Israel releases 500 terrorists Monday; Terror explosion on Friday

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Can we ask the Native Americans? Or the aboriginals? Or any group that has been thrown off their land (the 'desolate and barren land', does that include Jerusalem, pray tell?) which is the right and wrong side of the fight? THIS is what pisses me off, deciding one side is always right and the other side is always wrong. Calling Palestinian terrorists barbarians, but saying Israeli terrorists had a 'noble goal'. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong and the quicker we realize this, the quicker we can work to end it.

the problem is that the hatred is so inbred now that there are groups that under no circumstances will accept peace...what do you do about them and their goals?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the problem is that the hatred is so inbred now that there are groups that under no circumstances will accept peace...what do you do about them and their goals?

We have to find a way to work together to deal with them. The Ireland conflict has made immense progress hasn't it? I think in no small part that is because the oppressed groups got a voice in the governance, choking off that rage and anger. A lot of what Hamas gets are people who are just fed up with living badly (and Hamas provides food and shelter for a lot of poor).

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Palestinian state is created...
Attacks on Israel continue...
Israel declares war on Palestinian state...
Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Libya, and more declare war on Israel...
US declares its defense of Israel's borders
and we end up having an ENORMOUS war...

Honestly now, you can't be serious.. They may be arabs, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. They know right well that Israel would kick the living shit out of them. And if Israel didn't the US would. And if the US didn't, Israel would f-ing NUKE them. No,the arab states are not about to go to war with Israel. They know what happened the last two times. They watched what American hardware (which they know the Israelis have) did in Iraq. Twice. And the fact that Israel has nukes means that, facing countries without them, they really cannot lose. There is no way there will be another pan-Arab war on Israel. The 70's have come and gone.

[Crapshoot]

Jim, the world that accepted it was the west - the people who were essentialy acting as colonial masters. Im not sure why you insist that there desire for an Israeli state in the Middle East supercedes that of the people who lived there before the British conquered the damn thing. They were imperialists- they don't get to be moral arbitrers.

[Blackadar]

All of this history is useful in understanding the various injustices claimed on all sides, but it doesn't much help with the overall question of how to fix it.

Mojo, I'd tend to disagree with you. Flasch's scenario is entirely plausable. But I would propose a different scenario.

Palestinian state is created.
Terror attacks continue.
Israel invades/bombs the hell out of Palestine.

Those scenarios, while not a given, are entirely possible.

So now what happens? I would dare say that the outcry in such places like Saudi, Lybia and Jordan would be so great that the leaders of those countries would have *no* choice but to respond in kind to protect their arab "brethern". If not, you could likely be looking at widescale uprisings in those countries. So they have to take some action...in which Israel would respond.

Most likely? UN Peacekeepers - mostly from the EU - step in and "guard" Palestine and head it off before it escalates.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Honestly now, you can't be serious.. They may be arabs, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. They know right well that Israel would kick the living shit out of them. And if Israel didn't the US would. And if the US didn't, Israel would f-ing NUKE them. No,the arab states are not about to go to war with Israel. They know what happened the last two times. They watched what American hardware (which they know the Israelis have) did in Iraq. Twice. And the fact that Israel has nukes means that, facing countries without them, they really cannot lose. There is no way there will be another pan-Arab war on Israel. The 70's have come and gone.

By the time this happens Iran will have bombs and the people that will attack israel will have no regard for their own survival, just the destruction of Israel so whether or not Israel shots off some nukes wont affect their judgement. It will be an all out assault on Israel with US and perhaps England defending Israel's sovereignty and existence. I SINCERELY HOPE IM WRONG, I was wrong about the magnitude of the bloodshed at Iraqi polling places, SO I hope I can be equally wrong about this.

[SunDancer]

Would India possibily come into the situation? I know India-Pakistan is pretty ugly as well.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Would India possibily come into the situation? I know India-Pakistan is pretty ugly as well.

I dont think the same religious hatred directed towards "the state of the Jews" applies here. Who knows but I think that they would stay out of it.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I dont think the same religious hatred directed towards "the state of the Jews" applies here. Who knows but I think that they would stay out of it.

Yeah I was just curious..I know that India-Pakistan pretty much shot off a missile at each other often.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Yeah I was just curious..I know that India-Pakistan pretty much shot off a missile at each other often.

perhaps Flere could do a diagram?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

We have to find a way to work together to deal with them. The Ireland conflict has made immense progress hasn't it? I think in no small part that is because the oppressed groups got a voice in the governance, choking off that rage and anger. A lot of what Hamas gets are people who are just fed up with living badly (and Hamas provides food and shelter for a lot of poor).

The Ireland conflict has actually taken a couple steps backward recently, since Sinn Fein was linked to the 26 million pound bank heist and subsequent withdrawal of their offer to completely disarm. But at least the two sides aren't killing each other right now.

[Solecismic]

I think people are making this unnecessarily complex. There are two points that need to be underlined.

1) Progress can't be made until the Arab world stops trying to drive Israel into the sea. Regardless of any other problem, this is the one where there's a right and a wrong. And right now, the Arab world is in the wrong.

We can't have peace until the Arabs decide that the solution to their problems doesn't mean the end of Israel.

2) It's recognized that Israel has the right to its tiny little country (again, about the size of Massachusetts) in the Middle East.

A) It's not the same as America/Indians - the Jews did have a homeland there long ago.

B) The Jews were being rounded up and killed in Russia (1880s and onward) and Europe (1930s-1940s). They had to go somewhere. Palestine was pretty much the only other place where they had any significant presence.

C) It was decided by most of the world (without Arab objection at the time, actually) that Palestine was to be that homeland. Palestine had a very small population at that time, about 10% of it Jewish.

In other words, there's a justification for an independent Jewish state in Palestine. Sure, other choices may have been better if plans had started in the 1880s. But Palestine was the choice, and there was justification - they have a right to be there. Can't change that now.

...

As for Irgun. I'm not going to try and justify everything they did, because they did some bad things. But there's a huge difference between a group that was set up to protect settlements and try and break a blockade that was resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. And a group that's set up solely to drive Israel into the sea. If you can't see there's a world of difference there, I don't know what else to say. Maybe that's why peace is so difficult when it seems so simple in concept.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Yeah I was just curious..I know that India-Pakistan pretty much shot off a missile at each other often.

they do ? well, not really - though Kashmir is a hot spot. I'd prefer no missiles in Delhi from a purely personal perspective..

[Crapshoot]

Jim, most of the world you're citing also believes in Kyoto now - should the US adopt it for that reason alone ? On the more specific point, why are you unwilling to make the distinction between "Most of the World" and "Most of the Western World, which were colonialists in the area at the time ? " Look, I think the Palestinian's should have taken Oslo - it was a deal of a lifetime. That being said, the formation of Israel was a western thing in a colonial territory - Israel was the odd bird that none of the west wanted in their backyard.

Edit: Essentialy, I don't believe one country should be able to bargain away another sovreignity - that's what happend with Czechoslovakia.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Jim, most of the world you're citing also believes in Kyoto now - should the US adopt it for that reason alone ? On the more specific point, why are you unwilling to make the distinction between "Most of the World" and "Most of the Western World, which were colonialists in the area at the time ? " Look, I think the Palestinian's should have taken Oslo - it was a deal of a lifetime. That being said, the formation of Israel was a western thing in a colonial territory - Israel was the odd bird that none of the west wanted in their backyard.

Edit: Essentialy, I don't believe one country should be able to bargain away another sovreignity - that's what happend with Czechoslovakia.

Kyoto? If scientists are convinced (and that's a high standard) that global warming is a real phenomenon that will cost people lives, then it's every country's responsibility to take part in the solution. I don't know enough about the specifics in the treaty to understand whether it's a fair solution for the U.S.. If not, the U.S. needs to propose an alternative.

The formation of Israel started as a Jewish thing. They've been in the region for thousands of years. In 1882, they realized the need for a true homeland, and began a handful of new settlements in an abandoned and desolate area. Without opposition at the time.

By the time the "colonials" became involved, that was the solution. You can't say majority rule doesn't matter when it comes to powerful countries, but it does matter when it comes to an 8-to-1 ratio of people in a region. That's hypocritical. The Jews had established a presence, and their votes count, too. They are still the minority in Palestine, and will remain so.

We have far more U.S. territory dedicated to Indian reservations serving far less people, by the way. And we manage to get along without violence, because reason won out over the hot-headed reactionaries who decided that wiping out the Indian population was the proper solution to those initial violent conflicts.

It's not the same situation in the Middle East, obviously. But we should understand that two different groups can lay legitimate claim to the same general area and live in peace.

It seems that what you're saying is that the Jews have no right to live.

They do. And with that right comes the responsibility to improve the region. Which they have, by reforestation, by finding solutions to the problems of drought and malaria that plagued the region. They've made the entire region better able to support a population - the fact that more Arabs have come to the region than Jews since 1922 backs that up.

Israel has also worked tirelessly to solve similar problems in Africa. Back when England was still colonizing Africa, the Israelis were bringing African students to their universities on scholarships to teach them about agriculture and irrigation. They even sent dozens of groups of Israeli scientists and farmers into Africa to teach the tribes about the advances they made in settlements.

They have given back so much in return for their homeland. They understand that responsibility.

And if the Arabs accept peace, and the Israelis don't do enough to alleviate Palestinian suffering (especially sharing the limited water resources in a fair manner), then others need to come in and help. But violence is never the answer.

Yes or no, do you believe that progress can be made while the Arabs are determined to push Israel into the sea? Do you believe that policy is justified, under any circumstances?

[Dutch]

No. The legitimate Palestinian leadership needs to strike all that verbage from their books. Anybody have a website that discusses the Palestinian Authorities stance with regard to the State of Israel?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It seems that what you're saying is that the Jews have no right to live.

Jim, I'm a little surprised that you would accuse Crapshoot of wanting to deny the right for Jews to exist. Crapshoot was making a point about the realities of the Levant's colonial experience--the reasons for Israel's coming into being are much less idealized than you seem to believe. The British tried desperately to hold on to Palestine as a colonial possession, and they never took the Balfour Declaration seriously--it was just another empty promise akin to the promises they made to the Palestinian Arabs.

The world did recognize the need for a Jewish state post WWII. Most of this is of course due to the genocide in Europe, obviously and rightfully so. But, geopolitical forces having precious little to do with the dreams of the Zionist movement also played a role in this formation of Israel. As with everything else, there was a great deal of naked self-interest on the part the Americans and European powers that be, and that also helped bring Israel into being.

Crapshoot was merely pointing out that history was not black and white. But with that being said, history also was what it was. Crapshoot did nothing to imply the illegitimacy of the state of Israel. To extrapolate that Crapshoot was denying the rights of Jews to live and breathe is insinuation influenced by emotion, and not a reasoned response to his argument.

[Flasch186]

most of ya'll's discussion is opinion and neither is relevent to actually resolving the ME differences. The MAIN and most important things is that the PLA wrangle in the IJ, Hizbullahs, etc. and Israel give them a homeland. until they take these initial steps we can argue about it all day and end up at square one.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Jim, I'm a little surprised that you would accuse Crapshoot of wanting to deny the right for Jews to exist. Crapshoot was making a point about the realities of the Levant's colonial experience--the reasons for Israel's coming into being are much less idealized than you seem to believe. The British tried desperately to hold on to Palestine as a colonial possession, and they never took the Balfour Declaration seriously--it was just another empty promise akin to the promises they made to the Palestinian Arabs.

The world did recognize the need for a Jewish state post WWII. Most of this is of course due to the genocide in Europe, obviously and rightfully so. But, geopolitical forces having precious little to do with the dreams of the Zionist movement also played a role in this formation of Israel. As with everything else, there was a great deal of naked self-interest on the part the Americans and European powers that be, and that also helped bring Israel into being.

Crapshoot was merely pointing out that history was not black and white. But with that being said, history also was what it was. Crapshoot did nothing to imply the illegitimacy of the state of Israel. To extrapolate that Crapshoot was denying the rights of Jews to live and breathe is insinuation influenced by emotion, and not a reasoned response to his argument.

No, it's a reasoned response. Maybe one you don't want to hear, but certainly reasoned and backed by the history of the region.

I guess people don't have an answer, because when you start attacking the person rather than the argument, you've pretty much admitted you don't have a response.

He was saying quite clearly that he believed the Jews had no legitimate claim to settle in Palestine. That Balfour was meaningless. That the historic claims to the land were meaningless. That the pre-Mandate settlements were meaningless. It was not just a "western thing," as he said.

It was the only rational solution to a very difficult problem. Britain later reneged when things got tough, and that's when a group of Jews formed Irgun and resorted to tactics that appear, out of context, to be terrorist in nature. Maybe noble isn't quite the right word for it. But hundreds of thousands of people were in immediate peril.

Given the situation, this group of people were fighting for the very survival of their race. The Arab marauders were in the wrong. The British navy was in the wrong. Hitler was in the wrong. It is a black and white situation. The only shades of grey were in some of the actions these groups felt were necessary.

There was quite a history of anti-Semitic violence long before Hitler came to power. The latest round started in Russia in the 1870s, and that led to the BILU movement in Russia, and the first modern settlements in 1882.

In hindsight, perhaps Palestine was a poor choice. But that's the way it was. They had to go somewhere, and there wasn't resistence at the time. It seems that much of the argument in this item stems from the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to Palestinian land. All I can say is that it's clear there's some legitimacy - obviously not 100%. But that's the decision that was made, and that's where the Jews had to go. To fault them for trying to get there is to fault them for trying to survive.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

No, it's a reasoned response. Maybe one you don't want to hear, but certainly reasoned and backed by the history of the region.

I guess people don't have an answer, because when you start attacking the person rather than the argument, you've pretty much admitted you don't have a response.

He was saying quite clearly that he believed the Jews had no legitimate claim to settle in Palestine. That Balfour was meaningless. That the historic claims to the land were meaningless. That the pre-Mandate settlements were meaningless. It was not just a "western thing," as he said.

It was the only rational solution to a very difficult problem. Britain later reneged when things got tough, and that's when a group of Jews formed Irgun and resorted to tactics that appear, out of context, to be terrorist in nature. Maybe noble isn't quite the right word for it. But hundreds of thousands of people were in immediate peril.

Given the situation, this group of people were fighting for the very survival of their race. The Arab marauders were in the wrong. The British navy was in the wrong. Hitler was in the wrong. It is a black and white situation. The only shades of grey were in some of the actions these groups felt were necessary.

There was quite a history of anti-Semitic violence long before Hitler came to power. The latest round started in Russia in the 1870s, and that led to the BILU movement in Russia, and the first modern settlements in 1882.

In hindsight, perhaps Palestine was a poor choice. But that's the way it was. They had to go somewhere, and there wasn't resistence at the time. It seems that much of the argument in this item stems from the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to Palestinian land. All I can say is that it's clear there's some legitimacy - obviously not 100%. But that's the decision that was made, and that's where the Jews had to go. To fault them for trying to get there is to fault them for trying to survive.

No, I really don't think that Crapshoot is arguing that a Jewish state is illegitimate at all. What he is saying is that Western state interests helped to define Israel's legitimacy. If the western powers didn't care, Israel wouldn't happen when it did. The Jewish population could have hemmed and hawed all they wanted about independence, but their destiny was clearly in the hands of the outside world.

My argument, in combination with Crapshoot's is that Israel is also the result of other nations' interests having little to do with the Jewish independence movement. Certainly, post-holocaust, there was sympathy for the Jewish people around the world. But since when does mere sympathy move anybody to commit political capital? As crass as it may sound, while the powers that be would sympathize with the plight of the Jews, nothing would be done unless it served the interests of those who had the power. The British wanted to hold on to Palestine, so long as the as the British had that policy, nothing would happen. Post WWII, the US wanted to check the growing Soviet political influence in the region and they did not trust the British capacity to do so. An independent, strong, and US-aligned Jewish state in Palestine would serve American geopolitical interests in the region better than an unstable colony in a state of insurrection against a weakened Britain. Thusly, the Truman administration put a lot of pressure on the British to disengage from Palestine. If the US didn't care about these strategic concerns, they would have left the British to their own devices and Israel probably would not have emerged without a successful insurgency campaign.

That is all I am saying. I agree with you about the Jewish need for a homeland. I agree that Jewish independence is legitimate, and even if it wasn't there is nothing anybody can do about it. History is history. I don't understand why it is unacceptable to say that Israel was borne of both moral concern for a group in diaspora and calculated geopolitics? That's what happened... what is so menacing about that?

[ISiddiqui]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around people saying that assasinating diplomats was ok because it done to 'protect settlements and break a blockade' (even though Count Bernadotte was a mediator who was put in place by the UN to try to broker a deal). Weren't they trying to remove the British from Palestine (and the Arabs from Jerusalem in looking at Deir Yassin)? That is better compared to terrorists who want to remove the Israelis from Palestine?

Why can't you guys acknowledge that BOTH did bad or both did good? Saying Irgun and Stern Gang's terrorism was nobler, while Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah is not is being really silly. After all, if we are saying terrorism can be noble, what is more noble than liberating your homeland? The bias is showing through clearly from the anti-Arab side here.

Frankly, neither side has the moral highground. Imperialism against terrorism. Neither wins out over the other.