CNN: NOW - GAZA evacuations

[Flasch186]

Heart wrenching to watch regardless of opinion. Wow, stunned.

[flere-imsaho]

The Lehrer NewsHour had an excellent piece on this, on Tuesday. What a terrible situation.

On Wednesday, NPR had, on the phone, a Palestinian doctor who's lived all his life in Gaza City. He grew up there in the years before Israel occupied it.

This guy said he sympathizes with the settlers. His viewpoint is that they've not only been victimized by the situation, but by their government, who encouraged them to settle there up to 20 years ago, and is now moving them out. Speaking as someone who himself was forced to move, he said he understood their situation. Speaking further, he said he had his doubts about whether or not the PA would do anything good with the land thus gained.

I thought to myself: "If only more Palestinians could feel as this man does."

Link to Lehrer program: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/gaza_8-16.html

[ISiddiqui]

When he was elected, I thought "Oh Oh", but Sharon has really done some good things for the ME Peace Process. This is a great step and I'm very happy to see Israeli pullout from Gaza in my lifetime. As for the settlers, they could have tried a different tactic... "fine you can stay, but now you are under the Palestinian Authority and that's the government you'll be under". See how quickly they leave then ;).

[sachmo71]

The peace process has to start somewhere.

[flere-imsaho]

When he was elected, I thought "Oh Oh", but Sharon has really done some good things for the ME Peace Process.

Only Nixon could go to China.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

You guys see tears on the soldiers faces.
Honestly this is like us giving back New Mexico, Arizona and California to Mexico.

[ISiddiqui]

More like just giving back New Mexico to Mexico, really ;)

[Anthony]

at first i was sympathetic to the Israeli cause. but now that they insist on occupying that settlement, trying to derail the peace process - i feel no pity for them next time Hamas or whichever PA terror group blows one of them up.

how could they look their countrymen in the eyes knowing that by occupying that land they increase the risk of terror attacks? haven't they had enough. if Israel wanted them out, all they have to say is "if you aren't out by this time, you're on your own. this land will belong to the PA, and whatever actions they take on you will not be countered from Israel. they are free to do with this land, and anything in it, as they please". someone else was right, they should lose their Israeli citizenship if they dont leave, and become part of the PA.

i respect the PA for not escalating the problem by trying to get the settlers to leave quicker. this to me shows that this peace thing could work, and that by leaving the strip it could very likely put an end to all those suicide attacks once and for all.

[CraigSca]

So wait...the Arabs start a war in 1967 to try to destroy Israel and wipe it off the face of the earth. Israel strikes back, annihilates them in < 7 days and occupies the Gaza territory. Somehow THEY'RE in the wrong?

[Super Ugly]

So wait...the Arabs start a war in 1967 to try to destroy Israel and wipe it off the face of the earth. Israel strikes back, annihilates them in < 7 days and occupies the Gaza territory. Somehow THEY'RE in the wrong?


I didn't know there were goodies and baddies in this situation.

For me, the saddest part of all the coverage is that for all the photographs and footage of settlers and soldiers crying and comforting each other over these evictions, the story of somebody stealing a gun and shooting up a crowd of Palestinians yesterday got a brief ten-second spot on the radio here.

[ISiddiqui]

if Israel wanted them out, all they have to say is "if you aren't out by this time, you're on your own. this land will belong to the PA, and whatever actions they take on you will not be countered from Israel. they are free to do with this land, and anything in it, as they please".
That's my answer to the situation. Make it clear that the PA will be ruling the area now and into the foreseeable future. Though I can understand why Isrealis may be skitterish about that (can you imagine settler-Hamas guerilla wars?). Sharon also wants to derail the 'settlement issue', which makes more ordinary Palestinians more symphathtic to groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad rather than to Abbas.

[CraigSca]

Interestingly, I wonder if Egypt would have ceded the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians had they not lost this land to the Israelis in 1967?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Interestingly, I wonder if Egypt would have ceded the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians had they not lost this land to the Israelis in 1967?
I think not! :)

[Solecismic]

The rest of the Arab world has treated the Palestinians abominably. They were the ones who promised the Palestinians everything to leave their homes while they wiped Israel off the map in 1948.

And when that war failed, they repeatedly denied the Palestinians housing, essentially forcing them to live as refugees.

Yet somehow, the Palestinians still see them as friends, still blame all their problems in the Israelis. That's what blind hatred will do for you.

I hope the settlers are compensated. This is a high price to pay for peace. But one that's become necessary.

[Elvis]

They won't stop with Gaza. The arabs won't rest until Israel is wiped out. This appeasement is a bad idea.

[Eaglesfan27]

The rest of the Arab world has treated the Palestinians abominably. They were the ones who promised the Palestinians everything to leave their homes while they wiped Israel off the map in 1948.

And when that war failed, they repeatedly denied the Palestinians housing, essentially forcing them to live as refugees.

Yet somehow, the Palestinians still see them as friends, still blame all their problems in the Israelis. That's what blind hatred will do for you.

I hope the settlers are compensated. This is a high price to pay for peace. But one that's become necessary.

I completely agree with all of this. Well said.

[ISiddiqui]

Yet somehow, the Palestinians still see them as friends, still blame all their problems in the Israelis. That's what blind hatred will do for you.
Well there is an important distinction that Israeli control exists where Palestinians originally lived, and the Arab countries merely denied to take them in. Jews don't really hold any animosity towards the US for not taking them in during the 30s (even though we should have opened our eyes and realized, shit, we should let them get out).

[Solecismic]

Well there is an important distinction that Israeli control exists where Palestinians originally lived, and the Arab countries merely denied to take them in. Jews don't really hold any animosity towards the US for not taking them in during the 30s (even though we should have opened our eyes and realized, shit, we should let them get out).

That's because they understand that without the support of the US, Israel would have been destroyed long ago. Harsh, but true. The US also took in a lot of Jewish people. Most of the Russian exodus in the 1890s wound up in New York and New Jersey (and now, Florida).

In 1948, the Israelis begged the Palestinians to stay, where they had been living in relative peace. The Palestinians left. There really aren't any good parallels in the US/Israel relationship.

Meanwhile, there are groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas that have it in their charters to eliminate Israel.

[flere-imsaho]

I hope the settlers are compensated.

Settlers who left by the Israeli g'vt's deadline (two nights ago?) will be compensated, apparently. Included in this is that there are homes already available for them in another part of Israel.

[flere-imsaho]

As for the settlers, they could have tried a different tactic... "fine you can stay, but now you are under the Palestinian Authority and that's the government you'll be under".

It's probably unlikely that the government of a people who have been so systematically persecuted would willingly leave members of their society behind.

[Flasch186]

The rest of the Arab world has treated the Palestinians abominably. They were the ones who promised the Palestinians everything to leave their homes while they wiped Israel off the map in 1948.

And when that war failed, they repeatedly denied the Palestinians housing, essentially forcing them to live as refugees.

Yet somehow, the Palestinians still see them as friends, still blame all their problems in the Israelis. That's what blind hatred will do for you.

I hope the settlers are compensated. This is a high price to pay for peace. But one that's become necessary.


I think that there is financial compensation of some sort.

[ISiddiqui]

That's because they understand that without the support of the US, Israel would have been destroyed long ago.
Tell an Israeli that ;). They will yell and scream that the US didn't lift a finger and Isreal did everything theirselves until Israel was strong and the US started to take an interest. Isrealis would definetly disagree with the statement that without the US, they would have been distroyed.

Furthermore, I don't think it is that difficult to understand why a group of people would be angry at those that took their homeland over those that denied them accomodations somewhere else.

[Dutch]

Couple of observations.

1. The Arab world couldn't care less about Palestinians, I agree. They really just HATE the Jews. They will say what they want about the Palestinians, but it's just lip service designed to incite anger and support for expelling Jews from the Middle East. Religious segregation and intolerance drives the entire "war" at this point.

2. The Israeli's refused to Annex the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights after they won the territory because they didn't want to dilute their Jewish State with a bunch of Muslims. So they aren't much better looking in all this. It is my firm belief that as the occupiers, they are the responsible party for granting citizenship or allowing the people who live there to have their own state in which to gain citizenship.

And a really mute point that nobody cares about except the peace process.

3. The UN (FWIW) made any settlements in the disputed territories, illegal. Israel ignored that (FWIW). The peace process clearly states that a step the Isreali's will have to take is to rectify this issue, which I commend them for doing.

[ISiddiqui]

Well said, Dutch.

I really commend Sharon here. He may lose his leadership of the party over this, but it's the right thing to do. You can't just have an area in limbo, which the West Bank and Gaza were (not annexed, but not given statehood either) and expect there not to be big problems. Hopefully this results in a new chapter!

[Solecismic]

Tell an Israeli that ;). They will yell and scream that the US didn't lift a finger and Isreal did everything theirselves until Israel was strong and the US started to take an interest. Isrealis would definetly disagree with the statement that without the US, they would have been distroyed.

Furthermore, I don't think it is that difficult to understand why a group of people would be angry at those that took their homeland over those that denied them accomodations somewhere else.

Not all Israelis would agree, especially those who were there in the '30s and '40s. Who funded the boats necessary to transport Jews to the area under the Mandate? Mostly Jewish American businessmen. Who sent the arms they used to defend themselves from attack? America, with FDR's leadership.

The Jews did not take the Palestinians' homeland. They both had a long-time presence there, and the Palestinians left on their own accord. Now, they talk about right of return, but there's really no basis for it.

The Jews did not magically apparate to Israel the moment the UN created their state. That's one of the biggest myths of this entire conflict. They somehow settled arid, unusable land that no one else wanted, dating back into the 19th Century. And long before that, it was their ancestral homeland as well as the Arabs'.

[ISiddiqui]

The Jews did not take the Palestinians' homeland. They both had a long-time presence there, and the Palestinians left on their own accord. Now, they talk about right of return, but there's really no basis for it.What do you think the state of Israel was? A Jewish state ruling over everyone in that area was not taking the homeland? It was not a secular state coming in, run by Jews and Palestinians, it was a Jewish state since the beginning! It'd be like Muslims gradually settling into lands in the American West and eventually declaring a Muslim state, saying they never took the land of Americans and the Americans who decided to leave left of their own accord.

And they left of their own accord, if you consider fleeing Israeli forces who were bent on throwing them out to be 'left on their own accord' ;). Some undoubtably did leave willingly (but thought they'd come back soon), but most were forced out. I suggest you read about Qisarya, the Deir Yassin Massacre, Lydda, Ramla, and Operation Hiram. Isreali forces were ordered to expel Palestinians and in Deir Yassin killed Palestinians who did not leave, resulting in panicked Palestinians leaving to prevent similar from happening to them. But if you reallly think that they 'left on their own accord'.... I leave you a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Exodus

[Solecismic]

That's one of the strangest accounts I've ever seen. This is more in line with what I've heard.

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_refugees_arabs_why.php

Remember, the Arabs never accepted the UN's creation of the state of Israel. To this date, most Arabs feel all of Palestine should be entirely rid of Jews. That's what led to many wars since.

The Arab account just doesn't jibe with that at all.

[Galaxy]

Stuff like this makes you really question about the human race.

[Buccaneer]

Some of you are really that optimistic, huh?

[ISiddiqui]

That's one of the strangest accounts I've ever seen. This is more in line with what I've heard.

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_refugees_arabs_why.php

Remember, the Arabs never accepted the UN's creation of the state of Israel. To this date, most Arabs feel all of Palestine should be entirely rid of Jews. That's what led to many wars since.

The Arab account just doesn't jibe with that at all. I love how your link says only a "handful" were expelled when at least 50,000 were kicked out in Lydda and Ramla alone (instead saying most people left to "avoid being caught in the crossfire"). Indeed, the Wikipedia article's take on events is backed by citations to Jewish authorities, not Palestinian or Arab ones.

Palestinefacts seems to be nothing more than an Isreali propaganda site, frankly, blaming the Palestinians for everything and wiping Isreal's hands clean (I ask to find even one article linked that puts Israel to blame for anything!). I'm surprised you even linked to such a site with such apparent bias. Wiki may have biases, but it is open to being altered and changed by both sides. I'd rather trust it on such a contentous issue.

For one, the Palestinefacts site said Lydda and Ramla were just trumpted up, and most people just up and left. Wikipedia includes a Jewish source that says that is false:


The largest single expulsion of the war began in Lydda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydda) and Ramla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramla) July 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_14), in which 60,000 inhabitants were forcibly expelled on the orders of Ben-Gurion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion) and Yitzhak Rabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin). Rabin wrote in his memoirs: <dl> <dd>What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities ... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward. ... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! ... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring ... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. (Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)</dd><dt></dt> <dd>(emphasis mine)
</dd> </dl> The the memoirs of YITZHAK RABIN! Not an Isreal hater by a long streach. How can Palestinefacts dispute that?!

[Mac Howard]

An Israeli girlfriend once said to me "We Jews have suffered so much, why can't we sypathise with others who suffer in the same way?". These tears would be more impressive if they'd shed the same tears for the tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I've stayed away from most news stories today, mostly because I was already depressed/ pissed/melancholy enough already without adding the Middle East to it today.

But I Just finished reading through a couple of the write-ups, including the BBC stuff on both the evictions & the bigger picture.

All I've got at this point is an observation: I'll be surprised if Sharon is still alive one year from today.

[Solecismic]

I think the bottom line here is that the Arabs do not recognize Israel's right to exist. The Arabs started the wars of 1947 and 1967 in order to eliminate the Israeli state. The wikipedia propaganda is at odds with that, the site I quoted isn't.

Mac, the Israelis would be the first to help them if only they'd stop the violence.

So, do you guys believe Israel has a right to exist in peace?

[JonInMiddleGA]

So, do you guys believe Israel has a right to exist in peace?

A right to? Yes.

Any realistic hope of it ever happening? Not one iota.

[Buccaneer]

An Israeli girlfriend once said to me "We Jews have suffered so much, why can't we sypathise with others who suffer in the same way?". These tears would be more impressive if they'd shed the same tears for the tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians.
Had it been or is it now working the other way around? Or does the Palestinian or others in the Arab world cheer whenever there is pain in Israel?

[Galaxy]

How much is the US respnsible for the existence and "fueling" the Arab-Israeli tensions?

[Buccaneer]

How much is the US respnsible for the existence and "fueling" the Arab-Israeli tensions?
The US wasn't around in the 5th century AD.

[davidlando1]

I think the bottom line here is that the Arabs do not recognize Israel's right to exist. The Arabs started the wars of 1947 and 1967 in order to eliminate the Israeli state. The wikipedia propaganda is at odds with that, the site I quoted isn't.

Mac, the Israelis would be the first to help them if only they'd stop the violence.

So, do you guys believe Israel has a right to exist in peace?

Thank you Jim, for making a well thought out, reasonable statement. I cannot do the same at this time. I'm all for the free exchange of ideas, and anyone willing to step up and debate the issues doesn't deserve what I have to say tonight. Well, some do, but i'm not going to acknowledge them at this time.

[Solecismic]

How much is the US respnsible for the existence and "fueling" the Arab-Israeli tensions?

Zero. The Arab goal is to eliminate a Jewish presence in the Middle East.

But the myth that the US is responsible has been making the rounds since 9/11, and in Australia after the Bali massacre, and in England most recently.

[Flasch186]

on this one i have no answers...its just simply sad all around. Where is Rodney King?

[ISiddiqui]

The wikipedia propaganda is at odds with that, the site I quoted isn't.
So a site where BOTH sides have the oppertunity to add/change information to articles is more propaganda than a site which seems to think Isreal's shit doesn't stink? Going through their links, Palestinefacts has links that says everything is the Arabs fault and Isreal is perfect in just about every way. I'd love to see a linked article that says Israel has to accept responsibility for something... but alas, they don't seem to believe they do.

Thankfully though the myth of Isreali innocence has been questioned and holes have been poked though it within the last 10-20 years.

[JeffNights]

You wouldnt happen to be a little bias yourself there would ya Siddi?

[JonInMiddleGA]

on this one i have no answers...its just simply sad all around. Where is Rodney King?

You mean that guy who has been in & out of jail ever since his 15 minutes?
And bankruptcy court?
And rehab?

[ISiddiqui]

You wouldnt happen to be a little bias yourself there would ya Siddi?
Biased against those who think Israel is always right? Yeah. It's like people will not accept that the Palestinians may have some valid issues!

[JeffNights]

Biased against those who think Israel is always right? Yeah. It's like people will not accept that the Palestinians may have some valid issues!




Sure, my thing is that no matter what Israel does, it will never be enough for those same "some people". So the pullout of Gaza happens currently....great. What next? I garuantee you in less than a month the bombings will start again, and hamas and whatever scumbag group joins in will be now bitching about something else.

[Mac Howard]

IMac, the Israelis would be the first to help them if only they'd stop the violence.

Some of the Israelis would, Jim, and others wouldn't. Israelis are as split over the Palestinian situation as Americans over Iraq. But certainly the Palestinian violence does nothing to help the ones who would.

So, do you guys believe Israel has a right to exist in peace?

This situation is so intractable precisely because both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to exist in peace. The problem is that both have legitimate claims over the territory and both have legitimate complaints about the behaviour of both the other and the surrounding Arab states (who use the situation to pursue their own agendas with little real concern for the Palestinians). Unfortunately significant majorities in both communities fail to recognise that there are two legitimate sides to the dispute.

A separate Palestinian state is a poor but the best solution and Sharon has been courageous in leaving Gaza.

[ISiddiqui]

Sure, my thing is that no matter what Israel does, it will never be enough for those same "some people". So the pullout of Gaza happens currently....great. What next? I garuantee you in less than a month the bombings will start again, and hamas and whatever scumbag group joins in will be now bitching about something else.
Hamas will never be happy. However, the PA, headed by Abbas has definetly made strides. Right now there seems to be a pretty good working relationship between Sharon and Abbas.

There hasn't really been any violence against departing settlers (this would be the best time to try). That's a pretty good step, especially since Hamas and Islamic Jihad don't support Abbas's moves towards Israel.

[ISiddiqui]

This situation is so intractable precisely because both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to exist in peace. The problem is that both have legitimate claims over the territory and both have legitimate complaints about the behaviour of both the other and the surrounding Arab states (who use the situation to pursue their own agendas with little real concern for the Palestinians). Unfortunately significant majorities in both communities fail to recognise that there are two legitimate sides to the dispute.

A separate Palestinian state is a poor but the best solution and Sharon has been courageous in leaving Gaza.
Spot on! The ultimate goal is, of course, a seperate Palestinian state. Of course the West Bank is a FAR different animal than Gaza. There are far more settlements and greater disputes over boundaries. Most of the terrorist groups also have their base of support in the West Bank. Great step by Sharon though. Never would have thought it, but he's done the most for the peace process since Rabin.

[Mac Howard]

Had it been or is it now working the other way around? Or does the Palestinian or others in the Arab world cheer whenever there is pain in Israel?

Absolutely! An eye for an eye rules.

[ISiddiqui]

Yep, anyone that thinks either side is totally innocent or totally guilty is smoking something. Both sides are guilty and have valid issues. The problem is that both sides think the other is the devil and they are the angels.

[Flasch186]

Ill tell you one thing, when the Palestinians get their own homeland, with borders...if they dont control the militants, Israel will declare war and it'll be nasty with all the countries that have to get involved.

[Solecismic]

Yep, anyone that thinks either side is totally innocent or totally guilty is smoking something. Both sides are guilty and have valid issues. The problem is that both sides think the other is the devil and they are the angels.

Yet no one has made that claim.

The bottom line is that Israel wants a homeland and the militants want to eradicate the Jews. That's not "eye for an eye," as our Australian friend believes.

The UN divided Palestine in 1948. Both groups have a right to build safe, peaceful states. Yet the Arabs were starting a war before the ink was dry. Yes, there is a right and a wrong there.

Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said:

"The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"

Groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad have enormous power among the Arabs. They need to be outlawed, and members who commit murder need to be jailed. Instead, they are greeted as heroes among the deluded populace.

Meanwhile, when an Israeli goes bad and kills Palestinians, like what happened yesterday or the day before, he is immediately jailed and denounced by the government.

Throw parades for violent offenders, the problem gets worse. Throw them in jail, you make progress.

ISiddiqui, you never did answer whether or not you feel Israel has a right to exist in peace.

[gstelmack]

The UN divided Palestine in 1948. Both groups have a right to build safe, peaceful states. Yet the Arabs were starting a war before the ink was dry. Yes, there is a right and a wrong there.
Wasn't Israel formed after the only successful modern terror campaign?

[Solecismic]

Wasn't Israel formed after the only successful modern terror campaign?

Yes and no. The British were illegally preventing Jews from reaching Palestine, so Israeli groups sabotaged infrastructure. They went too far, and tactics were changed after they blew up the King David Hotel against orders.

The UN decision to divide Palestine had nothing to do with those attacks, though.

It's hard to equate the current situation - militant groups trying to "drive Israel into the sea" - with militant groups trying to fight the British, who were setting blockades to prevent legal immigration.

[Anthony]

i don't understand, why do the Arabs want to destry the Jews? especially the palastinians? if the PA gets their own land, and the Jews have Israel - why can't everyone just be content living on their own land and as long as one side doesn't point missiles or rockets at the other then no murders are necessary? sorry, not trying to sound all hokey here, i'm not one of those "can't we all just get along types", but i don't understand this world sometimes. there's enough habitable land where people can live amongst themselves doing as they please, i don't see the need to infringe on other people's ways of life.

when i rule the world, there's going to be massive, massive segregation. jews in one country. sexual deviants in another. religious people on one island. atheists in another country. arabs all in one area. conservatives will have their own space, the liberals will have theirs. people who don't like living with other races will have their own territory, more tolerant people will have theirs. again, i don't see the need to infringe on people's life choices. instead of forcing others to live as you think is proper, we should all just divide up the world. it'd be much safer that way. why would you care then, if "New France", where all the drug users live, has no restrictions on drug use. as long as the new French didn't move into "New Egypt" where bible thumping non-drug users live? you would be surrounded with like-minded people, living as you live - wouldn't that be enough?

i don't believe in mixing everyone together. there's a reason why the giraffes only hang out with giraffes, and tigers only hang out with tigers in the jungle. you don't see cheetahs lounging around with lions. no need. there's enough land for all animals to exist in their habitat with their own kind. you don't see a pack of lions killing apes just cuz they don't like the infidel monkeys. we could learn something from the animals.

[buttprank]

I once saw a tiger eat a gazelle once. They weren't exactly "hanging out" though.

[Anthony]

I once saw a tiger eat a gazelle once. They weren't exactly "hanging out" though.

i'll be at "New Tahiti", the country of chronic masturbators and lazy people.

[ISiddiqui]

Yet no one has made that claim.
Your linked thread most definetly did. Every thing is the Arabs fault. The Jews are all innocent.

The UN divided Palestine in 1948. Both groups have a right to build safe, peaceful states. Yet the Arabs were starting a war before the ink was dry. Yes, there is a right and a wrong there.
So if the UN divided the United States between Latino states and others, if the US started a war to reclaim those Latino states, that would be wrong? The UN made a resolution to take away the land of Palestine for another state. And you expect them NOT to fight? Please...

Groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad have enormous power among the Arabs. They need to be outlawed, and members who commit murder need to be jailed. Instead, they are greeted as heroes among the deluded populace.
One of the reasons they are greeted as heros because no one gave a shit about the Palestinians and their refugees until the issue was brought to a head by the Intefada. An Oscar winning actress (I want to say Vanessa Redgrave) was booed off the stage after accepting her award in the late 70s after saying the Palestinians deserved their own homeland. Without Hamas and Islamic Jihad, chances are there would not be a Palestinian Authority who has nominal control over some of the West Bank and Gaza.

Hell, we praise our founding fathers, some of which engaged in terrorist acts against tax collectors (look up what tar and feathering actually is). We greeted them, including John Adams and Patrick Adams as heros rather than jailing them.

ISiddiqui, you never did answer whether or not you feel Israel has a right to exist in peace.
Only when they accept that the Palestinians have a right to their own state. You said both groups have a right to build safe, peaceful states. Yet the Israelis have prevented Palestine from existing by building up Israeli settlements, by ruling Palestine as an occupied area (not annexing or giving them their own state). They have a right to exist in peace only when they give up their occupation... just like any colonizer (just like British had no right to peace in Palestine from Jewish terrorist groups until they left).

After recent developments, Israel has a right to have safe borders abutting Lebanon and Gaza. The West Bank is another issue entirely.

Yes and no. The British were illegally preventing Jews from reaching Palestine, so Israeli groups sabotaged infrastructure. They went too far, and tactics were changed after they blew up the King David Hotel against orders.
Nice whitewash. Irgun and the Stern Gang were definetly terrorist groups who not only blew up the King David Hotel (which was the HQ for the British), but also blew up the British prison in Acre, killed the UN mediator Count Bernadotte, killed Lord Moyne, and engaged in slaughter of Arabs at Deir Yassin (btw, sabotaging infrastructure is also a terrorist act).

Israeli had its own terrorist groups, which were instrumental in getting the British to leave. Isreal celebrated these groups and, IMO, had a right to. They were fighting against the colonizers, the British. But then Isrealis turn around and condemn groups that learned from Irgun and the Stern Gang? That's just hypocritical.

I'm sure you remember the Hamas and IJ picture showing Palestine as encompasing all of Isreal, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. Here was Irgun's poster:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Irgun1.jpg

Looks a bit familiar, eh?

[Flasch186]

i think that they both deserve homelands BUT Isid....if they get their borders and continue the fight (hamas and Ij) dont be surpised or emboldened when Israel declares war. There is a precipice that will become closer when there are actually lines in the sand again.

Im not saying either side is right or wrong, just that.

[ISiddiqui]

i think that they both deserve homelands BUT Isid....if they get their borders and continue the fight (hamas and Ij) dont be surpised or emboldened when Israel declares war. There is a precipice that will become closer when there are actually lines in the sand again.

Im not saying either side is right or wrong, just that.
Hey, that's fine. I've always said that if both states are realized and then Hamas and IJ continue and the PA is powerless, Isreal can declare war. That works. It's fine under international law.

However, just keeping a piece of land as occupied territory without affording the residents of that land citizenship of an actual state (like I said, if Isreal had just annexed those areas and afforded Palestinians full rights as all Israelis had/have them that'd be a very good move) is just wrong.

[Galaxy]

Zero. The Arab goal is to eliminate a Jewish presence in the Middle East.

But the myth that the US is responsible has been making the rounds since 9/11, and in Australia after the Bali massacre, and in England most recently.


I agree, but I was wondering if we "fueled" it after WWII and the creation of the Jewish statehood that exists today, and removing the Arabs from that area.

[wbatl1]

Worse, this will not stop the violence and lead to peace. These sides are at odds not just because of the 60 recent years of war, but because this war goes back to 622 when Muhhamed was not accepted by the Jews when he declared he had seen a vision. For that reason, this hatred is old and will probably continue for a long time. The evacuation of GAza and the West Bank will not solve any near term problems, and the terror attacks will continue. All that this accomplishes is to make the reaction stiffer, thus killing more people.

[ISiddiqui]

but because this war goes back to 622 when Muhhamed was not accepted by the Jews when he declared he had seen a vision. For that reason, this hatred is old and will probably continue for a long time.
But for centuries Muslims and Jews lived in relative peace. While Jews were persecuted left and right by Christians in Europe, they found safe harbors in Moorish Spain (which became a center for learning) and in Baghdad. Jewish scholars advised the Caliphs and one Muslim rular had a Jewish scholar as his right hand man.

The hatred is more something recent. Perhaps not from 1947, but at least after the 1700s.

[wbatl1]

But for centuries Muslims and Jews lived in relative peace. While Jews were persecuted left and right by Christians in Europe, they found safe harbors in Moorish Spain (which became a center for learning) and in Baghdad. Jewish scholars advised the Caliphs and one Muslim rular had a Jewish scholar as his right hand man.

The hatred is more something recent. Perhaps not from 1947, but at least after the 1700s.

But what the Islamic terrorists point to today is that fact from 622. Yes, it is wrong, and yes, the Rennesanse(can't spell) era Arabs were accepting, but the hatred is part of the early history.

[ISiddiqui]

Well all hate groups like to twist and distort history or science to their own ends. That's been a constant throughout history.

[wbatl1]

Well all hate groups like to twist and distort history or science to their own ends. That's been a constant throughout history.

Which is exactly what the problem is. The terrorists will distort this history and the Koran to continue to attack Israel, even though the Isreali's are making a big concession.

[ISiddiqui]

Which is exactly what the problem is. The terrorists will distort this history and the Koran to continue to attack Israel, even though the Isreali's are making a big concession.
There is a difference. The terrorists succeed in gaining new converts by those who feel slighted. The concession, IMO, will greatly help in preventing ordinary people from going over to that side. They'll see things getting better. Most people aren't radicals, after all, they only become so if they think they are being kept from what they deserve. Most Palestinians, I'd bet, don't want to wipe Isreal off the map; they want to be able to set up their own state, control their own destiny and (hopefully) prosper. Self-independance has always been a guiding light in human behavior. Of course that isn't going to get rid of Hamas and IJ, but it will cut into their recruitment base, which is one of the first steps. A PA which has more authority and legitimacy and can deal with those groups also can help (Hamas and IJ are rival factions to the PA, and the PA'd love to knock them down a peg or two).

[Buccaneer]

It goes back further than the time of Mohammed, to the conflicts between the Hebrews (as God's Chosen People) and those opposing them.

[Solecismic]

There is a difference. The terrorists succeed in gaining new converts by those who feel slighted. The concession, IMO, will greatly help in preventing ordinary people from going over to that side. They'll see things getting better. Most people aren't radicals, after all, they only become so if they think they are being kept from what they deserve. Most Palestinians, I'd bet, don't want to wipe Isreal off the map; they want to be able to set up their own state, control their own destiny and (hopefully) prosper. Self-independance has always been a guiding light in human behavior. Of course that isn't going to get rid of Hamas and IJ, but it will cut into their recruitment base, which is one of the first steps. A PA which has more authority and legitimacy and can deal with those groups also can help (Hamas and IJ are rival factions to the PA, and the PA'd love to knock them down a peg or two).

I hope you're right. I fear that the sentiments voiced at the beginning of the 1947 and 1967 wars are a more accurate depiction of Arab goals.

[Mac Howard]

The bottom line is that Israel wants a homeland and the militants want to eradicate the Jews. That's not "eye for an eye," as our Australian friend believes.

On the contrary:

1) as the Palestinians see it, with some justification, they were displaced from their homes by the UN decision to create a Jewish homeland on land they had inhabited for centuries. Driving the Jewish population back into the sea displaces Jewish settlers in much the same way.

2) There is no shortage of Israelis, notably the ultra orthodox and the settlers, who would drive Arabs completely from the land they insist God gave to the Jews. It's a smaller proportion but it's politically very powerful in much the same way as the religious right in the US.

The UN divided Palestine in 1948. Both groups have a right to build safe, peaceful states.

Except that the Jewish state was coming from the land inhabited by Palestinians.

Yet the Arabs were starting a war before the ink was dry. Yes, there is a right and a wrong there.

They fought to retain land they had lived in for centuries. How dare they :eek:

There was no question that, following centuries of appalling treatment culminating in the holocaust, that Jews had a legitimate claim to a homeland in which they could live in peace. There was no question that they had historical links with this territory. But the land was already populated and had been for centuries. Creating a homeland in Palestine would inevitably mean displacing significant numbers of people and conflict was inevitable.

The UN did their usual wonderful job of solving international conflict.

Yes and no. The British were illegally preventing Jews from reaching Palestine

The British objected to the UN's solution and predicted that violence was inevitable. The subsequent 57 years proves them right!

It's hard to equate the current situation - militant groups trying to "drive Israel into the sea" - with militant groups trying to fight the British, who were setting blockades to prevent legal immigration.

My violent activists are freedom fighters, yours are terrorists. Where've we heard that before? :rolleyes:

They're both terrorists!

The state of Israel was not created on vacant land. The Palestinians did not move out voluntarily. The Jews needed and deserved a homeland. Palestine was their ancestral home. It is this dichotomy that is the primary cause of the conflict.

[Solecismic]

Good grief, Mac, you act as if the Jews magically appeared the minute the UN stepped in.

They had a significant presence in Palestine long before the Mandate. And they settled land throughout the early part of the 20th Century that was considered unihabitable. Through millions of hours of labor. No one else wanted that land.

They wanted to live in peace with the Arabs. The Arabs decided against that.

How can you look at the text written in the Hamas charter and consider this an equal struggle? If you want to simply make up stuff about ultra orthodox Jews, at least get it right. There has been zero political push to remove the Arabs from all of Palestine. Zero. Fighting about Jerusalem itself? Sure. About settlements in land taken after the 1967 war? Sure, but even the hard-liners are starting to realize that peace is not possible without giving it back. But just removing Arabs from all of the West Bank? Nobody's pushing for it.

And while both Irgun and Hamas commit/committed terrorist acts, again, Irgun was fighting an illegal blockade by targetting the British military and it doesn't exist today. If you think that is equal to some middle class religious nut blowing himself up in a shopping center, we have absolutely no common ground on this topic.

You obviously weren't reading the part where I said it was important that Israel jail and condemn the shooting of three Palestinians during the pullout a couple of days ago. Which they did. That was not the act of a freedom fighter. Nor were similar acts by Islamic Jihad recently. Guess which perpetrator can look forward to life in prison?

I'm starting to get angry, so it's probably best that I not post on this subject again.

[Mac Howard]

Good grief, Mac, you act as if the Jews magically appeared the minute the UN stepped in

Not at all. But there was a massive increase when the UN stepped in.

They had a significant presence in Palestine long before the Mandate.

A minority presence. As they had in many communities. It does not rob the majority community, in this case of many centuries, of the right to consider their land their own.

And they settled land throughout the early part of the 20th Century that was considered unihabitable.

But the land they have since settled was not uninhabitable.

They wanted to live in peace with the Arabs. The Arabs decided against that.

No. The Arabs decided they didn't want a minority group to overwhelm them as was obviously going to occur with the exodus of Jews from Europe and the arab lands.

How can you look at the text written in the Hamas charter and consider this an equal struggle?

No one is talking about equality but pointing out that the mentality of the Irgun was qualititively the same as Hamas - the ends justify the means even up to slaughter.

If you want to simply make up stuff about ultra orthodox Jews, at least get it right. There has been zero political push to remove the Arabs from all of Palestine. Zero.

60% of the Israeli people have just voted in favour of the pullout from Gaza. The Labour party supports. Half the Likud party supports it. Yet Sharon may well lose the leadership precisely bcause of his decision to evacuate. If this occurs it be the extreme right and the ultra orthodox Jews that bring it about.

The Likud party is constantly looking over its shoulder to the religious right just as Bush does.

Fighting about Jerusalem itself? Sure. About settlements in land taken after the 1967 war?

Are these part of the uninhabited lands?

Sure, but even the hard-liners are starting to realize that peace is not possible without giving it back.

Which is why they oppose the pullout from Gaza.

And while both Irgun and Hamas commit/committed terrorist acts, again, Irgun was fighting an illegal blockade by targetting the British military and it doesn't exist today.

Two points:

1)Deir Yassin was an arab village
2) the King David Hotel bombing was July 1946, the UN resolution November 47

You approve of terrorism then? As I said, freedom fighters and terrorists - depends which side some people are on.

If you think that is equal to some middle class religious nut blowing himself up in a shopping center, we have absolutely no common ground on this topic

If you don't accept that the Irgun were terrorists then you have no common ground with a majority of Israelis.

That was not the act of a freedom fighter. Nor were similar acts by Islamic Jihad recently.

Right.

Guess which perpetrator can look forward to life in prison?

That Israel is a civilised country fighting against a vicious enemy is true. That Palestine is an emerging state with little or no control over its worst elements is also true. I don't see anyone saying otherwise.

What is being said is that there is more than one side to this and that Palestinians have a legitimate complaint about the International community in setting up the state of Israel and dispossessing them of their home and land as well as the legitimate desire of Jews to have a homeland free of fear and persecution. That neither of them have want they says much about the solution.

I'm starting to get angry, so it's probably best that I not post on this subject again.

When you get angry about posts which call for a more balanced approach you should look to the real cause of that anger.

[Flasch186]

im afraid that your opposing views are along the lines of when I post against the right. In my head it is clear as day and cant understand why they dont see it my way, but in reality the right is sitting in front of their computer thinking the same exact thing as they type.

Mac - a couple of things taken one by one:

1. the original Jewish lands they were given was uninhabited.

2. a clash was inevitable as populations grew

3. the illegal israeli settlements that started to encroach outside lands were threatening

4. the 6 days war Israel had a right to win

5. by not annexing the lands gained Israel IMO made a bad decision that some 40 years later has come back to bite them

6. Palestinians will have their home land

7. This control you speak of better come quick, the patience thread will be thinned

8. be prepared for war if Hamas and IJ dont get a grip on themselves, their charter, and their fanatical elements...if they want to become political parties, great, if not...then I fear for the next few years.

9. I hope im wrong and they live side by side and prosper through trade and become an example of what things could be

[ISiddiqui]

1. the original Jewish lands they were given was uninhabited.
If we are talking about the UN Partition Plan, not at all. A good deal of that land did have Palestinians on them. Now Isrealis have made some of the uninhabited lands inhabitable, that is true, but there were Palestinians living in the land the US gave to Israeli.

8. be prepared for war if Hamas and IJ dont get a grip on themselves, their charter, and their fanatical elements...if they want to become political parties, great, if not...then I fear for the next few years.
War, yes... but it depends on what sort of war. If the PA and Israel join up to try to defeat Hamas and IJ (may be in the interest of a Palestinian state to get rid of groups not loyal to the state), it wouldn't be as devestating.

[Dutch]

War, yes... but it depends on what sort of war. If the PA and Israel join up to try to defeat Hamas and IJ (may be in the interest of a Palestinian state to get rid of groups not loyal to the state), it wouldn't be as devestating.

Of course, that would be like the Minute-men and the Federal Govt teaming up to fight illegal immigration. Or the Vichy French teaming up with Nazi Germany. One "ally" wouldn't really be doing anything. :)

[Flasch186]

If we are talking about the UN Partition Plan, not at all. A good deal of that land did have Palestinians on them. Now Isrealis have made some of the uninhabited lands inhabitable, that is true, but there were Palestinians living in the land the US gave to Israeli.


War, yes... but it depends on what sort of war. If the PA and Israel join up to try to defeat Hamas and IJ (may be in the interest of a Palestinian state to get rid of groups not loyal to the state), it wouldn't be as devestating.

you can find nomads anywhere so if were playing extremes you would be right in saying that PLUS I guess if there is one citizen on the continent of Africa you could say all of Africa is inhabited...however for the most part the lands given as Israel were largely uninhabited and uninhabitable and some would argue undesirable.

[ISiddiqui]

you can find nomads anywhere so if were playing extremes you would be right in saying that PLUS I guess if there is one citizen on the continent of Africa you could say all of Africa is inhabited...however for the most part the lands given as Israel were largely uninhabited and uninhabitable and some would argue undesirable.
No, not nomads. Except for Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and some northern areas, the Jews were a minority in Palestine. I'm not saying that none of the partitioned area was uninhabited, but to say that areas like Jaffa, Acre and Haifa had no or few Palestinians in it is just a total fallacy. The partition plan also gave the Jews the coastline, which was hardly uninhabitable, but very fruitful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

The population for the proposed Jewish State would be 498,000 Jews and 325,000 non-Jews.
Hardly uninhabited...

[ISiddiqui]

An interesting map showing that plenty of Palestinians lived in areas ceded to Isreal (in some cases more Palestinians than Jews):

http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/dist_of_pop_jews_and_palestinians_1946.gif

And for comparison, the partition:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png

[Flasch186]

...even palestinians had absolutely no intention of developing the areas into a state, and no plan to make it "fruitful". The land was undesirable by most people's definitions at that time.

Im not trying to say either side is right or wrong. I hope they get their own state but fear the ramifications of lack of gov't. control.

[Mac Howard]

The idea that the lands were uninhabited is a pure rationalisation. The UN mandated 53 % of Palestine to the new Jewish state and made Jerusalem into a shared capital. The settlers who took up "unwanted" land in the earlier century did so as part of a movement to gradually increase the settlements until they represented a majority and could demand a Jewish state. In 1936, the Stern Gang (Irgun Zvai Leumi/the National Military Organisation or NMO) decided that this was far to slow a process and that terrorism would achieve the end much more quickly. Its intention was to create a totalitarian Jewish state along the lines of ...........wait for it ................ the Third Reich!

But read it for yourselves. Here is an article, written in 1941 by a German journalist about the Stern Gang.

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/irgunazi.htm

Here are a couple of quotes from the article:

The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

The NMO, in contrast to all Zionist trends, rejects colonizatory infiltration as the only means of making accessible and gradually taking possession of the fatherland and practices its slogan, the struggle and the sacrifice, as the only true means for the conquest and liberation of Palestine.

Does that second one sound familiar? Could almost have been Bin Laden, no? This was 1941 - 8 years before the UN mandate.

And no, these people were not German but Jews who shared a common enemy with Hitler in that it was Britain that opposed their agenda in Palestine. They even swallowed the idea that Hitler's Jewish solution was not the extermination of Jews but their emigration to Palestine - a Jew-free Europe. Amazing what people will believe to support their convictions and self-interest.

The Stern Gang, of course, does not represent the thinking of Israelis. In fact I can vouch for the fact that many Israelis are ashamed of the group. But this is what the Palestinians had to face in the ten years or so prior to the UN mandate of a Jewish state. This is what they had to face when, it's being said, a small number of Jewish settlements were set up in uninhabited land.

My point is not to equate Israel with Hamas or any such comparison but to point out that the establishment of a Jewish state was not an innocent process. You'll note the reference to "colonizatory infiltration" which indicates the original settlers were not merely occupying uninhabited land. The Stern Gang went one step further in the use of terrorism to create the state.

There is a strong case for the Palestinian claim that they were dispossessed, that the Jewish state was set up at the expense of the Palestinians and that they have have a legitimate claim that they were ill-treated by the international community.

That a Jewish homeland was totally justified after the horrors of the 20th century is certainly true but it is also true that that homeland was provided at the considerable expense of the Palestinians and that they have subsequently reacted without any justification is nonsense. That nature of that reaction cannot be justified but it can be understood.

This is not a one-sided case. The Palestinians first faced an infiltration of settlers to gradually take over their land, then terrorism to drive them out of it and finally a UN mandate giving 53% of it to the new group. It is no wonder they're angry.

EDIT:

Just to add some spice to the debate ;) : Menachem Begin was a member of the Stern Gang and headed the attack on Deir Yassin and the slaughter of arab villagers in 1948. He described Palestinians as "beasts walking on two legs" and "cockroaches."

He was elected prime minister of Israel in 1977. :(

[Dutch]

I still think the British Mandate back in '47(?) was the best idea with 2 seperate states and Jerusalem being a religious city state run by a trio of representatives (Jewish, Muslim, and Christian).

Why not?

[Mac Howard]

Whatever the partition the international community had to take responsibility for order. It was obvious by 1947 that the Jewish and Palestinian populations would tear each other to shreds. To leave them to do that was massively irresponsible. Britain couldn't do it - it was bankrupted by WW2. It's infrastructure was devasted, it's young male population decimated. It had neither the resources nor the stomach for further conflict after six years or war. The UN was new of course but needed to take responsibility for its decision - not that I'm that convinced it would do a better job today :rolleyes: