Please Enter Here! (Importent) - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Please Enter Here! (Importent)
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Posted by hansolo on Mar-14-2002 20:03:

Imagine 6 million jews being killed in WW2 and having land given to them by a world that sat back and watched. Dont blame Israel, Dont blame palestinians, blame everyone else and then we can have a nice big war and everyone will die excpet me, tiesto, pvd, armin van buuren and every hot chick on the earth.

Posted by Izzy on Mar-14-2002 20:19:

some of you guys just crack me up...
all i can say is that even though israel is not perfect by any means they are moraly superior to the palestinians by a long shot.
two reason

1) One side purposely targets innocent civilians and celebrates when this happens. the other side doesnt... although it happens that palestinian civilians are injured they are NEVER the target and if a case happens where they were killed unjustly an investigation happens and people responsible are punished for their actions.

2) one side is a democracy run by the will and voice of the people. the other side is a dictatoriship that runs in a totalitary way.

i cant understand how you guys justify my first point and i would like someone to explain why you see that way. let me just say that if the USA would be targeted the way israel has by suicide bombings and machine gun frenzys in public then i bet you the world the USA would be all over attacking back. israel has the right to defend itself. even if that means going into towns and rounding up militiants.

the world has a moral obligation to do all it can to stop countries/territories (palestine) or regimes (PLO) that harbour terrorism (terrorism = the direct targeting of innocent civilians)

Posted by Az on Mar-14-2002 20:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Izzy
some of you guys just crack me up...
all i can say is that even though israel is not perfect by any means they are moraly superior to the palestinians by a long shot.
two reason

1) One side purposely targets innocent civilians and celebrates when this happens. the other side doesnt... although it happens that palestinian civilians are injured they are NEVER the target and if a case happens where they were killed unjustly an investigation happens and people responsible are punished for their actions.

2) one side is a democracy run by the will and voice of the people. the other side is a dictatoriship that runs in a totalitary way.

i cant understand how you guys justify my first point and i would like someone to explain why you see that way. let me just say that if the USA would be targeted the way israel has by suicide bombings and machine gun frenzys in public then i bet you the world the USA would be all over attacking back. israel has the right to defend itself. even if that means going into towns and rounding up militiants.

the world has a moral obligation to do all it can to stop countries/territories (palestine) or regimes (PLO) that harbour terrorism (terrorism = the direct targeting of innocent civilians)

*Jim Royle Style* My Arse
If anyone has a moral highground at all it's the palestinians, they've been removed from their homes (that have been theirs for over a 1000 years) persecuted by the israelis, given a piece of shit for land and then even moved out of that. They were offered a fragment of the country in 1948, when a few years beforehand they had the ENTIRE country, so I'm not surprised they said no and carried on fighting. They would have got the country back as well if it's wasn't for britain and the US sticking our fat asses in, for feeling guilty for what we allowed to happen in the holocaust. So don't say that the israelis have a moral highground.
And before you have go at me for bein a dodgy hamas al queda type geezer I get this information from my Israeli General Studies Teacher, who's the only person I've ever heard talk about the situation objectively
so theres my 802 cents

Posted by Yoepus on Mar-14-2002 21:36:

What do you know? There is a Good side and a Bad side! Chose your side!

Very good point Izzy.

See people have gone accustom to Middle East conflict being the fault of both sides. This is due to the propagation of the Palestinian false information through the world for a period of upwards of 40 years. How do they do this? They get air time by making international terrorist incidents to have people explain their points for them� A recent trend has helped them even further; news agencies actually invite their own representatives to explain why they do such. They reply with complete false you have come to believe since you have been hearing it for so long and said.. �Ok I�m sure some of that must be true�. Well it isn�t!

There is a Good side and a Bad side to this conflict? What is Good or Bad? It is a judgment for morality. You can not be a Good Person and a Bad person at the same time. A country can not be Good and Bad at the same time. A person or country can be good at certain aspects and bad at certain aspects, but as a whole it is only good or bad. Using this basis for Good and Bad I will help prove to you the sides without even going into deep history, just the recent conflicts.

Israel is a democracy where people have a right to voice their own opinions criticize the government, and elect the official which represent them and their views. The government is socially reasonable and it�s army (or armed forces) are subservient to government. The government once again, represents the people. Israel has a free press, and a fair judicial system for its citizens. This is Good.
The free press in Israel is why you hear about what is happening in the middle east. If it was not for this ability, Israel would be no more relevant then the conflict in the Balkans that most of us are clueless about.. other then people died their. If it were not for Israel�s freedom of press the crisis would be no more relevant then the Congo thing in Africa right now. People would be clueless.. the Palestinian side would not even be voiced.

�Palestine� is a totalitarian dictatorship. Although elections have been held in the past (once some 8 years ago), it was a one party ballot, you could chose no one but Mr. Arafat. This is since all opponents would have died if they would have run, or their families would have been slaughtered as is customary in Arab Kingdoms. A recent event where one of Arafat�s top advisors though this �violence thing wasn�t such a good idea� resulted in Arafat pulling out his pistol and threatening the advisor with his life. Luckily for the advisor others restraint Arafat, but I am sure this Advisor won�t be questioning his wise policies anymore. Furthermore their army (the security forces + terrorists) are the government. You do what they say, you don�t do what you say or you die! Simple as that. You can hear about the �justice� system in action almost every week in Palestine how they hang one another over anything from tribal conflict to alleged allegations and so on... One can kill another their with no fear of retaliation unless the guy you killed was part of some tribe or organization (read as Mafia). Palestinians do not have free press it is controlled by the Government (which is the dictator) which is the Army. Imagine trying to run against someone that controls 100% of the press. This is Bad.
The reasons you don�t hear about how Palestinians teach themselves in schools, or how they encourage their kids and children to march in the streets to try and get themselves killed.. or how they abuse their Ambulances to smuggle in arms and weapons, or perhaps the reasons you don�t hear about the �Palestinian Judiciary system� is since they have a very restricted press. If you try and make a story on these things being an international journalist, not only is your life threatened... but your station will never be allowed access into the Palestinian territories again� and you lose a very good story, which loses ratings, and bottom line -money.

Ok but I had enough of that.. I could go on and on and on with these moral arguments saying Israel is a Good nation, and Palestine is a Bad �nation�. And I have not even mentioned how these �nations� use their armies or their belief�s and fundamentals.

So I will try another argument here. You will here this a lot that Palestinians are a �People�. That the Jews and Palestinians are two people over one land. And this is where the conflict derives from. This is a very nice argument. But the correct reasoning for it would then have to be One People one Land. Ok so who are a people?

The Israelis are a people. They are Jews. They share an ethnical, religion, and historical background that spans more then 6000 years. They are indeed one of the most united oldest ethnical groups still on earth. Their claim for the territory of Israel are legitimated by their Historical significance to the people (forget about the god given right, you dig 5ft and you find an old Israeli castle/fort) and the fact that the land had belonged to the British before it became in independent nation. Britain got the land from the Ottomans under the Paris Peace Treaty with the responsibility that they get it only if they follow the Balfour declaration, which basically says the only reason Britain got this land anyway is so it could setup a Jewish homeland on it.

Ok now the Palestinians�. Hmm what are they? A people? Why what brins them together. Not all Arabs in Israel are Palestinians... after all you still have over a million content and happy Arab Israelis� which means Israeli citizens (or Arabs living in Israel with full rights) that are Arab. Ok so that rules out ethnicity, how about religion? No they seem to be primarily Christian and Muslims� hmm ok were running out of things, lets see Historical? No, they are just basically Arabs that got to this land during the British mandate from lots of different places with no real same history. And those that were there before have different histories as well. Ok ok.. I know the Palestinians must know what they are.. let me go check what they see about themselves. This is from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (read Arafat�s government) charter (read constitution):

quote:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Right so Palestinians are Arab. We go that down already.. but not all Arab�s are Palestinians so this doesn�t work. I like the bit about the Arab nation. I wish I knew where the Arab nation is... I can�t find it on my map.

quote:

Article 4: The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people, through the disasters which befell them, do not make them lose their Palestinian identity and their membership in the Palestinian community, nor do they negate them.

Well behind all that Zionist Evil Occupier rhetoric we see some requirements for �membership� in the �Palestinian people� organization, which they assure me is a Genuine, 100% authentic Identity and essential. Ok I can get membership by being transmitted as a child to a parent. Ok good and I see that despite the fact that I fled my home in order to avoid the crossfire between that the Evil Zionist Occupier and my �Arab Nations� armies when they tried to get them all to the sea does not disqualify me from joining up. OK finally we find it though;

quote:

The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Ahh so that explains it. You have to be or know someone who lived in the Brisith Mandate before 1947. Ya if only that worked� this is like saying everyone who lived in the state of Rhode Island from Jan 1, 1956 to Jul 26, 1956 is part of the NeoRhodian people who have a legitimate right to self determination, and nullify that damn constitution and the evil occupation of those Imperialist Capitalist no Socialists.. no wait Colonist!!! I�m not making much sense here am I? Exactly my point.. they don�t seem to be either.

Ok so using that argument we have to say goodbye Palestinians, accept living in the peace loving democracy that Israel aspires to, or move.

Ok well enough of that for now. I would like to wait for your replies so I can make even stronger counter arguments against your untruths.

Yoepus
[i][Buy land, they have quit making it! /[i]

Posted by Yoepus on Mar-14-2002 21:42:

Reprint: History (but not revised) Dated 21 Feb 2002

Az this is for you. I wrote the following objective essay following the history of the jewish people for a previous debate on this topic. I have reposted it hear as the thread it was on was lost, and I think it is a service for all of you would actually for once in your lifes want to know what the whole conflict really is about. It is a pretty lengthy read so take your time.

Also Az, a note to the wise never get all your information from one source, no matter how crediable. The army does not do it, government do not do it, even the news does not do it (rarely but some do). If you want to learn the real truth, hear many people speak about the subject that actually know something about it. Not those who just regirgiated the News misinformation.

Ok anyway, below is the essay in its entirty as it was initally posted (for all those who read it before, skip it or read it again and enjoy (ya right)):

Hi.. I'm going to make a logical and rational argument in the following paragraphs against the Palestinian cause. If you are incapable of looking up sources, can't think, or have used to much ecstasy in the past which resulted in severe brain damage please refrain from reading this post as it might cause you to think and your head may explode. You have been warned.

Well all things need a start right? Well follow the Jewish people through history, after all where is their right for this so called land from anyhoo?

Well it all started around 10,000BC with the city of Jericho, the oldest city in the world.. then came Abraham and settled the region with his family (it was mainly sparse as not many humans were alive back then and their was tribal conflict.. their were no Palestinians there yet). Then their was a drought so some of them moved to Egypt.. then came Moses as and they returned. Then Babylon conquered them and destroyed their second temple, then the Jews returned (starting to see a pattern here?). It is worth nothing that ever since Abraham came to Israel their have always been Jews living there, though their numbers change dramatically with conquest and such. Lets pick up the pace a bit.. Rome comes severely oppresses the Jews and does not honor their unique culture and religion.. Jews rebel, romans win, Jews (again most but not all.. some remain always), Jews sold as slaves across the Roman Empire. Jews rebel again, this time they win and establish The Democratic Kingdom of New Israel under a king or two (see told you a lot of jews were left.. else they couldn't have rebelled). By this time the other lands nearby have regained
their might with the fall of Rome and can't stand the Democratic Kingdom of New Israel (as I recall the history books state they disliked the name.. as it made their Democratic Republics look bad so they wanted to change it). Some Jews are now spread out throughout the Arab world again.

Centuries pass (just 17 or so) and Jews have been the constant excuse and scapegoat of people everywhere wherever they were be it Europe, Asia, or Africa. Jews had to migrate between nations as they would change their policies from Jews like their mood swings. Throughout this time they would pray for the return of the Jewish people to their birth land, and for the revival of the temple (which the wailing wall in Jerusalem is the only remaining artifact of it). In 1870 Europe with a predominantly very hostile anti-Semitic populace, and an increasing number of Jews with good educations began discussing the reunion of the Jewish people to their homeland, this movement was called Zionism. Many began to move to Israel as situations got worse for them in Europe even as the conferences were taking place in Switzerland where the delegates tried to reach some agreement to peacefully resolve Israel as a homeland for the Jews. At this time Israel was 'occupied' by the Ottoman Empire. As WWI approached their were many Jewish collaborators that helped the British free all the lands of Transjordan (Modern Day Israel/Palestine and Jordan lands) and some parts
of Egypt.

At the end of the war many documents were signed by the victor ensuring the intended future of these lands (take note Victor sets claims to conquered, not conquered sets claims to victor.. this is how war works, read Geneva convention). The Jewish collaboration is an important note, as a generalization Arabs did not fight in WWI or WWII for their own freedom, most Arab indeed fought on the side of the Turkish (as noted by British Prime Minster David Llyod George). In WWII only Transjordan (containing the lands of Israel) sided with the Allies, the other countries (Iraq which was Pro-Nazi sided with Germany) waited till 1945 when the war was clearly over (and they had to do it if they wanted membership in the United Nations) to declare war on Germany. 30,000 Palestinian Jews fought against Nazi Germany.
..But wait lets go back to WWI as their were some very important documents signed (documents and treaties are ways countries create laws amongst each other, it is useless unless enforced) . 1917, The Balfour Declaration issued by the British, the heirs of the Palestinian Mandate after WWI;

quote:
"His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I will

extend this to add a quote from the Peel Commission appointed by the British government to investigate the cause of the 1936 riots,
quote:
"the field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan" (that means Israel AND Jordan)
. So what does this all mean? Let me put it into a context you might better understand. The American Revolutionary war right? This would be like the British writing the Declaration of Independence for the Americans and telling them they could have an independent country in ALL OF NORTH AMERICA. And Benjamin Franklin would say, "Ahh we don't want all of it.. just these few 13 colonies". Pretty remarkable huh? The Mandate was formalized by 52 governments at the League of Nations on July 24, 1922.

At and before this time Israel was nothing, a wasteland.. it hadn't been an important place since the Crusades. Jerusalem was neglected and was never a capital, or even a provincial capital of any nation, state, or province. Mark Twain who visited Palestine in 1867 described Israel as
quote:
"[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to the weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action.... We never saw a human being on the whole route... There was hardly a tree shrub (or shrubbery -my edit) anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country".
This is
the same Mark Twain that said "Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress ... But I repeat myself." He's a smart guy listen to him. Israel was nothing but a wasteland either barren or full of marshes. Before the 1920s there was not many people living in Palestine. The British helped make it a better place, more then half a million Arabs therefore moved to Palestine between 1922 and 1947, more then 120% increase in their population. Jewish population was increasing put was doing so slowly. Why? The British restricted Jewish migration to Israel severely, but did little to curb Arab migration, and illegal Arab migration into Israel. During this time Jews who came to Israel did not steal Arab land. In fact they went out of their way to accommodate the Arabs in the land, knowing it would be better to live with them instead of
against them (especially since they were very weak at this time). They bought most their land and went out of their way not to displace Arabs from land they bought (as most landowners won't dear live in the desolation that was Israel.. they were usually wealthy men in Cairo, Beirut, or Damascus). They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap, and most important, without tenants. Only after they had bought all the available land they began to buy the cultivated land. Many Arabs were interested in selling as they were interested in moving to coastal towns or to get some cash to invest in the dot.citrus industry boom. The Jews usually even compensated the tenants of these lands although they were not legally bound to pay says John Hope Simpson in 1930. A British survey conducted by Lewis French in 1931 to evaluate the landlessness of Arabs who had been 'dispossessed'. It received more then 3000 applications, of which all but 600 were ruled invalid as they were indeed not landless. 100 of these accepted the Governments offer for a plot of land somewhere else. Even Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote in his memoirs wrote; [quote]"It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal as in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping"[quote]. By 1947 Jews had holdings to about 463,000 acres in Palestine. An analysis of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 actually shows that 73% of land purchased by the Jews came from large land owners, some including the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, and Jaffa.

As early as 1921 the arabs, organized by Haj Amin el-Husseini used small groups of suicide bombers against the Jews in hopes of terrorizing them into leaving Palestine. An internal conflict between the Jews and 'Palestinians' had already been existent throughout this time, but was gaining intensity as the British turned a blind eye towards both directions, while restricting the Jews more severely.

As WWII came to and end the magnitude of the Holocaust became know to the world of then (I believe many of you can not comprehend this magnitude).

This drove world public support for a final solution to the question of Palestine, as a refuge and sanctuary for the "Final Solution" of Hitler�s in a homeland of their own. A commission was established to decide the manner, it consisted of delegates of 7 nations who recommended the establishment of two separate states, Jewish and Arab, to be joined by economic union, with Jerusalem as an internationalized enclave. It is also wise to state that the Peel Commission of 1937 concluded the only logical solution to resolving the contradictory aspirations of the Jews and
Palestinians was a creation of two states. The Arabs rejected this plan because it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish state, which required some Palestinians to live under a Jewish domain. The Zionist refused the plan as well as according to the Peel Plan's boundaries they would have been confined to a little more then 1,900 out of the 10,3000 square miles remaining of Palestinian (transjordan, the other 80% was given back to an Arab monarch in reward for some support in WWII). However it is also important to note, that although the Zionist refused the plan they decided to continue to negotiate with the British while the Arabs refused to consider and compromises.

As the 1947 Partition plan became a reality it was clear the Arabs were preparing themselves for an armed conflict. Almost immediately after the UN announced the partition on November 29, 1947 the Arabs prepared for an assault which they began 9 January 1948. From April 1, the Israeli forces began to take the initiative in the weeks till Israeli's independence day May 14th. They did this against all odds, with disadvantages in organization, numbers, and weapons. Then after the declaration of Independence Israel beat off the combined forces of Arab armies from 5 different countries. The Arabs had clearly opted for an 'all for nothing' strategy with Israel. During this time many Arabs fled the land in fear of war, many were also told to evacuate by scouts of the advancing Arab armies. Many Arabs chose to flee Israel in face of the coming war that was decided to take place by other Arabs. Some chose to stay, some of those were forced to move, others were allowed to stay in the backdrop of the 1948 war.

After the war Israel had made little territorial gains beyond those that were envisioned to be partitioned to her. Despite the humiliating defeat the Arabs had not conceded the war like mode.

In the following years, when Israel had become a recognized country of its own, so called 'Palestinian territories' were under illegal control by the Jordanian and Egyptian regimes. During this time their was no movement from the Palestinians for a country or their right for self-determination. Also the refugees that fled for their safety during the war were not integrated into the other Arab countries to help them get their lives back together. Instead they were kept in slums called Refugee camps incited with hate. Apparently the 'Arab Brotherhood' is not as strong as they would like to have believed. In comparison more then 200,000 Jews from many Arab countries who faced severe persecution to the point of death were accepted into Israeli society and became productive contributing members to the society in less then a generation.

In the following was 1956, 1967 Israel had launched first assault preemptive-strikes after repeated provocation and imminent break of war from its Arab neighbors. The had accomplished very recognizable territorial gains in the face of an attack from all its Arab neighbors. They had finally gained access to Eastern Jerusalem and the wailing wall a site Jews had preyed to reach for centuries and were prevented from doing so when the area came under rule by the Jordanians. They had captured most of the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, and the Golan Heights. According to the laws of War territorial acquisitions are fair game. They serve as bargaining chips in the game of diplomacy that usually follows after for the peace agreement.

Prior to the 1967 war before Israel had conquered the West Bank and Gaza, The PLO was formed. This organization headed by Yasser Arafat aimed to Liberate Palestine. But from who? He was content with the rule under Jordan, he must have meant to Liberate Palestine of it's Zionist oppressor.. riding all of Palestine of Jews. Before and during 1967 many incursion and terrorist actions were made from Jordanian (read West Bank) and Egyptian positions into Israel. Artillery was constantly being fired across the border onto Israeli settlements. Israel faced extreme odds with the small ill-equipped army against the Soviet Armies of it's Arab neighbors, it is amazing it had accomplished such a victory. A further war in 1973 reinforced Arab hatred for an aspiring Jewish state as all Forces of it's Arab neighbors conspired for a sneak attack against Israel to wipe it, off the face of the map for good. They chose the Holiest day of the year for the Jews, Yom Kippur. Remarkable against all odds Israel was able to foil this attack once more, although only modest territorial gains were made. In both 1967 and 1973 Israel refrained from marching into Cairo, Damascus, or Amman showing that their intentions were indeed not to dismantle or destroy for good their Arab neighbors.

Since the wars Israel had made large attempts to accommodate Arabs in the West Bank in Gaza under their control. These territories were never Annexed by Israel as it understood it these lands belong to another self-determined people. These territories never belonged to any country, and were in theory supposed to belong to a nation which never existed due to the UN partition of 1948. So in fact they may be considered Occupied Occupied.. free for all territories.

Israel has shown its willingness to give up its conquered land for peace as seen by the Camp-David peace process which brought peace finally between Israel and Egypt. Further Israel has shown its determination for peace by entering into a mutually-beneficial peace treaty with it's other Neighbor Jordan. Still throughout these times despite the fact that Israel had provided people under the Occuppided, Occuppied territories with clean water, sewage, roads, schools, and many other amenities unheard of their today under their supposed 'self-rule', the Palestinians have launched numerous terrorist, guerilla, and murderous campaigns aimed primarily at defenseless civilians. The Palestinians have shown a willingness for piece but are yet to prove it in their actions, Israel already has.

After an intensified uprising in these territories, Israel signed the Oslo accords in the early 90s, whereby Israel ensured the Palestinian an autonomy with resolution from both sides to settle the debate regarding the Palestinian issue, and all other issues that may arise diplomatically and through peaceful means and mediation only. Israel donated thousands of small arms to the Palestinian Authority so they may keep fringe groups from disrupting the peace and preserving the force of law in their Autonomy.

Despite these efforts Arafat and the Palestinians violated the accords by using terrorism and violence in hopes to achieve a political objective for Israel. This included horrific unimaginable attacks against innocent Israeli civilians. Throughout the decade of the 90s the Israeli people, being of a democracy elected several different leaders each with their unique approach to the peace trouble. Arafat was unable to make a permanent peace with former Prime Minister Rabin, or his successor Shimon Peres who was of a like mind. Nethanyua who followed, was unwilling to compromise Israeli's security for anything but a complete peace. Ehud Barak who followed him compromised Israeli's security in a desperate attempt to reach and accommodate a fair and agreeable peace treatry. His generous peace treaty ensuring the Palestinians receive 97% of their land and accept Jerusalem as their capital was not only rejected by the Palestinian but was rejected with no realistic counter-proposal. Instead the Palestinians intensified violence and terrorism in a means to reach their political objectives. Sharon was elect due to his hardliner policy similar to that of Nethyahu, not compromising security for peace, where we reach our current situation today. In the past week the Palestinians have shown a desire to intensify the violence and terrorism even to a higher level then it has before.

A logical man can conclude that since the Israel has tried to achieve peace and has changed their leadership many times in hopes of achieving it without success, the fault must lie on the Palestinian side as their leader has stayed a constant- Arafat. This is where ALL the Palestinian people have association to the blame and guilt. They have failed to change their leadership in hopes of reaching a realistic peace treaty with Israel. UN Resolution 242 calls for the Palestinians right to 'Self-Determination' but this has not been achieved by the Palestinians as they may elect only one leader, Arafat runs a dictatorship and a terror regime amongst his own people as well as against the people of Israel. This can
not be argued in any sense of the words.

It is apparent that the problem lies with Arafat, and the Palestinians inability to change their leadership to reflect their proper views, or god forbid if he is representative of general Palestinian views this is a weaker sign as the only inevitable resolution to the problem would be violence. And yes Violence (notably war) does solve problems, if you are in doubt of this, please check out any history book in your local library. If this be a truth Israel has only one chance for its survival, a step it has never dared to do before, the forced relocation of an entire people.

Some of you out their might not understand the intensity of this conflict. Well imagine yourself in your beloved country, your beloved country is on the brink of war this very day. Your country might stand a chance against incursions every now and then. Your enemy has nothing to lose, they will continue incursions as long as they'd like, one day they are bound to win. One successful incursion means the doom of your country for ever and the ending of your life. You have the power to dismantle your opponents once and for all to prevent further incursions yet chose not to. Choosing not to risks your life and all those of your beloved countrymen. Now show me another country with such restraint in the world, as I can only think of one.

PHEW!!! What a long essay.. well hope you learned something.. My opinion is stated more in the end then the beginning in hopes of preserving historical truth. Since I sort of didn't want to get into the detail of post 1948 else that would take forever. If you guys want though I can highlight the history since then and the major wars.. Interesting statistics too like the sizes of the armies during the war highlighting the great odds against Israel.

Well hope you guys actually take the time to read through it...

Yoepus
"did you know Texas A&M genetically engineered maroon colored carrots"

Posted by Izzy on Mar-14-2002 21:45:

quote:
Originally posted by Az

*Jim Royle Style* My Arse
If anyone has a moral highground at all it's the palestinians, they've been removed from their homes (that have been theirs for over a 1000 years) persecuted by the israelis, given a piece of shit for land and then even moved out of that. They were offered a fragment of the country in 1948, when a few years beforehand they had the ENTIRE country, so I'm not surprised they said no and carried on fighting. They would have got the country back as well if it's wasn't for britain and the US sticking our fat asses in, for feeling guilty for what we allowed to happen in the holocaust. So don't say that the israelis have a moral highground.
And before you have go at me for bein a dodgy hamas al queda type geezer I get this information from my Israeli General Studies Teacher, who's the only person I've ever heard talk about the situation objectively
so theres my 802 cents

ok then correct me if im wrong but you think that terrorism is justified in this case? you really think that displacing innocent civilians (which isnt the case) is moraly worse than killing innocent civilians? excuse me but i really dont see where you're coming from on that one.

now let me go to the your arguement that says that in 1948 the palestinian land was taken by israelis.
prior to 1948 the area known as palestine was under british mandate. when the british decided to leave the UN established a "Special Commision On Palestine (UNSCOP) to devise a solution. delegates from 11 countries went to figure out what could be done. they found there was a conflicting national aspirations for the jews and arabs and set up a partition plan to create two seprate country. no the palestians werent offered a "piece of shit for land" as you put it so nicely. the partion plan were based soley on demographics of the area and ownership of the land, is it our fault that some arabs sold us their land giving us full property rights to the place? after the palestinians regected this plan.... war of independence... yadda yadda... and if you look at the bourders of isreal after that war they look almost identical to the partition plan. but where is the palestinian country you ask? well there was none, their greedy neighbours took the land... west bank was jordan's and gaza went to egypt. let me add also that there were and still are palestinians living within isreal. so saying that we forced them to leave is rubbish.... anyways i gotta go to a meeting real quick, ill write agian when i come back.

Posted by Yoepus on Mar-14-2002 21:50:

quote:
Originally posted by ZinG

This is how israeli soldiers take "souvenir" pictures with their dead victims.
My 2cents.

I see you don't think taking a souvenir of a blood-thristy 'human' that you shot and killed yourself, sparing your lives and the lives of your fellow commrades, citizens, and your nations in a war of attrition forced upon you is acceptable. Yes I agree parading down the body of sucicde bomber down the street with his picture and shouting 'REVENGE' is much more respectable.

I see you want to start a picture war do you eh? right on!

Palestinian civil Judicial system in action. The guy hung and lynched was a Palestinian who was 'suspected' of collaborating with Israel. Damn talk about a speedy trial.

Yoepus
"Is there a number higher than infinity?" "Oh yes- infinity plus shipping and handling"

Posted by ZinG on Mar-14-2002 21:56:

no dude , im showing you that both sides are OBVIOUSLY STUPID!
NOT JUST PALESTINIANS
BUT ISRAELIS
so dont be blind

Posted by Az on Mar-14-2002 22:04:

quote:
Originally posted by ZinG
no dude , im showing you that both sides are OBVIOUSLY STUPID!
NOT JUST PALESTINIANS
BUT ISRAELIS
so dont be blind

thats what I was trying to say, but I'm stoned so leave out

Posted by Tranex02 on Mar-14-2002 22:43:

alright guys....
we already had a HUGE discussion about this in the previous thread.
Yuval made a mistake by making this stupid thread, and now we seem to be discussing the same shit over and over...

LET'S GET OVER IT FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!!

Posted by PSi on Mar-15-2002 15:09:

id still like to see a whole page of writing to explain why soldiers decide to shoot at kids with stones....please enlighten me Yoepus...you seem quite the educated fellow. Dont come back at me with the" What are my comrades supposed to do, stones can kill you know, israeli soldiers have to protect themselves from kids with stones."

Posted by Gurian on Mar-15-2002 18:30:

I think you only look it from one side.

But if I had lived in Israel I know that I react the same as you did here.

Posted by Scorchio on Mar-15-2002 19:14:

quote:
Originally posted by Blik
dude, you only look at it from your own side, The Iraeli's bomb Palestinians every day, I wished that the site showed that also.....

just give them an own state and problems will be solved, the prolems that you hate so much, why aren't the israeli's willing to give them an own state? The Arab-world wants to give them an own state, the US wants it, Europe wants it.....

It is the Israeli's own fault that this mess happened....

Blik you are talking like things are so simple
"just give them everything they want, break homes and families so that the palestinians will have what they want, just give them thier own country"

Well we discused it allot!
Arafat refused to anything we offered, what he wants is all of israel to himself.
Its about time you people understand that, he wont comprimise, he wont settle down until every jew is dead,
you got so mad at me when I said I hate palestinians, its about time you start to understand that every single palestinian wants to kill the jews.
And until you come over here and watch the horror, you cant just say what you want.

Posted by YuVaL on Mar-15-2002 19:16:

okay
please done flame me or anything!!
i just want to show u what the palestines do 4 fun:

http://www.underash.com/eshots.htm

DISCUSTING!

Posted by TranceGiant on Mar-15-2002 19:21:

What i cant critisize is the majority's lack of knowledge (of history and current events) since i see and hear every day how badly informed/biased even the media is. If i didnt know better i would be the first to step up and say "eveil zionists, stop bombing little children and robbing land". I just want u all to think a littlebit morebefore finally make yaself your opinion. Look for other sources and justshow some RESPECT! Since its actually pretty patronizing to say "here we�go, i know it all and i condemn x and y cause of a and b"..
Nah, i got no power to post my arguments for the 4th time here ...why not continue the olderthread about that subject..

Posted by Scorchio on Mar-15-2002 19:31:

Posted by Yoepus on Mar-16-2002 06:29:

quote:
Originally posted by djpsi
id still like to see a whole page of writing to explain why soldiers decide to shoot at kids with stones....please enlighten me Yoepus...you seem quite the educated fellow. Dont come back at me with the" What are my comrades supposed to do, stones can kill you know, israeli soldiers have to protect themselves from kids with stones."

Hello djpsi, I do not have the time right now to right a long article about this topic, but can do so in a couple of days if you are interested to hear more points.

However, as a general rule this is a misconception brought by the first intifada (back in the late 80s). At this time non-lethal alternatives was almost unheard of and non-existant. The resistance waa a new thing to the army, and it was not suited to police them. Years of this low intensity conflict have changed the doctorine and has made the Israeli army very suited in such low intensity conflicts and very fimilar with new technologies of non-leathal weapons.

So what I am saying, they might have done it earlier.. any unexperienced force faced infront of a large angry mob (regardless of who is in it) is a very, very frightening thing, with inexperience and lack of alternatives, one would open live fire in to a very hostile yet 'unarmed' crowd. A good example of this is the recent World Trade Organization conference in Sweden, where the police their shot and killed a number of protestors (I think it was 7 or so). And this is Sweden, so you see mobs are very dangerous and with lack of doctorine and if you only have live ammo in your hand your going to shot.

But let me also point out which mother would allow her child to go out in the streets when she knows he is trying to annoy, hurt, and kill other Israelis soldiers, particularly when they are well armed, and if they feel their life is endangered will shot to prevent it from being taken away from them.

As a general rule in the Israeli doctorine you may shot to save your live. Dispersal of a crowd, is mainly done through an inital annoucment (never works anymore so they don't do it much), warning shots (again doesn't work), tear gas (works and is the primary means to disperse crowds, especially those of unarmed children), and ruber bullets. Now if you have a person carrying a bomb, a machine gun, or other arms in the crowd endangering the lifes of the soldiers, no matter if they try and hide behind their children, pregnent women, or such, the Israelis will try and eliminate the threat with all means possible to the ability to cause as few as possible innocent casualties (believe me, anyone who is human and sane does not enjoy doing this). Now a note I will also mention here. Many innocent Palestinian civilians have lost their lives in the conflict, it is to my personal opinion that more Palestinian civilians have been killed in crossfire with their own militant Palestinians as opposed to the Israeli Army. Think of it, you have a group of people who have recieved no basic training, are not experienced in firing arms, and the arms are old, ammo is inaccurate and often misfires. The army on the other hand rigerously trains its troops with their rifle, often more accurate and more modern guns then those of the Palestinians.

I will add that their is no place for innocents in a battlefield, especially children. It is at the fault of primarly the Parents, and the government who have propopgated the youth to such acts of hate with their full pledged incitement (look at the first post link for a few pics of this, this really happens).

It is really sad when a people train and force their kids to go to the streets to try and make trouble in hopes that the Israelis will kill them so they can make them mayrters and 'legitimize' their cause to rid the map of Israel.

Think of it, if no kids were throwing stones, or their they could not die. It is like Golda Meyer said something along the lines of(former Israeli PM) "We can forgive the arabs for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children".

It is a sad truth, no moral human enjoys killing.. especially innocents, but what can you do? This is a war forced upon you. The Palestinians are like the Taliban and Al quedia, they forced a war upon you and you have to fight back.

Ok to reinforce my position, I give you an essay that is not mines but sounds pretty good anyway and should shed some light onto the topic for you;

quote:
In general Israelis are not happy that they are hurting palestinians (you can always find a few wackos in every society but I am talking about the overwhelming majority on all sides of the israeli political scene). Well, israelis have learned to defend themselves very effectively, and war, as an american general who burned his way across the southern states of the usa once said �is Hell!�. You can see in the long essay on how the palestinians have repeatedly refused to make peace (ever since the late 1930�s) and have repeatedly attacked israel and especially israeli civilians. But I will confine myself to just this round of the conflict and why, though they don�t feel good about killing and wounding palestinian civilians (and if you don�t believe me try reading israeli media or seeing israeli tv). Arafat�s strategy throughout the war has been to attract western sympathy by forcing the israelis to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible. This is of course a new concept in the responsibility of a political leader to his people. How is this being done? First of all by sending children to pelt israeli soldiers with rocks and molotov cocktails � this attracts the press but the israelis prefer not shooting the kids, so step two is to hide riflemen behind the children who open fire on the israeli troops in the hope that these will return fire and kill some of the kids. The israelis reacted by allowing only specially trained snipers to shoot the palestinian riflemen. This didn�t ensure that no kids would be hit but it reduced it to a minimum. As opposed to the aimed fire of the israelis the palestinians fired automatic fire over the heads and through the crowds of children � no one knows how many children were hit by palestinian fire and how many by the israelis, the palestinians have the bodies and don�t allow anyone to check them (remember the kid made famous in his death a year ago [the one hiding behind his father] � he got hit by a burst of automatic fire near an israeli position that was being fired upon from three different directions, one near him, one on the opposite side of the israeli position � unlike hollywood, in reality bullets that miss the intended target don�t disappear into mid-air).

Then they add play-acting � I saw one videotape which shows two palestinians carrying a �badly-wounded� comrade to an ambulance. Unfortunately for them the driver did not see them and backed into them knocking them over � the first to recover was the �badly-wounded� teenager who suddenly got to his feet all well again�[ahh yes i have seen plenty of these myself. Just the other week a perfectly fit teenager was rushed into an ambulance]

Another trick is to walk into the apartment of a family [palestinian one] and open fire on the israelis who of course fire back � sometimes hitting members of the family as well. If the same house is used again and again and is near an israeli position or civilian traffic the israelis evict the family and knock it down. Now you get beautiful photos of israeli bulldozers and screaming women. If the house was derelict � no problem, for a dollar or two you can bring up some screaming women with their children for the cameras to see� etc etc etc. [this is the case of a month ago when the world was 'outraged' how Israel bulldozed houses in Gaza. The Israeli army said they were emtpy and they were right, but the Palesitians shipped in hundrends of refugees to the scene with their belongings to make it look as if they were inhabited.]

The israelis have a problem � either they let their people get killed or they fight back and every once in a while they also kill the wrong person. And even when they kill only the right people � i.e. palestinian combatants � no problem, most of them don�t wear uniforms anyway, so a palestinian spokesman or woman says that they were not armed (who can check anyway?). Only when the bodies are left in Israeli hands do you see the weapons.[of course the Palestinians would want to take the weapons away so they could use them for another time as well, and the Israelis would take it away to prevent this] And since most (not all) of the western media has an anti-Israeli bias they don�t really make an effort to find out what really happened. As opposed to israeli casualties of which two thirds are civilians (and deliberately so � see the bombings and shootings in israeli restaurants, buses, discos and schools well away from any military target as an example), the vast majority of palestinian killed are combatants. All told this means that the israelis may have killed a couple of hundred non-combatants in a year and three months of CONTINUOUS fighting (over 10,500 recorded incidents in which palestinians used rifles, machineguns, hand-grenades, rifle-grenades, mortars, short-range rockets, mines of various types and a large variety of explosive devices against israeli civilians and security personnel � notice that I am NOT counting stone-throwing incidents, only real weapons). Now let�s compare this to another war that lasted only 73 days in which NATO aircraft (mostly americans) killed, according to the american general commanding them, 1,500 civilians! During the past year and three months the israelis lost 253 killed (civilians and soldiers) and possibly 4,000 to 5,000 wounded (the number of israeli wounded receives so little press coverage I am not sure about the total) [these are statistics from January 10th, the numbers are much higher now]. How many nato pilots died in combat over serbia? None! They flew so high to stay out of trouble they often hit the wrong targets. How many nato civilians were killed by the enemy in their homes or restaurants etc? none! [actually a quiet a few but nevermind hehe] Now let�s have a look at afghanistan � how many afghan civilians who were not only NOT members of the taliban but consider themselves oppressed by them were killed? God alone knows but AT LEAST hundreds. How many of them lost their homes to american bombs? God alone knows but if the publicized list of targets hit and the snippets of videos are any indication � at least hundreds. So if we compare the israelis by the standards set by the western armies of whose morals we are so proud I think they come out pretty good (and I am NOT being cynical, only someone who has experienced combat has any inkling how difficult it is to do things correctly, how confusing everything is). Are the israelis perfect? Ofcourse not. No one is. Israelis are ordianry fallible human beings � some are bad, some are decent sometimes they make mistakes (don�t we all? And in combat ten times as many, as someone once said � I think it was napoleon � battles are won by the side that makes fewer mistakes). I think an in-depth study shows that only a few are bad (just as you would find in any western state or army) and the vast majority are decent.[once again rates in a democratic army are much fewer, since they uphold law and are courtmarshaled and punished if they abuse the law.. even the laws of war] They have no reason to feel shame. If anything, I think the vast majority of Israeli soldiers have earned the right to feel proud of their achievements and moral fibre.

Ok well he spared me from writing a detailed essay, he has many valid points, some reinforce the points I made above.

If you have any more questions I will be glad to give you an answer, as I have said earlier this is quiet a clear cut situations. The Israelis are the good, the Palesitinians are the bad. Don't believe me? try and disprove it and you will see.

Yoepus
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Monty Python's Holy Grail, a comment on how Arthur got Excalibur

Posted by Izzy on Mar-16-2002 06:40:

Posted by Scorchio on Mar-16-2002 09:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Izzy
also some more things i've found out lately....
taking from yoepus post about palestinians as a people, did you know that arafat wasnt even born in palestian? he was born in egypt! how can a non-palestian be the head chairman of an organization representing the palestinian people?

Same question can be asked on how Adolf Hitler who was the exact opposite from the Ari race, led the Germans to kill jews,
the answer is simple : Retorica
They both know how to make thier people go wild and follow what they say blindly.

Posted by TranceGiant on Mar-16-2002 10:41:

Im sorry to admit that Arafat is one of the best politicians ever. The way he plays with Israel and the rest of the world is un believable. Not only does he make european and american ppl believe the things he says, he also manages to raise and then again drop Israeli primeminsters whenever he feels like(netanyahu, barak,...and now probably sharon).
Yoepus...I as a (pro-)israeli could disprove your strict black and white attitude immediately. I thinks its better for our side to admit certain things, that makes us more credible...

Posted by Yoepus on Mar-16-2002 17:52:

quote:
Originally posted by TranceGiant
Im sorry to admit that Arafat is one of the best politicians ever. The way he plays with Israel and the rest of the world is un believable. Not only does he make european and american ppl believe the things he says, he also manages to raise and then again drop Israeli primeminsters whenever he feels like(netanyahu, barak,...and now probably sharon).

Yes this is very sadly true. I am also puzzeled how the man is still alive, let alone the head of the Palestinian stuggle. After all if he plays with Israeli politics, it is only fair then that the Israelis play with Palestinian politics you would think.. of course they don't and he's still there. Personally if I was a high up on the Israeli side, I would present case humanity v. Arafat to the international tribunal at the Hague... this guy has done so much wrong, dark, and punishable to humanity it really an't funny... it would be easy to prove, and their you extratite him and lock him away for life and forget about him. But that's just my opinion.. you could always just kill him too.

quote:
Yoepus...I as a (pro-)israeli could disprove your strict black and white attitude immediately. I thinks its better for our side to admit certain things, that makes us more credible...

No! It is black and white, altought their is obviously some grey in the middle, but if you look at everything IN CONTEXT and the WHOLE picture it becomes remarkably clear cut. On one side you have a nation who has had a war forced upon them and therefore they defend themselves (not defending yourselves in basically suicide). This is good. On the other side we have a population that has forced this war upon the Israelis. This is bad (especially when they had a realistic opprotunity to achieve their political aims via diplomacy and mediation).

You can not look at the conflict in the middle east and say both sides are to blame. Altough this is true, both sides do have some part in the conflict, it implies that both sides are at EQUAL to blame, and this is very, very far from the truth.

No one can justify the acts of Al'queda on the USA in September. No one, their reaction was extremly unproportional to any grievances they might of had with the USA. I don't remember them even signing a petition first to move the troops out of Arabia, or writing letters to congressman.. basic things that sometimes do work. Their actions were UNJUSTIABLE by all means, the USA did not deserve what it witnessed on September. Ok so your pissed off at the USA, it does not mean you have an excuse at waging war at them where you primarly target the most helpless and innocent of the population.

In the same way the war forced upon Israel is simply UNJUSTIFABLE! Their is no reason in the world that the Palestinians should attack and target the targets they do at the ferioucity, unhumanity, and cruelty they do! It is unforgivable and can in no way be rationalized or justified. This is a clear case of black v. white. You have a superiorly moral nation vs. a barbaric one. Very easy to prove, and very hard to argue against. Don't believe me.. go ahead and try.

Yoepus

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the fine line between sanity and madness gotten finer?

Posted by DJ-Kreing^^ on Mar-16-2002 19:36:

Posted by TranceGiant on Mar-16-2002 21:44:

Hm,Yoepus...I do agree that looking at the whole picture Israel is right, it starts with us accpeting the partition plan and ends with Arafat's decision to give up diplomacy (camp david) and get back to the "roots" by using sharon's tempe mount walk for a new mini war against israel [which aimed to 1, weaken our image and as a consequence our weaken our position in future peace talks 2, defeating us psychologically "damn, just let us live and give them everything they want" (well he partly succeeded if u see those "peace now" activists crying for "theend of the occupation")].
So talking about the current conflict in general u may use your black and white rhetorics...
However going deeper into certain things will show us some grey aspects as well. Israel started the peace process in 1993 in order to eventually build a Palestinian State. Ignoring a point in the Oslo agreement saying that "creating new 'facts/conditions' in the territories" isnt legal (leave aside the Geneva convention) theykept expanding settlements and confiscating lands in orderto build streets etc. etc. This is Bad. (i want u to forget for one moment whats happening now, cause i dont think Israel's politicians knew that back then. Just think logical: You promise to give and at the same time take away bit after bit)
Many Hebron settlers are radical and racist, they harass the arab inhabitants, spit at them, demolating their markets, even Shaul Mofaz threatend them once that hed evacuate them (note: i do not justify the murder of any of them at all,i just say that THIS is bad)
Pregnant Palestinian Women or ill Palestinians nowadays die since they aint allowed passing check points. Israeli soldiers sometimes provoke Arabs by slowlyletting them pass,shouting at them etc. This is bad.
Israeli Arabs and Beduins and drusim are discriminated against when it comes to certain parts of social life(labor, purchasing of lands etc. etc.) This is Bad.
I repeat: I think our actions are nowadays totally justified, and idlike to see Arafat hanged and his entire PA burning in hell( or tunis)..I wouldnt share Jerusalem, nor would i favour any compromise concerning the refugee problem. But i think that the Palestinians must have their own state but with different, liberal leaders..and only after erasing the entire terror infrastructure and stopping the anti-semitic propaganda.
By the way...i dont think theres a real palestinian people either. However I see that theres this group of people, sharing the same destiny, having suffered after all (like us of course), sometimes being driven away, sometimed having left on their own, not being accpeted byany country....so believing that the average Palestinian just wants a free calm peaceful life without worries, a nice job a hot wife Id like to see 2 states and one peace.
right now this is utopia...most of theppl are pumpedup with hatred and propganda (this is bad by the way!) so we'll have to wait at least until Yasser's death ..hm okay

Posted by Arya on Mar-16-2002 21:46:

quote:
Originally posted by flystyler
Well i wish the world could be at peace, this is developing rapidly, and if both sides cant agree this will get a lot worse. I hope something can be sorted, but with hatred growing on both sides i cant see it happening

I agree.

I wish they could set aside their differences and do whats best for their people.

Posted by Yoepus on Mar-17-2002 23:15:

quote:
Originally posted by TranceGiant
Hm,Yoepus...I do agree that looking at the whole picture Israel is right, it starts with us accpeting the partition plan and ends with Arafat's decision to give up diplomacy (camp david) and get back to the "roots" by using sharon's tempe mount walk for a new mini war against israel [which aimed to 1, weaken our image and as a consequence our weaken our position in future peace talks 2, defeating us psychologically "damn, just let us live and give them everything they want" (well he partly succeeded if u see those "peace now" activists crying for "theend of the occupation")].

It is true, the conflict is black and white. But the last point you made is the most disturbing, since I believe that negotiating with terrorist is not in any countries best interest unless for a last resort (That means if they are going to take you over). See when you talk and agree with people who use violence to achieve their end, it legitimizes violence. Now when this violence is terrorism it goes just to far. You can see what happened when Israel tried to gracefully leave Lebanon and terrorist their viewed it as a success, and now others in the Palestinian world look at this successful attempt which encourages them to terrorize harder and more then ever in an attempt to win political achievements. It is for this exact reason the Oslo accord was signed, I will get more into that latter.

But again, if you give up now and say, ok we will negotiate peace it means you have let the terrorist win.. this means they will not stop and they will continue to use terrorism against you, until you aren�t left (just think if the USA would say ok Mr. Bin Laden you are right, we will move our troops out of Arabia and stop buying your oil.. and funding those evil Israelis. What would you get? Hundreds of more terrorist threats and explosions in every part of the country from the virtually limitless upset people in the world wanting to gain something). This is why you don�t negotiate with kidnappers.. if they get the money they will kidnap again, if you go in their and kill them they will think twice about doing it again.

Ok but enough of me agreeing with you� lets get to the �bad� points you pointed out:

quote:
So talking about the current conflict in general u may use your black and white rhetorics...

That�s how the world views it, the general conflict.

quote:
However going deeper into certain things will show us some grey aspects as well. Israel started the peace process in 1993 in order to eventually build a Palestinian State. Ignoring a point in the Oslo agreement saying that "creating new 'facts/conditions' in the territories" isnt legal (leave aside the Geneva convention) theykept expanding settlements and confiscating lands in orderto build streets etc. etc. This is Bad.

No, I will try and argue that the expansion of settlements is Good (baring that.. at least grey/neutral). First lets not leave Geneva aside, since this is where you hear the common misconceptions that settlements are a War Crime (Geneva being the laws of war�). Well lets look carefully at that what the fourth Geneva convention says about this;
Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Or in plain English it prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state it has occupied as a result of a war. The intention was to insure that the local populations who came under occupations would not be forced to move. This is not relevant to the settlement issue in anyway what so ever. Jews are not being forced to move into the settlements, to the contrary the move their voluntarily, to a place where they, or their ancestors once lived before being expelled by others. Furthermore we can add that the territories never legally belonged to either Jordan or Egypt, and certainly not to the Palestinians who were never the sovereign authority in any part of Palestine. After all the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there.

The settlements also do not displace Arabs living in the territories. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, �hundreds� of Palestinians are forced to leave. The truth is that the majority of settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and even the handful that are established in or near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave (of course this has changed slightly at the start of the new conflict, since these Arab towns are perpetuating war on the settlements, and to ensure the safety of the settlers sometimes buildings have had to been destroyed, however usually these buildings are already vacant as the families have fled.

You believe settlements are an obstacle to peace (bad), I believe the contrary.. that they are productive to peace (good), and will shed some light as to why. But first, I will point out that Israel had many times created a halt to the expansion and growth of the settlements most notably after camp David in 1977 (this is when Israel agreed also to remove its settlements from Sinai for peace with Egypt) in the west bank in hopes to encourage similar peace talks with another Arab neighbor. Nothing happened. After Oslo, the Declaration of Principles (which I will add did not mention in any of the provisions a prohibition on the Israeli settlements expansion or founding, nor did the following interim treaty that followed. These are often misinterpreted, the reality is that there is a clause in the accords that prohibits changing the status of the territories, but this was intended to ensure only that neither side would take one sided measures to alter the legal status of the areas... such as annexation or a declaration of statehood. Furthermore Security council resolution 242, which the accords are based on clearly gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank and Gaza, the resolution allows Israel to administer the territories it won in 1967, until a just and lasting peace in the middle east is achieved).. their were many imposed freezes on settlement activity in hopes of completing peace talks� just look at a recent example on Barak that did basically all in his power to halt new settlements and expansion. However this was never true, they other side never negotiated peace in show of this good will, instead Arafat encouraged hate and violence in attempts to achieve a political aim. Despite the obvious political advantages there are for an Israeli Prime Minister to support settlements (on the same note, sometimes it is a political disadvantage according to the mood swings of the public) there are more important implications to settlements in the territories.

If you listen to the Palestinian rhetoric you will understand that they truly believe that time is on their side you will see frequent references in Arabic writing to how long it took to expel the crusaders, and the that Zionist might take a similar amount of time to expel. So they believed that time was on their side, however with Israel constructing more and more settlements and �stealing� as you say more and more of �their� land as the years pass it shows an increasing urgency to get to the negotiating table and finally negotiate a complete and all inclusive peace deal. So by constructing settlements you bring the issue of peace more urgently, which means peace should be achieved quicker, which means large numbers lives on both sides of the conflict will be spared due to this and that is good.

quote:
I want u to forget for one moment whats happening now, cause i dont think Israel's politicians knew that back then. Just think logical: You promise to give and at the same time take away bit after bit)

Ok, say this is true.. we better look at the Oslo Accord, what is the gist of it? The gist of it is that the Palestinians recognize Israel (which they should have modified to say as a Jewish entity) in return Israel will establish the Palestinians with an autonomy where they can have self-rule. Both sides recognize the claims each side makes for the territories, and agrees to come to an all binding and final peace agreement between the two entities which resolve these issues. By signing the agreement, both sides agree not to use violence in order to obtain their political objectives, but rather through negotiations, diplomacy, and most importantly mediation.

So all I know is that Arafat failed to crack down and Hamas, confiscate and collect arms from his people (aka as disarming which is very good idea if you are serious about peace), and initiated a terror war under Rabin (which signed the agreement) and Shimon (his predescor) till today, in hopes of achieving political aims via violence.. or in other words breaking the treaty. So say he does that (and he did) can the building and founding of a few settlements, which do not kill, hurt, or terrorize Palestinian compare??? No and what are we doing? We are comparing two sides, I am not saying Israel is Good, I am saying Israel is Good and the Palestinians are Bad. See I am comparing Israel to the Palestinians and deciding. So if Arafat broke the treaty in such horrific and horrible ways, the settlements don�t even compare (noting again that they aren�t even illegal).

Secondly, you conclude that Israel must evacuate all Jewish settlements before a final peace agreement cam be achieved with the Palestinians. This is wrong, since this is where many settlement critics imply that it would be better for peace if the West Bank were Judenrein (empty of Jews). I mean come on, this is like perhaps just a bit anti-Semitic no? After all what would they say if Jews were barred from living in New York, or Paris.. or London. So baring them from living in the West Bank, a place which is the cradle of Jewish civilization is just fine� of course. Any peace settlement should allow Jews to live in the West Bank, just as Arabs are allowed to live in Israel. I mean, what do you expect? The Israeli government to impose rules like the British did under the mandate where they declared certain parts of Palestine off-limits to the Jews?

quote:
Many Hebron settlers are radical and racist, they harass the arab inhabitants, spit at them, demolating their markets, even Shaul Mofaz threatend them once that hed evacuate them (note: i do not justify the murder of any of them at all,i just say that THIS is bad)

Fair enough, but I do not think they would be so racist or radical if it were not for what the Arabs had done to them there� but regardless we are comparing, and if you look what the Palestinians do to Jews in the territories this almost makes them look (Good). What do Palestinians do to Jews? Well they simply kill them because they are Jews. Then they will go name call you at your dead body as they drag it threw the streets, while the crowd goes bigger and mutilates your body (bad). And another thing these Hebron radicals fall into Israel�s less then 1% which every free country (read wacko�s) has because they are allowed to have free will. And again, they seem to be very keen on their use with freedom of expression when it comes to Palestinians which is a cornerstone of any democracy (this is good). Again, compare the less then 1% Palestinian wackos, considering they aren�t already dead (I mean your suicide bombers don�t even fall into this margin) and the Hebron settlers look REALLY good. Furthermore if a Palestinian were to say �I think the Israelis are very cool, peace loving people, and we should allow them to rule us, since it would be better for us, instead of this stupid Arafat� you�d see his body being dragged out next to the settler. No freedom of speech� bad.

quote:
Pregnant Palestinian Women or ill Palestinians nowadays die since they aint allowed passing check points.

Well you are getting into another thing here the checkpoints. First we will not that they�re would have not been any checkpoints as such Arafat would have rounded up the terrorists and done his fair share. Secondly, these women usually need to pass the checkpoints into Israeli hospitals where they receive free health care. Although it would be humanitarian and good natured of Israel to allow them access to these facilities (and they still do.. just takes longer to get their), not doing such is not necessarily bad. After all just because I don�t give money do charity doesn�t make me bad, right? (I hope..).. Just because I avoid taxes�.. oh nevermind. Perhaps the Palestinians should use the money they receive from the many humanitarian organization around the world on their own hospitals for once instead of the illegal arms, so their people wouldn�t have to suffer through the lines. Secondly the Palestinian Ambulances are not your regular ambulances either.. they have been connected to countless acts of terrorism, weapons and people, smuggling and such. It is only now that the Israelis have caught on to this that these delays are getting longer as can be expected when you do such a gross violation of the Geneva convention (Using non-combatant ambulances for terrorism).

quote:
Israeli soldiers sometimes provoke Arabs by slowlyletting them pass,shouting at them etc. This is bad.

No it�s not bad, the soldiers are expressing their freedom of speech (good). No, ok it is not the best thing either.. once again I allude though to how Palestinian treat Israelis in their territories, or how they treat Israeli soldiers..(since we are comparing) of course if the Palestinians took out 10 Israeli soldiers the other day the soldiers might be up nerved� more vocal and more harassing and suspicious of the Palestinians. A good way to cure this, stop blowing up and killing the soldiers, they seem to hate you less when you do so (go figure�).

quote:
Israeli Arabs and Beduins and drusim are discriminated against when it comes to certain parts of social life(labor, purchasing of lands etc. etc.) This is Bad.

Although the fact of this is true and bad, this is civil matter in Israel. It is illegal to discriminate against anyone in Israel by race, sex, age� etc�etc.. This is the LAW, you are found to violate it YOU WILL be sentenced, fined, and punished. (good) Every country in the world suffers from discrimination, the USA surely� Even Sweden, Norway, France, and other very developed nations do. So to take this and say this is bad, although it is true, it is like saying every person is imperfect� duhh. The reality is also that the Arabs in Israel are some of the best off Arabs (average) then any other Arabs in many other Arab nations. They have nice wages, they work and vote in a free society where they still voice and vote their preferences in politics. There are Arab representatives in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament), they are provided with free education, health care, and live longer and more educated then most other Arabs in other parts of the Middle East (good). Furthermore if we compare how Israelis are treaty in the Palestinian territories.. well remember that settlers body above? They have very low tolerance, no law, and will kill you on the spot on basis of race (bad).

But i think that the Palestinians must have their own state but with different, liberal leaders..and only after erasing the entire terror infrastructure and stopping the anti-semitic propaganda.

Although, I never still understand what their problem was living under Israel, I would not award them with a state but with an Autonomy which is able to self-rule its citizens, is demilitarized, and able to enter into foreign agreements with other nations that are not military pacts or alliance, so only economic. I don�t understand why this isn�t good enough for them either. This is as much as any Jew could have asked for or wanted 100 years or so back in Europe I am sure.

quote:
By the way...i dont think theres a real palestinian people either. However I see that theres this group of people, sharing the same destiny, having suffered after all (like us of course), sometimes being driven away, sometimed having left on their own, not being accpeted byany country....so believing that the average Palestinian just wants a free calm peaceful life without worries, a nice job a hot wife Id like to see 2 states and one peace.

Truly I can never see 2 states so small living side by side together initially. But I agree the Palestinians are humans and with in a few generations should understand that a nice job and a hot wife is that live is all about.. not rock throwing at a tank. Of course they could have enjoyed this already if Israel would have annexed them 10 years after the 67 war.

quote:
right now this is utopia...most of theppl are pumpedup with hatred and propganda (this is bad by the way!) so we'll have to wait at least until Yasser's death ..hm okay

An�t that the sad truth.. Israel is living next door to the loudest neighbors you have ever seen, and refuse to make peace. Military occupation followed either by annexation or autonomy looks like the only thing now. But we can only wait and see.

Yoepus
Beer: helping ugly people get laid since 4000BC.

Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »