israel occupying those lands, then the failure to create one by the arabs themselves, and lastly by Israel taking the land from the Arabs later.

You say it can't be ignored as the root of the conflict, and yet I see so many things being ignored. If the Arab Liberation Army hadn't invaded, a Palestinian state would have been formed. If the Arabs had released the lands it took, then a Palestinian state could have been formed. And lastly, if the Palestinians had treated Israel with the same response they gave their Arab occupiers, then the possibility of a Palestinian state may have occured. At least they would have better influence over the Israeli's.

Again why did the Arab armies attack? They attacked because a bunch of Europeans showed demanding a state in the land of there neighbors? Again there was always going to be an attack.

If this happened in any other part of the world there would have been an attack by what people would consider an invasion.

You presume that they had a right to go to Palestine and set up a state. Refugee's don't have a right to go to another country and take over.

Palestine did exist, it was just occupied by the British. Why would they called it the "British Mandate of Palestine", Occupation doesn't mean a nation doesn't exist. Tibet exists, just because the China say it doesn't exist, doesn't make them right. The Israeli's destroyed the nation for all intents and purpose. Saying it didn't exist on a technicality doesn't work for me. A lot of place didn't technically exist and as with the Tibet example some other nations don't technically exist either.

Deleted User wrote:

When the EU, the US and others decided to withhold aid that had previously gone to Palestine, because Hamas wasn't playing ball, posters like yourself howled at the unfairness of it all. I can't really see you finding it fair if Israel was treated the same way... Palestine would still be seen as the victim in all of this.

Hamas are scum in my view, I hold them responsible for the current state of there people rather than Israel. They were desperate for a change from Fatah who have shown themselves to be greedy and incompetent. Sadly Hamas took advantage of this.

Deleted User wrote:

Totally agree about the settlements, btw. When Israel decides to dismantle all the illegal settlements, it'll finally show that they're willing to settle down to peace. However, I would say that Israel will obviously expect that Palestinians make some assurances themselves (see Road Map for Peace).

I agree if Israel get rid of the settlements, the Palestinians should also take some major steps. I am not saying that Israel should be the only one to make steps, but both parties.

Deleted User wrote:

When did Palestinians start receiving these sanctions? When Hamas got elected and didn't oblige the International community. Before that Palestinians were receiving plenty of Aid despite the continued attacks on Israel.

And oddly enough Israel has obliged the International community quite a few times, showing that it will withdraw from territories, and give partial control to the Palestinians. The resolutions against Israel stand against them at every turn, but I think many people can acknowledge the unfairness of many of those resolutions.

I don't see those resolutions as being unfair. If people decide to start ignoring them, then we may as well call resolutions against other nations as unfair and ignore them. We see several nations e.g. the US, China and Russia use there vetos against unfair resolutions for there buddies. This kind of thing doesn't help any situation.

Israel calls a lot of nations to obey resolutions when itself doesn't. There excuse is that they are unfair. Other nations use this same excuse, it very often end with the pot calling the kettle on all sides. They just excuses from people who simply don't want to comply.

As for sanctions, I used the term incorrectly. I meant Israel is with holding Tax revenue from the Palestinian government. I looked it up and its not an actual sanction, but something Israel did of there own accord. Apologies on my mistake on that one.

Deleted User wrote:

Yup, Israel is not innocent, but they've been protrayed as the only bad guy for a number of decades regarding the M.East. Palestinians have been receiving sanctions only since Hamas came to power. And the things they need to do to remove those sanctions are relatively easy in comparison with many of the resolutions that Israel has been hit with.

You talk about fairness, but finally I'm seeing the International community starting to treat Palestinians on the same level as they've been treating Israel for decades.

Israel has always been protected by America and the UK and many countries have good relations with Israel. They are hardly treated unfairly. If anything they receive plenty of positive press as well as military assistance by several different nations since its creation.

The Palestinians situation is pretty bad even with the aid they would normally get. If Israel was treated the same way, there society would barely function just like the Palestinians. Israel is very well treated by most nations. Most resolutions are vetoed by there pal the US and the ones that aren't they ignore because they say its unfair. Every nation that has a resolution says its unfair as do there supporters, Israel is no different. They tend to be very fair in a lot of cases and the nation at the receiving end cries foul. When Israel is hit by the same level of sanctions that the Iraqi people suffered under, then I will agree that they have been treated unfairly.

We tend not to hear about them violating there neighbors air space etc. We tend not to hear to much about the people there holding without charge. They get a mention every now and again, but thats about it.

I only recently found out that Israeli Arabs face huge discrimination in Israel again from a story on Sky News. Theres a whole raft of other things that could easily be used to make Israel look bad, but a lot of these don't matter to there conflict, so are rightly left out. If they were really vilified, there would be News reports daily on every little thing wrong with Israeli society. I don't see this. I don't get this entire Israel being presented in a bad light thing by the media. I know some media outlets do this, but the vast majority just present the story in such a way to get the most viewers.

I am genuinely surprised that you think that the media unfairly portrays Israel. Do you have any examples of this from major outlets? Maybe I don't read or watch the same stuff you do which could explain why I find your claim odd.

InFront

InFront wrote:

See this is why I say your view isn't genuinely a balanced one, despite your assurances otherwise. No matter how bad or immoral the imposition of the state of Israel was, and it was, most reasonable people agree that there needs to be recognition of Israel. It's already there quite a bit, but there needs to be more of it, and it needs to come from Hamas. Failure to recognize Israel delays progress for peace.

I don't believe I make out to be completely balanced on my viewpoints. I can see the negatives that Israel has performed, and yet I find myself supporting their right to exist. Their right to defend themselves. Not to lash out at civilians but to defend themselves against an enemy that places its own citizens in direct harm.

Nah. I'm not balanced in my views. Years ago I was extremely pro-Israeli, but I've mellowed quite a bit from years of watching the situation (and Hobbes ripping me to shreds). But i still am pro-Israel all the same.

You think that because I take the stance that I post about Palestinian actions because I want to be balanced? Nope. I'm not that balanced. I just want the discussions to be more balanced, than it is with the sort of comments about Israel that have been made on previous pages...

But please do not, if you are so balanced, make excuses like the above for Israel. There is no excuse for the litany of UN Resolutions that they consistently ignore year upon year, resolution upon resolution, with pigheaded self-obsession.

Well, since I'm not balanced in this, is it ok for me to make excuses for them. Afterall, its quite common to see loads of excuses being made for Palestine, so it seems only fair, that I have the same chances to do the same for Israel.

I can see the point in promoting a fairer analysis of the situation than the black and white portrayal many journalists produce. But making an excuse like the above, with factual inaccuracies thrown in, is just as bad.

I can think of very, very and I'll say again, very few posters on boards capable of making a balanced view of the situation. I'm certainly not one of them. Do you honestly think you are one of them yourself?

[quoteOh I don't find that funny. Firstly, it depends what you mean by support. I'm in favour of people recognizing Israel exists, although of course it should not exist.[/quote]

Your call. You can believe that it should not exist, but the reality is that it does.

Zionism was an disastrously unfair imposition on Palestinians, and the creation of Israel that followed was a bid to make *someone* pay for the Holocaust. Picture a gang of European statesmen fumbling in their pockets for some loose change and instead just robbing an Arab.

Who ruled Palestine before the creation of Israel? Who governed, made laws, had the military, etc? Where was the palestinian government, the Palestinian military, the Palestinian trade bereau, etc? Nowhere, because while there were a palestinian people, there was no palestinian state.

When Zionists came along, they brought the best opportunity for a palestinian state. Probably, not what they intended when they polled the UN for a Jewish homeland... But the UN was going to create a Palestinian state ruled by Palestinians, where there was none before.

In the context that I don't blinker myself from the idiocy surrounding the creation of Israel, the cruelty of Zionist apartheid toward the Palestinians, the unmeasured, disproportionate responses of the US-Israeli military both toward Palestinians and Muslim religious sites, then, yes I am more angry with Zionism than Palestinians .

I'm amazed that you can lecture me about being balanced, when after that post above, you can claim to be so yourself. You don't blinker yourself to Israeli actions, because thats all you see. You may acknowledge Palestinian actions, but ultimately they don't matter. Zionism & Israel is at fault in every aspect of the sitaution.

You seem to be in favour of trying to make all things equal, saying that the Palestinians are as bad as the the Zionists, a sort of "ignore the bodycount" stance. What else would the guilty party say but "ignore the bodycount", or ignore the disparity in any other area.

Equal? No. If we're looking at numbers of deaths, the Palestinians win out every time. If we're looking at the numbers that starve to death each year, the Palestinians win every time. If we compare how many and the level of education of children, in both Israel & Palestine, palestinians will lose all the time.

However, if we talk about responsibility, then the manner of the Palestinian "resistance" plays a rather large role in all of it. But, hey, thats outside scope of most pro-palestinian radar.

That's an incorrect approach, on a very practical level. If you're going to draw realistic conclusions on the conflict, then you have to be prepared to draw them with accuracy. Like most conflicts, there is really no such thing as equal culpability here.

Totally agree. However, in spite of your wanting to ignore it, you also need to look at the actions of both parties to come to a realistic outlook on the situation. You need to look at the way that Palestinian paramilitary groups fight in a manner that places their own people in harm, and you also have to look at how Israeli forces use inappropiate weapons to combat them. You need to look at how both sides are combating each other. And then look at how those actions impact on their own people.

I am sure we both agree that revenge attacks upon innocent civilians is always, irrefutably wrong. Israel, then, has been wrong a far greater number of times, do you agree with that? Do you not agree also that their responses have been unmeasured? And that less civilian casualties should be expected of a 9 billion dollar military, one of the most enormous in the world?

Totally agree. Do you agree that Palestinian forces have openly decided to target Israeli civilians, reprisals non-withstanding? That their own leaders have said that Israeli children should be killed, as easily as Israeli adults?

I don't mean to start the usual, "well, Israel is bad, but Palestinians are just as bad" conversation. I'm genuinely curious to know whether you think the manner of the Palestinian response, has impacted on the numbers of deaths on the Palestinian side?

That's not a forgiveness of Palestinians by any means, it's just placing Israelis in a new category on their own based on the extent of their bloody actions

InFront, can you acknowledge that Palestinian groups have never been shy about targeting Israeli women & children? Could it be that Israeli's started doing the same in response? I don't know myself. It could very well have been a response to Israeli indiscriminate attacks, that drove them to respond in kind. However, I'm willing to bet that they're both quite close to one another.

Yeah I agree with this, it's important that people take a balanced approach to the conflict.

I think its important that people try to take a more balanced approach to the conflict. I think that its very easy that people (myself included) take one side to fight for, and the other side is the enemy.

But despite what you suggest, you are much more guarded in admitting Israeli wrongdoing and the extent of it, you must admit that your posts indicate a level of apologeticism towards Israeli/ Zionist atrocities. The attempt to put it on the same scale of the Palestinians just doesn't work.

Sure, it does. In a way. If you focus purely on numbers, then I'd agree with you. If you look to the manner in which both sides fight this war, you can start to place them on certain levels.

I am biased in this. I don't particularly like paramilitary groups. Never have, never will. I've never understood this sympathy that many Irish people have for such groups. Even with comparisons to our own history, I see them as being very different times, and very different methods being used. And I can't find any sympathy in myself for those groups like Hamas, or Hezbollah.

You see, I look at the conflict and see two different ways of it being fought. Israel actively tries to shield its people from the danger, building the "wall"/fence, bomb shelters, bomb-disposal units, etc and yet commits itself to indescriminate bombing of Palestinian areas, without any real compunction in killing Palestinian civilians.

Whereas I see, Palestinian Paramilitary groups, fight a war dressed as civilians, attacking from civilian areas, and generally placing their own people in harm, all with the aim of killing Israeli's. There was a post from Wes:

You ignore the scale of what Israel does when compared to Palestinian terrorists. Scale is very important, the Palestinians are no real threat to Israel and haven't been for a very long time.

Palestinian militant forces are no threat to Israel itself, but are a threat to Israeli people. They don't have a chance to destroy Israel, but only seek to kill Israeli people, in turn placing their own people in further harm when Israel retalitates. And all for what? Just to kill some Israeli soldiers, or some women & children.

That is why I'm biased in all of this. In simple terms, I see Israel seeking to defend its own people, and I see Palestinian forces seeking to just kill for the sake of it. Neither side particularly cares who gets killed, as long as they have the chance to hit back.

wes

wes wrote:

I never said the Palestinians were not a threat at all. Also looking at the numbers they are not even much of a threat to the people. They are a threat to there sense of security. There actions cause fear more than anything else.

Their sense of security? Of couse it does. Palestinian people, dressed as civilians, can enter a crowded area, and proceed to blow themselves up, taking anybody that just happens to be around them. And the Palestinian could be a man, woman or a child. How would you feel if any time your wife went down to the market to pick up breakfast, she might not return because some Palestinian has decided to pick that marketplace to blow themselves up? Would you be a little more aggressive in your feelings towards Palestinians, if your family was under that threat?

Of course its fear more than actual harm. But its a realistic fear. A fear that has been proven true for thousands of Israeli's who have lost friends, lovers, wives, and children.

The Israeli had no business being in Palestine. They were illegal immigrants mostly from Europe fleeing the holocaust or its after math. They demanded a state in Palestine. They had no real right to demand such a thing. They didn't exactly destroy a state of Palestine in the literal sense, but I think the people there didn't like the idea of a bunch of foreigners asking for there own country on there land.

Yes, I can agree with you there. Can you agree that there wasn't a Palestinian state to be destroyed? Can you also acknowledge that the proposed creation of Israel would also have created a Palestinian state that they could have governed independently of anyone else?

Again what right did a bunch of European refugee's have to set up a state in a foreign country? What did they think was gonna happen? What they did amounted to an invasion. Of course someone was going to attack.

Of course someone was going to attack? Couldn't they have negotiated within the UN for a better formula of borders which would have helped the proposed Palestinian state? Why was force the better option?

Secondly, where is your condemnation of the Arab nations who did not create a Palestinian state with the lands they occupied for over a decade?

Again why did the Arab armies attack? They attacked because a bunch of Europeans showed demanding a state in the land of there neighbors? Again there was always going to be an attack.

Again, where was the creation of a Palestinian state, or even a Palestinian administration body within the lands that the Arab counties occupied? Where was the sympathy and concern for the Palestinians then?

I think you're hooding your eyes a bit when it comes to the Arab nations. They've always looked to their own interests first above all others.

If this happened in any other part of the world there would have been an attack by what people would consider an invasion.

Invasion of lands not theirs. Invasion of lands that were under British Mandate until they left. Why didn't they invade ten years previously to oust the British from those lands?

You presume that they had a right to go to Palestine and set up a state. Refugee's don't have a right to go to another country and take over.

Actually, they were refugees and immigrants granted lands by the UN. I wonder if you've ever complained about Israel disobeying the resolutions made against them? Its rather convenient to pick and chose what decisions made by the UN are right and which are wrong.... I know I do it a bit, but I wonder were you aware of it?

BTW I suppose you totally condemn the Palestinian attempt to take Jordan?

Palestine did exist, it was just occupied by the British. Why would they called it the "British Mandate of Palestine", Occupation doesn't mean a nation doesn't exist. Tibet exists, just because the China say it doesn't exist, doesn't make them right. The Israeli's destroyed the nation for all intents and purpose. Saying it didn't exist on a technicality doesn't work for me. A lot of place didn't technically exist and as with the Tibet example some other nations don't technically exist either.

Well. how about the Arab nations that destroyed the Palestinian state, then? Israel just came in and occupied those territories, after they'd done the job. Is that more accurate for you?

I always find it interesting that Israel is the only aggressor in all of this. Afterall, it was the Arab nations that chose guns over diplomacy. And it was the Arab nations that also occupied those lands given to the Palestinians. And lastly it was available to the Arab nations to create a palesinian state, but they didn't.

I don't mean to keep bringing it up. Actually, I do mean to keep bringing it up. It can't be said enough times, because so many posters don't seem willing to believe it. Israel was not the only country to occupy Palestinian lands. It was not the only obstacle to a Palestinian state.

I don't see those resolutions as being unfair. If people decide to start ignoring them, then we may as well call resolutions against other nations as unfair and ignore them. We see several nations e.g. the US, China and Russia use there vetos against unfair resolutions for there buddies. This kind of thing doesn't help any situation.

We see many nations with resolutions outstanding against them, but its Israel thats expected to follow all of them. But I agree that Israel should follow some of them, if only to show the world that they're willing to play ball sometimes.

As for sanctions, I used the term incorrectly. I meant Israel is with holding Tax revenue from the Palestinian government. I looked it up and its not an actual sanction, but something Israel did of there own accord. Apologies on my mistake on that one.

No worries. I used the word sanction wrong aswell. And Israel withholding tax revenues from a government who refuses to make peace, sounds quite logical to me. After all, would you give money to a group of people, that will just use it to buy weapons, which will in turn be used on your people?

I'm easily amazed it seems. So many posters here find it incomprehensible that Israel should be allowed to withhold those taxes. And yet, I find it incomprehensible that Israel should support the very people that refuse blindly to seek a peace....

Israel has always been protected by America and the UK and many countries have good relations with Israel. They are hardly treated unfairly. If anything they receive plenty of positive press as well as military assistance by several different nations since its creation.

And Palestine has received Aid from many countries over the decades. Many humanitarian organisations are encouraged by nations to help out in Palestine. As for press, thats few and far between. When they get some positive press about wthdrawing from an area, they later lose it to some article about shelling a beach.

The Palestinians situation is pretty bad even with the aid they would normally get. If Israel was treated the same way, there society would barely function just like the Palestinians. Israel is very well treated by most nations.

The difference being that the aid prepped for the Israeli economy, and people, goes to the economy and people (and the money for the military goes to the military). Can you prove to me that money going to Palestine wouldn't be used to fund their paramilitary wings? How much money & weapons do the Palestinian forces receive from other Arab nations?

If Palestinian forces stopped buying weapons, and started spending the money to rebuild Palestine, dont you think countries would be more forthcoming with providing funds? And since the money wouldn't be spent on weapons, Israel would have no reason to withhold on the taxes, and Israel could finally start believing Palestinian promises to reduce attacks on Israel.

We tend not to hear about them violating there neighbors air space etc. We tend not to hear to much about the people there holding without charge. They get a mention every now and again, but thats about it.

Sure we do. When Israeli planes buzzed French UN troops it was all over the newspapers, and on most TV reports.

I am genuinely surprised that you think that the media unfairly portrays Israel. Do you have any examples of this from major outlets? Maybe I don't read or watch the same stuff you do which could explain why I find your claim odd.

I tend to view three TV news: Sky, BBC, and RTE. I don't like newspapers, but like most people here I'm an internet junkie, so I tend to read the major paper sites regularly. Mostly British sites, and a few sites aimed at M.Eastern coverage.

I'm not going to go into a conversation about Israel and the Media. We're already way off topic, and its been done to death already. In any case, when I was talking about fairness, I was referring to the International community as nations rather than the media.

wes

Deleted User wrote:

Their sense of security? Of couse it does. Palestinian people, dressed as civilians, can enter a crowded area, and proceed to blow themselves up, taking anybody that just happens to be around them. And the Palestinian could be a man, woman or a child. How would you feel if any time your wife went down to the market to pick up breakfast, she might not return because some Palestinian has decided to pick that marketplace to blow themselves up? Would you be a little more aggressive in your feelings towards Palestinians, if your family was under that threat?

Of course its fear more than actual harm. But its a realistic fear. A fear that has been proven true for thousands of Israeli's who have lost friends, lovers, wives, and children.

You think Palestinians don't have the same fears about a bomb falling on there heads or sniper bullets etc? It works both ways, the Israeli weaponry is just far more advanced. Both nations live in a state of fear, hence why both sides are so quick to violence. One feels greatly wrongs and under threat from a superior power and the other side is afraid of an attack at any given time.

So I could easily ask the same question of you from the Palestinian POV. There children, Wives etc can also end up dead from an unforeseen threat.

Deleted User wrote:

Yes, I can agree with you there. Can you agree that there wasn't a Palestinian state to be destroyed? Can you also acknowledge that the proposed creation of Israel would also have created a Palestinian state that they could have governed independently of anyone else?

Of course someone was going to attack? Couldn't they have negotiated within the UN for a better formula of borders which would have helped the proposed Palestinian state? Why was force the better option?

Secondly, where is your condemnation of the Arab nations who did not create a Palestinian state with the lands they occupied for over a decade?

Who would willing accept a bunch of foreigners to set up a state in there lands? Who would not react violently? The UN has no right to create a Jewish state where it did. The rest of the world seem to pawn off the issue of Jewish refugees onto others.

There was technically no Palestinian state as I said before just like there is technically no Tibetan state.

Are Arab nations currently occupying Palestine? No, there not. I condemn Arab nations for treating Palestinians refugees like crap.

Deleted User wrote:

Again, where was the creation of a Palestinian state, or even a Palestinian administration body within the lands that the Arab counties occupied? Where was the sympathy and concern for the Palestinians then?

I think you're hooding your eyes a bit when it comes to the Arab nations. They've always looked to their own interests first above all others.

I have only discussed Israel and Palestine and have no talked much about Arab nations. So I don't see where you get the "hooding eyes" statement from. I am well aware of repressive regimes in those countries and there deplorable treatment of Palestinians refugee's. Just because I don't mention t doesn't mean I am not aware of it.

Deleted User wrote:

Invasion of lands not theirs. Invasion of lands that were under British Mandate until they left. Why didn't they invade ten years previously to oust the British from those lands?

Actually, they were refugees and immigrants granted lands by the UN. I wonder if you've ever complained about Israel disobeying the resolutions made against them? Its rather convenient to pick and chose what decisions made by the UN are right and which are wrong.... I know I do it a bit, but I wonder were you aware of it?

BTW I suppose you totally condemn the Palestinian attempt to take Jordan?

I am unaware of Palestinians trying to take over Jordan. If they did that would also be wrong? Why would would it be right for them to try and take over another nation?

Again what right did the UN have to create Israel? Why is that Israel only wants to recognize the resolution that created there state and ignore the others? I am not the one who ignores resolutions here. I think the resolution to create Israel was a bad idea, I have not called for the end of the state of Israel. I can think the resolution was a bad idea and not think that it should be disobeyed. So I am hardly picking and choosing which resolutions should be followed, all I am saying is I don't like that one and believe they had no real right to do so, but whats done is done and disobeying it would lead to the destruction of Israel which would be wrong in the same way as it was with the Palestinians.

Deleted User wrote:

Well. how about the Arab nations that destroyed the Palestinian state, then? Israel just came in and occupied those territories, after they'd done the job. Is that more accurate for you?

I always find it interesting that Israel is the only aggressor in all of this. Afterall, it was the Arab nations that chose guns over diplomacy. And it was the Arab nations that also occupied those lands given to the Palestinians. And lastly it was available to the Arab nations to create a palesinian state, but they didn't.

I don't mean to keep bringing it up. Actually, I do mean to keep bringing it up. It can't be said enough times, because so many posters don't seem willing to believe it. Israel was not the only country to occupy Palestinian lands. It was not the only obstacle to a Palestinian state.

I never said the Arabs didn't do any of those things. I still stand by that the creation of Israel was at the expense of Palestine. People either fled the coming war or were driven out by the Israeli's. I mentioned destruction by Israel as people were driven out by them. Arab states occupied some of Palestine, but they didn't drive any out to the best of my knowledge. This is the distinction between the 2.

Deleted User wrote:

We see many nations with resolutions outstanding against them, but its Israel thats expected to follow all of them. But I agree that Israel should follow some of them, if only to show the world that they're willing to play ball sometimes.

I made the point that other nations ignore resolutions as well and thats bull ****. This goes for Israel too. All nations should implement resolutions not just Israel. Why you think they should be exempt because they think some are unfair? The Palestinian government choose to ignore the resolution that created Israel because they think it unfair and have been punished for it and rightly so. If Israel ignores a resolution this should also be punished in a similar manner. I think the resolutions should be applied equally even the ones I don't like I think should be applied. For example there are laws that I dislike, but I still obey them as its the law. I don't think any nation should be allowed to ignore a resolution no matter how unfair they or there supporters think they re.

Deleted User wrote:

No worries. I used the word sanction wrong aswell. And Israel withholding tax revenues from a government who refuses to make peace, sounds quite logical to me. After all, would you give money to a group of people, that will just use it to buy weapons, which will in turn be used on your people?

I'm easily amazed it seems. So many posters here find it incomprehensible that Israel should be allowed to withhold those taxes. And yet, I find it incomprehensible that Israel should support the very people that refuse blindly to seek a peace....

Israel seems to be pretty stubborn with those settlers in the West Bank, which is a big obstacle to peace as well. Both sides are putting obstacles in the way. You seem to think its just the Palestinians? Hamas refusal to recognize Israel is one, settlements in the West Bank is another.

Handing over Tax money that legally belongs to another nation is not giving them supports. Its there Tax money by all rights. However, I prefer this tactic to blowing up Palestinian infrastructure. At least the money can be transfered with ease if Hamas were to recognize Israel.

Deleted User wrote:

And Palestine has received Aid from many countries over the decades. Many humanitarian organisations are encouraged by nations to help out in Palestine. As for press, thats few and far between. When they get some positive press about wthdrawing from an area, they later lose it to some article about shelling a beach.

The difference being that the aid prepped for the Israeli economy, and people, goes to the economy and people (and the money for the military goes to the military). Can you prove to me that money going to Palestine wouldn't be used to fund their paramilitary wings? How much money & weapons do the Palestinian forces receive from other Arab nations?

If Palestinian forces stopped buying weapons, and started spending the money to rebuild Palestine, dont you think countries would be more forthcoming with providing funds? And since the money wouldn't be spent on weapons, Israel would have no reason to withhold on the taxes, and Israel could finally start believing Palestinian promises to reduce attacks on Israel.

I agree the Palestinian government spends money on all the wrong things. My main point was that Israel is hardly treated badly by the international community. There hardly suffering under crippling sanctions.

Deleted User wrote:

Sure we do. When Israeli planes buzzed French UN troops it was all over the newspapers, and on most TV reports.

I tend to view three TV news: Sky, BBC, and RTE. I don't like newspapers, but like most people here I'm an internet junkie, so I tend to read the major paper sites regularly. Mostly British sites, and a few sites aimed at M.Eastern coverage.

I'm not going to go into a conversation about Israel and the Media. We're already way off topic, and its been done to death already. In any case, when I was talking about fairness, I was referring to the International community as nations rather than the media.

Well it seems that we have a different view on Israel representation in the media. Your rights we have gone way off topic and will stop talking about this here.

Dontico

Deleted User wrote:

How would you repond if I said the only reason people support Palestine is because they hate Jews...? Then, start applying that to your own reasoning... :rolleyes:

the only arguement that people seem to have in supporting israel is that they were jewish and for some reason being jewish had more validity than being muslim, inorder to have the right to kick people off thier own land.

just because the palestinians werent jewish. we should they have given up thier land?

Dontico

Dontico wrote:

the only arguement that people seem to have in supporting israel is that they were jewish and for some reason being jewish had more validity than being muslim, inorder to have the right to kick people off thier own land.

just because the palestinians werent jewish. we should they have given up thier land?

Let me remind you of what you wrote:

people are only supportive of israel cause they hate muslims.

And the above is how you respond to me? Come on.

Dontico

Deleted User wrote:

Let me remind you of what you wrote:

people are only supportive of israel cause they hate muslims.

And the above is how you respond to me? Come on.

if you think one group of people of a certain race or religion have more of right to live somewhere than the people who are living there, than you must favour them over the people living there.
as in you must favour the jews from europe over the muslims that lived there. alot of people hate muslims at the moment. so i think it must boil down to that.

Dontico

Dontico wrote:

if you think one group of people of a certain race or religion have more of right to live somewhere than the people who are living there, than you must favour them over the people living there.
as in you must favour the jews from europe over the muslims that lived there. alot of people hate muslims at the moment. so i think it must boil down to that.

Why do you believe that I think that? I don't think I've said that the "jews" (European, or the ones already there) had more right to the territory than the muslims or christian population living in the region when the state of Israel was created.

I can't see the point of this part of the discussion. Fact. Israel exists. Unless you have discovered a time machine, and are capable of going back in time to change things, then what is the point of this? If they were proposing to create Israel later this year, then I would understand where you're coming from, but not over a decision made over 60 years ago, which can't be changed..

Secondly, alot of people hating muslims is irrelevent. I have never said that I hated muslims. Nor have I insulted their religion. Nothing in my posts in this thread provides any kind of basis to include me in that assumption. So if you want to talk about people hating muslims, post it up in a seperate post without quoting me first.

Lastly, you can think this if you want. I don't. Its a particularly simplistic viewpoint of the conflict. The level of suspicion/fear regarding the muslim faith, and an involvement in terrorism is a relatively new "fashion". Its only really since Sept11 that its become such a widespread topic, rather than the occasional reference to some bombing or incident in the M.East.

Threads like these make me feel like simply giving up the ghost, overloading the sarcasmometer, and conceding that yes of course the Jews have a genetic predisposition that makes them love a good bloody scrap, they really enjoy killing people for fun, the case for the proposition is accepted, and can we now move along...

Kroko

Some people support Israel, because it is the only working democracy in the Middle East (unfortunately, Lebanese democracy does not really work, as Lebanon is by constitutution a sectarian state).

Other people support Israel, because it is the only country in the Middle East where some form of human rights are observed: it is the courts who decide to assasinate a Palestinian leader, and the person to be soon assasinated has an attorney representing him in court and so on. Israeli soldiers don't use human shields. If soldiers are caught purposefully killing a Palestinians, thee are charged and put to jail. When Palestinians manage to kill a Israeli and get away with it, he/she gets a medal and is considered a hero by his own folk. Please take into account tactics that are used by the IDF during house searches: they minimize civilian casualties, although the same tactics mean that Israeli soldiers are more susceptible to enemy attacks. It would be way easier just to shout: get out get and and toss the grenade inside (Nazi German way), attack the inhabitants with lethal gas (Russian way), or shoot at everybody/everything moving in the danger zone (US way).

People support Israel beacuse it is the only modern and progressive society in the Middle East, although it tries to retain its identity. Don't belive it? Then go to Tel Aviv and start shouting obscenities at Ehud Olmert or Moshe Katsav. Well, perhaps, if you shout too loud you will get a ticket. Then go to Syria and say something about the Assad alawi regime. Mukhabarat will provide a very comfortable prison cell for you within the next 10 minutes. You are a religious minority perhaps? You can be a Christian in Israel and have pretty much the same rights as atheists/Jewish people. I have Christian friends in Israel that serve in the Israeli army, have businesses, churches and so on. And now go to Bethlehem and see how Palestinian Christians are persecuted by their Muslim neighbours. See how easy is to be Coptic in Egypt. Read the history of the Druse people, who now serve in the IDF, how they were persecuted by their neighbours. And I am not gonna write about the situation of sexual minorities - it is kinda obvious.

I know one thing - Israel is a peace loving nation! Because if Israel wanted to solve the Palestinian question the Arab way, Israel would do it in one week. Middle East is not a place for weaklings, you show you're week one day, you are dead another. As the Lebanase adage goes: "How can I compromise when I am weak? Why should I compromise when I am strong". Israel exists and will exist only because its army is stronger than of its neighbours - and that is enough reson to exist. The wall is built because: Israel wants to do it, 2. Israel has means to do it, 3. Israel thinks that the wall will be usefull (just how the Berlin wall was usefull as a means of separation). And who is gonna stop it?

Please, Israeli bashers, consider going for a vacation to Israel, stay at a kibbutz for a while, get to know some people, share a couple of beers with the locals, see how stunning are Israeli women - perhaps it will broaden your knowledge in who's who in the Middle Eastern mess.

wes

Kroko wrote:

Please, Israeli bashers, consider going for a vacation to Israel, stay at a kibbutz for a while, get to know some people, share a couple of beers with the locals, see how stunning are Israeli women - perhaps it will broaden your knowledge in who's who in the Middle Eastern mess.

You seem to have forgotten the Human rights abuses and a laundry list of other stuff. Read the rest of the thread for those. Israel is as bad as its neighbors and has proven this time and again.

I am sure Israel is a nice place to visit, but Arab Americans who have done so tend to report that there harassed quite a bit. So me having an Arab name means I would be harassed so, I rather go some place where people don't bother me.

Also Israel whether you like it or not is one hell of a destabilizing force in the Middle East. It being a Democracy doesn't make up for that.

I don't think anyone is bashing Israel for the hell of it. I think it has been shown here that neither side is a saint and has all kinds of blood on there hands. Sure the majority of people in Israel are good people, so are the Palestinians.