Israel releases 500 terrorists Monday; Terror explosion on Friday

[amdaily]

Breaking on CNN right now. Appears pretty bad. Truely a shock :rolleyes:

Is there anyone who didn't see this coming...

[HomerJSimpson]

Breaking on CNN right now. Appears pretty bad. Truely a shock :rolleyes:

Is there anyone who didn't see this coming...

Sadly, no. There are too many on both sides who do not want a peaceful settlement, and it only takes one with a death wish to make sure there will not be one.

[sachmo71]

Breaking on CNN right now. Appears pretty bad. Truely a shock :rolleyes:

Is there anyone who didn't see this coming...

If you can prove that the rist part of your title has something to do with the second part, you are ahead of the game. Perhaps that is something that someone with an agenda would want to world to think?

[Dutch]

There are 4 sides to this battle.

Israeli's who want a Palestinian State
Israeli's who do not want a Palestinian State
Palestinians who want a Palestinian State
Palestinians who do not want an Israeli State

Figure out how to please all of them and you have peace in our time. As the mighty philosopher SpongBob SquarePants says, "Good luck with that."

[Solecismic]

Yeah, right. There's one huge difference here. The Arab world wants Israel gone. Israel just wants a homeland. I bet there isn't one person in a thousand in America who can accurately describe how Israel came about to exist.

Peace will come the exact minute the Arabs want it. Which most of them don't.

[Desnudo]

I bet there isn't one person in a thousand in America who can accurately describe how Israel came about to exist.

Eve got Adam to bite the apple. :p

[Flasch186]

ITs in Hizbullah's constitution that they, as a goal, "want to drive Israel into the sea." Tough to work around that. Im afraid that the following will eventually occur:

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

When its done, it'll be a bloodletting and perhaps when everything dies down again, there can actually be peace for awhile until it must be rinsed and repeated.

I hope not, but I dont see a way out of this.

[SlapBone]

Yeah, right. There's one huge difference here. The Arab world wants Israel gone. Israel just wants a homeland. I bet there isn't one person in a thousand in America who can accurately describe how Israel came about to exist.

Peace will come the exact minute the Arabs want it. Which most of them don't.

God speaking to Abraham:

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

[Dutch]

Israel still is in the decision making driver seat. They occupy lands. Either they annex it and accept a couple million Palestinians into their voting bloc or they give it up. For peace to happen, one of those two things will happen and the Isreali's obviously want to give it back. The problem is that from 1967 til now, they did want to annex the West Bank. Now they have hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers in the occupied zones and have a political mess that is impossible to sort out without war.

[SunDancer]

Just curious,
How many Americans actually support our defense of Israel?

[Flasch186]

Israel still is in the decision making driver seat. They occupy lands. Either they annex it and accept a couple million Palestinians into their voting bloc or they give it up. For peace to happen, one of those two things will happen and the Isreali's obviously want to give it back. The problem is that from 1967 til now, they did want to annex the West Bank. Now they have hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers in the occupied zones and have a political mess that is impossible to sort out without war.

BS

Annexed OR NOT, war WILL happen between the created palestinian state and Israel AND the arab nations will take advantage of the moment and attack Israel.

[Solecismic]

Israel still is in the decision making driver seat. They occupy lands. Either they annex it and accept a couple million Palestinians into their voting bloc or they give it up. For peace to happen, one of those two things will happen and the Isreali's obviously want to give it back. The problem is that from 1967 til now, they did want to annex the West Bank. Now they have hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers in the occupied zones and have a political mess that is impossible to sort out without war.

Except that they offered that land back in return for peace, and were turned down. According to the Arabs, the settlers would be considered illegal. It's land that was annexed as the result of a war declared against Israel and lost - land that Israel felt it needed to defend to make future wars more difficult.

The Arabs have attacked the settlements - even legal ones defined under the British Mandate created long before the state of Israel - for decades. Without provocation. Before the land was even viable for agriculture.

Make no mistake about it. The Arabs have driven this war, and are in the driver's seat when it comes to peace. The only political mess is one entirely driven by their hatred.

There's no reason for them to accept a right of return for Palestinians, because they were a nomadic people in the first place. Israeli pioneers made that land viable - made it a place where people could actually settle.

[Dutch]

Fair enough. Then Israel should annex the land (they have not done that).

I am not under the illusion that the arab world is the victim here, the Israeli state has a perfect right to exist and prosper in the region, but they are in control of non-sovereign disputed occupied lands, not the other way around.

EDIT: And I would agree that the Palestinians F'ed up with the Oslo Accord. That was a pretty good deal.

[Glengoyne]

SunDancer,

I believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans support this Nation's support of Israel. The reason being that the Palestinians have been using terror to further their position. Western Civilization has no place in its heart for suicide bombers that target civilians, nor those that support them.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah, right. There's one huge difference here. The Arab world wants Israel gone. Israel just wants a homeland. I bet there isn't one person in a thousand in America who can accurately describe how Israel came about to exist.

Peace will come the exact minute the Arabs want it. Which most of them don't.

Well yes - the homeland that the western powers imposed in Arab lands after WW II - because of their colonial strength in that area.

[Solecismic]

Well yes - the homeland that the western powers imposed in Arab lands after WW II - because of their colonial strength in that area.

That's exactly what I meant by expressing that most people have no clue about the history of Israel's statehood.

The Jews began active settlements in their homeland in the 1880s, after being chased out of Russia (many more came to America during those pogroms). The land was just rock and dirt, and required years of work before it could sustain life. The Arabs never wanted it. The 1948 division only formalized immigration and gave Israel independence from the colonials.

Both groups claim ancestral heritage to the area. And if the Arabs wanted peace, both groups would have states in that area. Israel only occupies a small piece of that land - about 6 million people on about 8,000 square miles (about the same size as the state of Massachusetts).

[Dutch]

The Arabs never wanted it.The Turkish Empire wanted it. The Crusaders fought *somebody* to get Jerusalem in the 1st Crusade. The Crusaders lost to *somebody* in subsequent crusades to get back to Jerusalem. The Isreali's did fight someone in 1947. They did fight someone in 1967. The did fight someone in 1972.

I agree that the Arabs were not as westernized in their thinking as far as wanting to create a national state with borders. But the idea that Palestinians were not interested because they were never a state prior to the UN's decision to make a state isn't fair. Most of the time they were under occupation by one empire or another, anyway. The settlers in 1880 were really no different than the Arab squaters in 1880.

I contest that the majority of today's Palestinians are not interested in Tel Aviv, but Jerusalem. I would even suggest that they have conceded western Jerusalem to the Israeli's.

I would further suggest that Israel proper is primarily rock and dirt while the West Bank of the Jordan River is a natural resovoir of water sources. Something the Isreali's truly covet.

There is more to the story in my opinion.

[Solecismic]

The Israelis are interested in security first. The water issue is going to be central to successful negotiations. In fairness, the Israelis still give a portion of that West Bank water to the Palestinians, despite the ongoing hostilities.

This could be over and done with if the Palestinians had accepted Oslo - which was everything they purportedly wanted, and more. All they had to do was acknowledge Israel's statehood. They refused.

Both groups have a right to be in the Middle East. As soon as the Arabs recognize that, there will be peace.

Since long before the day Israel was granted independence, it was attacked. Yes, the Israelis fight when attacked. And are very, very good at it. If they weren't, they'd long since have gone the way of their six million European brothers and sisters.

[clintl]

That's exactly what I meant by expressing that most people have no clue about the history of Israel's statehood.

The Jews began active settlements in their homeland in the 1880s, after being chased out of Russia (many more came to America during those pogroms). The land was just rock and dirt, and required years of work before it could sustain life. The Arabs never wanted it. The 1948 division only formalized immigration and gave Israel independence from the colonials.

Both groups claim ancestral heritage to the area. And if the Arabs wanted peace, both groups would have states in that area. Israel only occupies a small piece of that land - about 6 million people on about 8,000 square miles (about the same size as the state of Massachusetts).

At the end of WWI, the population of Palestine was about 80% Muslim Arab, 10% Jewish, and 10% Christian Arab. Between the two world wars, there was a lot of Jewish immigration (much of it illegal), but at the time of the UN division in 1948 was still the population was still 2/3 Arab, and Arabs owned most of the land. I fully support the right of Israel to exist, but to fail to acknowledge that the Arabs got a raw deal and have legitimate grievances about the way the West botched things is a denial of reality. What the Arabs have done since then is thoroughly reprehensible, but it doesn't take much to understand some of the reasons they feel the way they do.

[Solecismic]

Again, the Arabs weren't forming settlements, and, in fact, attacked the early Jewish settlements with regularity. The earliest settlements were pretty much just a watch tower, a fence and a kitchen and had to be constructed within 24 hours or they'd pretty much be dead.

The immigration between the wars may have been deemed illegal by the British, but was supposed to be legal under the British Mandate. The British were hardly better than Hitler when it came to anti-Semitic behavior. That little prince nimwit over there was probably digging into his family's vault when he came up with the swastika he recently wore to a costume party.

Look, where in the hell are the Jews supposed to live? They were given a scrap of unirrigated land that they somehow made viable against overwhelming odds. Just a tiny portion of the Middle East. No, I do not understand why the Arabs feel such hatred any more than I understand why the British blocked legal immigration during the Mandate or why Hitler took it upon himself to try and rid the world of Jews, or why so many in Europe cooperated with him.

[Klinglerware]

That's exactly what I meant by expressing that most people have no clue about the history of Israel's statehood.

The Jews began active settlements in their homeland in the 1880s, after being chased out of Russia (many more came to America during those pogroms). The land was just rock and dirt, and required years of work before it could sustain life. The Arabs never wanted it. The 1948 division only formalized immigration and gave Israel independence from the colonials.

Both groups claim ancestral heritage to the area. And if the Arabs wanted peace, both groups would have states in that area. Israel only occupies a small piece of that land - about 6 million people on about 8,000 square miles (about the same size as the state of Massachusetts).

I am also supportive of Israel's right to exist. But let us not selectively remember the history of Israel's statehood. We shouldn't understate the highly effective contributions of Jewish terrorist groups such as the Irgun and Stern Gang in intimidating the British and Arabs in Palestine. History is not as clean as you believe.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but it doesn't take much to understand some of the reasons they feel the way they do.

And in light of recent years events, it doesn't take much to understand why so many people understand that there is only one side of this worthy of any support by a civilized nation or person,

[clintl]

No, I do not understand why the Arabs feel such hatred

You might want to consider how the Sioux must have felt about Americans in the 1870s.

[Solecismic]

I am also supportive of Israel's right to exist. But let us not selectively remember the history of Israel's statehood. We shouldn't understate the highly effective contributions of Jewish terrorist groups such as the Irgun and Stern Gang in intimidating the British and Arabs in Palestine. History is not as clean as you believe.

These groups had two purposes: one - to carry out attacks on the Arab marauders before they struck, and two - to sabotage British radar installations and other items used to block immigration. I'm not selectively remembering anything. Hundreds of thousands of people would have died without their help. Terming these groups "terrorist" is incorrect by today's definitions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You might want to consider how the Sioux must have felt about Americans in the 1870s.

I'm not dealing with the 1870's, I'm dealing with today, right now, reality.

And if the Sioux were presently slaughtering innocents, I'd take the same position on them I do with the vermin terrorists in the Middle East.

[Dutch]

I support the State of Israel, and I support their right to annex all lands gained from the '67 War (to include the Suez Canal had they not handed that back to Egypt). It's not like they were empire building, they were attacked by the Arabs.

But I do not support keeping millions of people powerless and without representation in the government. You either give them a vote, or you cut them loose.

[clintl]

And in light of recent years events, it doesn't take much to understand why so many people understand that there is only one side of this worthy of any support by a civilized nation or person,

What I support is an acceptance by both sides of the other's right to exist in peace. I would agree that Israel is much, much closer to that acceptance than the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians could have their state very easily and quickly if they abandoned their current tactics. I have no desire to see them prevail in their goal of driving Israel out of existence, as Israel is about the only nation in the region that even approaches political and cultural enlightenment.

[Klinglerware]

These groups had two purposes: one - to carry out attacks on the Arab marauders before they struck, and two - to sabotage British radar installations and other items used to block immigration. I'm not selectively remembering anything. Hundreds of thousands of people would have died without their help. Terming these groups "terrorist" is incorrect by today's definitions.

The bombing of the King David Hotel? If someone bombed a hotel and killed 100 people, why wouldn't it be labeled a terrorist act? If it happened today, we'd all be outraged. However you feel about the moral justification of what they did, let's call a spade a spade and acknowledge the nature of their contributions, warts and all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun_Tsvai-Leumi

[Dutch]

What I support is an acceptance by both sides of the other's right to exist in peace. I would agree that Israel is much, much closer to that acceptance than the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians could have their state very easily and quickly if they abandoned their current tactics. I have no desire to see them prevail in their goal of driving Israel out of existence, as Israel is about the only nation in the region that even approaches political and cultural enlightenment.I would support the requirement of current Arab and Israeli governments to publicly and officially recognize each others right to existance as part of the Palestinian Statehood mandate.

[JeffNights]

this shit will never end.

[Noop]

I disagree with Jim. But there is no way I can state my opinion without someone taking it the wrong way. Namely our Jewish members on this board.

[Solecismic]

The bombing of the King David Hotel? If someone bombed a hotel and killed 100 people, why wouldn't it be labeled a terrorist act? If it happened today, we'd all be outraged. However you feel about the moral justification of what they did, let's call a spade a spade and acknowledge the nature of their contributions, warts and all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun_Tsvai-Leumi

Obviously, not everything can be fully justified. In fairness, although that article doesn't mention it, the Irgun made several phone calls warning the British that the hotel would be bombed (the British response was "we don't take orders from the Jews"). Again, not a justification, just an indication that unlike the Arabs, the goal was never to randomly kill innocent people.

The overall goals of the Irgun were to counter the despicable blockades the British put up toward immigration.


Noop, don't be a coward. If you disagree, say why. Take your criticism like a man if you're wrong. Others here are disagreeing, and no one's getting upset.

[Blade6119]

Make no mistake about it. The Arabs have driven this war, and are in the driver's seat when it comes to peace. The only political mess is one entirely driven by their hatred.

There's no reason for them to accept a right of return for Palestinians, because they were a nomadic people in the first place. Israeli pioneers made that land viable - made it a place where people could actually settle.

While i see your side, it was entirely unfair of the british to give that land to the jews. If a foreign nation came in and gave new mexico away to our most hated enemy(say al-queda), would you not fight for it back? Would you accept peace for land that was taken away against your wishes and given away. Im sorry, as i support isreal in the matter, but in terms of who is right i believe the arabs are. I wouldnt sit back if it happened to me, so why should they?

[Blade6119]

The overall goals of the Irgun were to counter the despicable blockades the British put up toward immigration.


Noop, don't be a coward. If you disagree, say why. Take your criticism like a man if you're wrong. Others here are disagreeing, and no one's getting upset.

Why were the blockades despicable? We dont let cubans into america and stop their boats and send them back or to prison. Remind me of how this is different?

[clintl]

I would be interested to hear what you think of the Lavon Affair (http://www.mideastweb.org/lavon.htm), because as far as I can tell, Israel has no legitimate defense.

[Solecismic]

While i see your side, it was entirely unfair of the british to give that land to the jews. If a foreign nation came in and gave new mexico away to our most hated enemy(say al-queda), would you not fight for it back? Would you accept peace for land that was taken away against your wishes and given away. Im sorry, as i support isreal in the matter, but in terms of who is right i believe the arabs are. I wouldnt sit back if it happened to me, so why should they?

Because of the Balfour Declaration (1917) which led to the setting up of the respective Mandates. This was considered the original homeland of both groups, and both were to supposedly live in Palestine in relative harmony.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours 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."

This clearly supports the view, later set forth by the United Nations when the Mandate was dissolved, that both the Jews and the Arabs would have an independent state in Palestine.

During the Mandate, about the same number of Muslims and Jews entered the region.

This is not similar to Al Qaeda coming in and taking over New Mexico. The region only had 750,000 people (including Jordan, I believe) in 1922. It has somewhere around 16 million people today, including more Muslims than Jews.

[Solecismic]

Why were the blockades despicable? We dont let cubans into america and stop their boats and send them back or to prison. Remind me of how this is different?

Because the Mandate was set up in major part to provide a Jewish homeland.

During the 1930s, when the situation became desperate for Jews in Europe, the British started blocking all immigration. Knowing what was happening in Germany. That's the despicable part.

It's not similar to the Cuban situation. This was a far more complex situation, and the idea behind the Mandate was to preserve both Jewish and Muslim rights.

[Solecismic]

I would be interested to hear what you think of the Lavon Affair (http://www.mideastweb.org/lavon.htm), because as far as I can tell, Israel has no legitimate defense.

No, the people behind it didn't. Don't know which is worse, covering up spying activities and leaving your spies to be tortured and killed without acknowledgement, or sending them in the first place.

Again, though, the purpose was never to kill innocent Egyptians. History shows that the Arab world was far more hostile. I'm not trying to say that the Israelis never made mistakes in their defense, just that their tactics were ultimately intended to secure immigration and peace.

I've argued here before that I wished there was a better choice of a homeland. I don't give a damn about the historic significance of Jerusalem or the rest of the region. But the fact is that the Jews were spread all over Europe and the Middle East, and didn't have an area of great concentration that wasn't (like Warsaw) home to far more people of other cultures. Where were they to go?

[Crapshoot]

Cmon Jim, you arent actually citing the Balfour Declaration as a stance in your favor. It was a British attempt to satisfy one group with lands taken from another -nothing more, nothing less. And citing the British Empire with any sort of moral authority in the 1920's (when they ruled as an imperial force) seems to be generous on your part. Essentialy, you're citing British mandates as justification for the location of Israel where it is- my point is more that the British right or authority to make such a mandate is hardly worthwhile .

As for potential locations of the Jewish homeland, I believe other locations were tossed around - including South America.

[Crapshoot]

Also, what's your stance on the fact that Israel killed 34 Americans on the attack on the USS Liberty ?

[ISiddiqui]

There are 4 sides to this battle.

Israeli's who want a Palestinian State
Israeli's who do not want a Palestinian State
Palestinians who want a Palestinian State
Palestinians who do not want an Israeli State

Figure out how to please all of them and you have peace in our time. As the mighty philosopher SpongBob SquarePants says, "Good luck with that." Bingo... though you have plenty of people around the world who say one side is right and the other wrong (like Solecismic in this thread) by selectively looking over history. Hell, he's gone so far as saying Stern Gang and Irgun weren't terrorists!!! Now that's just willful blindness. The Stern Gang assasinated Lord Moyne and Count Bernadotte, the UN Ambassador to the area (the assassins were pardoned by the Isreali government, btw).

If we have people far away from the conflict who won't acknowledge the facts, what hope is there that those who are knee deep in it will?

Cmon Jim, you arent actually citing the Balfour Declaration as a stance in your favor. It was a British attempt to satisfy one group with lands taken from another -nothing more, nothing less. And citing the British Empire with any sort of moral authority in the 1920's (when they ruled as an imperial force) seems to be generous on your part. Essentialy, you're citing British mandates as justification for the location of Israel where it is- my point is more that the British right or authority to make such decisions is debatable at best. Don't forget that the Brits ALSO promised the land to the Arabs as well. They promised it to both sides for political reasons during WW1 (fight against the Ottomans). They promised the same land to both sides in order to curry favor in the war, no more and no less.

[Crapshoot]

I've argued here before that I wished there was a better choice of a homeland. I don't give a damn about the historic significance of Jerusalem or the rest of the region. But the fact is that the Jews were spread all over Europe and the Middle East, and didn't have an area of great concentration that wasn't (like Warsaw) home to far more people of other cultures. Where were they to go?

Agreed on this. My response would be that Europe and the west didnt want to give up any of their own land, and looked to their imperial colonies for a solution- how on earth is that justifed ? I actually wonder what the rammifications of setting up an Israel by taking a chunk of what is now Germany would have worked out - it would have been an appropriate punishment, and Germany did have a fairly large Jewish population (pre- 1935 or so).

[Solecismic]

I think people are missing the big picture entirely here.

There just weren't that many people in the Middle East in the 1920s. It was a logical choice for a homeland for both groups. The Jews had been trying to establish that as a homeland since the 1880s. It wasn't that controversial. The land was desolate.

There was plenty of room. Even now, Israel (no matter how its borders are defined) is a very small country in a relatively large region. From the 1930s, the old hatreds re-emerged. Whether Britain had the right to the Mandate is immaterial. It was recognized by the world before then, the Jews were the only ones willing to try and settle the land.

They were then attacked, through no fault of their own, by Arabs in the region. Again, it's not as if there wasn't plenty of room for everyone. The British stopped encouraging immigration just as things heated up in Europe.

In response, the Jews made an occasional questionable decision. Some decisions, like breaking through the blockades and striking back at the marauders, were made out of desperation. That necessitated some espionage and sabotage. Sometimes, Irgun went too far. It doesn't excuse them entirely, but their goals were immigration and peaceful settlement.

Compare that to the goals of the Arabs and the Germans, which are/were to eliminate the Jews. Palestine recently rejected settlements that would have given them everything they wanted, including an independent state, because to do so would mean accepting Israel's independence.

One one hand, you have survival. On the other, pure hatred.

You can't blame the Jews for going to Israel - it was a logical choice. Whether South America was considered is immaterial. Israel was chosen and that's where they went. Arabs lost a tiny piece of land the size of Massachusetts they never wanted. They got Jordan. They got most of Palestine. They could have the West Bank, too, if they'd only accept peace.

Seriously, do any of you really believe that if the Arabs stopped attacking Israel today and worked for peace, that there wouldn't be a lasting peace in the area? All they have to do is accept Israel's right to exist. That's all anyone wants. The rest is all easily negotiated.

Again, you have a group of people who have a constitution that mentions "driving Israel into the sea" as a stated goal. How is this an equal conflict?

[Mac Howard]

While agreeing in the main with your view of the current situation in Israel, Jim - that the majority of Israelis merely want peace and security (though the ultra-othodox Jews are against any land concessions) and a significant part of the Palestinian population wants to drive the Jews into the sea - but I cannot go along with your description of how the current situation has come about.

If anyone was let down by the British in 1917 it was the Arab world that had been promised support for a pan-Arab nation for their part in defeating the Turks in WW1. They didn't get that support and a significant part of the justification for that were the demands for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. By the mid-1930s this demand was difficult to refuse.

But there were two very good reasons for refusing:

1) already the hatred between Arab and Jew made it clear that the violence we're so used to today would follow Jewish immigration as sure as night follows day.

2) The land, as you say, is desolate and could not sustain the large influx of immigrants that could be expected from Europe with the technology available in the 20/30s (what the Israelis have done since 1948 is astonishing but belongs to the second half of the 20th century) and Palestine was by no means as devoid of population as you suggest. The conflict over resources, particularly water, in itself would set the Israelis and Palestinians at each others throats.

The British were between a rock and a hard place between promises to the Arab world in general and Palestinians in particular and the desperate need for a Jewish homeland. They had to steer a course between the two sides but nevertheless were objects of terrorist activity from both. I believe at one point they suggested that a Jewish homeland could be established in Kenya (at the time part of the British empire) but that, of course, was rejected by the Jews because it failed to meet their historical and religious claims. Jews were not just demanding a homeland but one with Jerusalem at its centre.

Even today you will find no shortage of Israelis who recognise that the Palestinians have good reason to hate Israel though not, of course, justifying their current terrorist activities. They will also agree that the Irgun etc were themselves terrorists whose actions are no more acceptable than those of hamas etc. It is not an easy situation there. It is not difficult to justify the claims of either side depending on where you want your history to start.

Hopefully, the current ceasefire will hold - maybe this weekend's atrocity will be down to Syria. There is a glimmer of hope that pragmatism will win out.

[BishopMVP]

ITs in Hizbullah's constitution that they, as a goal, "want to drive Israel into the sea." Tough to work around that. Im afraid that the following will eventually occur:

Palestinian state is created...
Attacks on Israel continue...
Israel declares war on Palestinian state...


Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Libya, and more declare war on Israel... <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=byline vAlign=top>'We can prove Syria was behind attack'</TD></TR><TR><TD>http://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/pixel.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD class=lead vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=310 align=right border=0 VSPACE="0" HSPACE="0"><TBODY><TR><TD width=10>http://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/pixel.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width=300><IFRAME name=google_ads_frame marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?client=ca-jpost_300x250&dt=1109581027000&adsafe=high&lmt=1109581027&alternate_ad_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.jpost.com%2Fscripts%2Fgoogle_adsense_script.html&format=300x250_pas_abgnc&output=html&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jpost.com%2Fservlet%2FSatellite%3Fpagename%3DJPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull%26cid%3D1109301662303&color_bg=FFFFFF&color_link=3300CC&color_border=990033&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publiuspundit.com%2F%3Fp%3D536&u_h=1024&u_w=1280&u_ah=994&u_aw=1280&u_cd=32&u_tz=-300&u_his=8&u_java=true" frameBorder=0 width=0 scrolling=no height=0 allowTransparency>http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?event=noiframe&ampampampclient=ca-jpost_300x250&ampampampdt=1109581027000&ampampampadsafe=high&ampampamplmt=1109581027&ampampampalternate_ad_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.jpost.com%2Fscripts%2Fgoogle_adsense_script.html&ampampampformat=300x250_pas_abgnc&ampampampoutput=html&ampampampurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jpost.com%2Fservlet%2FSatellite%3Fpagename%3DJPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull%26cid%3D1109301662303&ampampampcolor_bg=FFFFFF&ampampampcolor_link=3300CC&ampampampcolor_border=990033&ampampampref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publiuspundit.com%2F%3Fp%3D536&ampampampu_h=1024&ampampampu_w=1280&ampampampu_ah=994&ampampampu_aw=1280&ampampampu_cd=32&ampampampu_tz=-300&ampampampu_his=8&ampampampu_java=true (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?event=noiframe&client=ca-jpost_300x250&dt=1109581027000&adsafe=high&lmt=1109581027&alternate_ad_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.jpost.com%2Fscripts%2Fgoogle_adsense_script.html&format=300x250_pas_abgnc&output=html&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jpost.com%2Fservlet%2FSatellite%3Fpagename%3DJPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull%26cid%3D1109301662303&color_bg=FFFFFF&color_link=3300CC&color_border=990033&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publiuspundit.com%2F%3Fp%3D536&u_h=1024&u_w=1280&u_ah=994&u_aw=1280&u_cd=32&u_tz=-300&u_his=8&u_java=true)</IFRAME><NOSCRIPT>&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsphttp://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?client=ca-jpost_300x250&ampampampevent=noscript (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?client=ca-jpost_300x250&event=noscript)&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp</NOSCRIPT><!-- End Creative -->







</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>




Israel will use intelligence information to prove Syria was behind suicide bombing (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1109387975271) Friday night's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the cabinet Sunday.

What the two called irrefutable evidence to this effect has been sent to the US and select European allies. The evidence, based on intelligence information, will be presented by IDF Intelligence chief Aharon Ze'evi Farkash in a briefing on Monday at the Foreign Ministry for ambassadors from European Union countries and the UN Security Council. Sharon's associates said the goal of releasing the information is to pressure the Syrians ahead of Tuesday's summit on building the Palestinian Authority in London. Foreign Ministry officials said they hope the Security Council will condemn the attack and perhaps even censure Syria on Monday. "We have intelligence information that the orders came from the Islamic Jihad in Syria," a senior source close to Sharon said. "We know where the orders for the attack were issued, we know where they were sent, and we know Syrian intelligence was involved and provided logistical support.":confused: (Not sure why the next paragraph is still being quoted - it's my analysis, not from the article) :confused:
Not to distract anyone from rehashing ancient history, but between this, the coming showdown today in Beirut between Lebanese nationalist protestors and the Syrian minders, the peculiarly timed capture and handover of Saddam's half-brother, a chief financier of the insurgency in Iraq and 29 other key members of his organization, the recently announced defense pact between Syria and Iran, the purchasing of missiles from Russia by Syria, and a few other developments it could be a very interesting week in the Middle East.




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

There are 4 sides to this battle.

Israeli's who want a Palestinian State
Israeli's who do not want a Palestinian State
Palestinians who want a Palestinian State
Palestinians who do not want an Israeli StateYou're missing another group - outside interests that are either opposed to an Isreali state, or would prefer the conflict continue so they can focus their people's anger at the Jews. Saddam funded at least Hamas, the Iranians fund Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Syrians also support a similar menagerie of groups. There are also many private funding channels generating millions for these terrorist organizations. The PA under Arafat certainly had no intention of accepting any deal with Israel, but even if Abbas is interested, there is going to be a bloody civil war among the Palestinians as long as these outside bases of support are allowed.

[Solecismic]

While agreeing in the main with your view of the current situation in Israel, Jim - that the majority of Israelis merely want peace and security (though the ultra-othodox Jews are against any land concessions) and a significant part of the Palestinian population wants to drive the Jews into the sea - but I cannot go along with your description of how the current situation has come about.

If anyone was let down by the British in 1917 it was the Arab world that had been promised support for a pan-Arab nation for their part in defeating the Turks in WW1. They didn't get that support and a significant part of the justification for that were the demands for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. By the mid-1930s this demand was difficult to refuse.

But there were two very good reasons for refusing:

1) already the hatred between Arab and Jew made it clear that the violence we're so used to today would follow Jewish immigration as sure as night follows day.

2) The land, as you say, is desolate and could not sustain the large influx of immigrants that could be expected from Europe with the technology available in the 20/30s (what the Israelis have done since 1948 is astonishing but belongs to the second half of the 20th century) and Palestine was by no means as devoid of population as you suggest. The conflict over resources, particularly water, in itself would set the Israelis and Palestinians at each others throats.

The British were between a rock and a hard place between promises to the Arab world in general and Palestinians in particular and the desperate need for a Jewish homeland. They had to steer a course between the two sides but nevertheless were objects of terrorist activity from both. I believe at one point they suggested that a Jewish homeland could be established in Kenya (at the time part of the British empire) but that, of course, was rejected by the Jews because it failed to meet their historical and religious claims. Jews were not just demanding a homeland but one with Jerusalem at its centre.

Even today you will find no shortage of Israelis who recognise that the Palestinians have good reason to hate Israel though not, of course, justifying their current terrorist activities. They will also agree that the Irgun etc were themselves terrorists whose actions are no more acceptable than those of hamas etc. It is not an easy situation there. It is not difficult to justify the claims of either side depending on where you want your history to start.

Hopefully, the current ceasefire will hold - maybe this weekend's atrocity will be down to Syria. There is a glimmer of hope that pragmatism will win out.

Mac, the population figures I quoted are accurate. The Jews settled an area that was desolate and largely uninhabited. It didn't support anyone before they came in. And they've made enormous strides in reforesting the country, stretching those limited water resources.

Why is it unacceptable for the British to choose the Middle East for the Jewish state and acceptable to choose Kenya, another one of its colonies? That seems like hypocrisy.

There still would be indigenous people displaced. Fresh water would still be the most limiting resource - just ask the Kenyans what their biggest problem is right now. Presumably, they wouldn't want the Jews any more than the South African people want the British. They have their own history there. Nairobi is a thriving city with millions of people.

At least, in the Middle East, the Jewish people had history and a continued presence. True, there were more Arabs there than Jews by a factor of 8 to 1. But that doesn't justify eradication or refusal to allow more to come in.

Ideally, there would be a better place. But there wasn't at the time.

In the 1930s and 1940s, there could be no justification for refusing immigration. That was a sentence of death for those people. It had been decided that Palestine was where they should go. No matter how anyone felt about that decision, it was their only choice at the time. Palestine or death.

When the blockades went up, groups like Irgun committed crimes, true. Not all were justified, but the goal of the group was noble at least. Not at all like Hamas today. Never to commit genocide. Not even close. They can't be compared.

And no matter how the Arabs felt about broken promises, the proper solution wasn't to attack the settlements.

The Israelis have tried desperately to secure peace. The Arabs are still stuck on a decision made 88 years ago that can only partially be blamed on the Israelis. And was a matter of life or death for them.

Today, the problem is simple. Work together in peace to solve the region's resource problems. Or kill each other. The Israelis want the former, the Arabs the latter. That's what we're dealing with today.

Yes, there are militant Israelis who would rather fight for the settlements outside what are probably the best boundaries for a peaceful solution. I hope they can be calmed. The withdrawal is very good sign. The continued attacks from militant Arab groups isn't. Syria is becoming a bigger and bigger problem for more than just the Israelis.

Even if you believe that Israel was settled unfairly - and there are always groups that get screwed when there's a change in boundaries - you have to believe that there are six million Israelis living there today who deserve peace. If we in America had to face one tenth of what they have to face (and we got a taste of that on 9/11/01) we'd quickly realize that there is a right and a wrong side of this fight.

[Mac Howard]

I don't know enough about the circumstances in Kenya to comment on the disruption of indigenous people but I presume, as the argument against Jewish settlement was the diplacement of the Palestinian people, then the Kenyon situation was judged to be less difficult. You would not, to begin with, have the religious conflicts that has inflamed the Israeli/Arab conflict for so long. It is a much bigger territory and perhaps the British felt that they had far greater control over the indigenous population and could control the security situation more easily. Who knows, but they obviously felt it did not have the same problems as Palestine?

However I think it's true to say that the Jewish rejection of Kenya was not on its suitability but on grounds associated with the historical connection of Jews with the Holy Lands. You cannot eliminate religion from this conflict.

While the 20/30s settlers would inevitably have moved into uninhabited areas - I presume they would not have had the "miltary" power to do otherwise at that time - but it was always the intention of some of the settlers to recreate the Israel of the the bible - the Israel of King David. It was always a significant part of their intention to make Jerusalem the capital of their homeland.

But Jerusalem could not be considered an uninhabited area. It was very much the centre of Palestine. So you cannot blame the Palestinian population for believing that these settlers were merely the thin end of a very big wedge. Which, of course, has proved to be the case. The worst of the 1948 war was essentially a battle for Jerusalem.

I'm not trying to justify the terrorism we see from the Palestinians but I don't find it difficult, nor do I suspect about 40% of the Israeli population (I have many friends in Israel) find it difficult, to understand the sense of dispossession that the Palestinian population feels.

Just another point on the offer that was turned down by Arafat just a few years ago. It is said that they were offered 98% of what they asked for. I'm not sure that figure was accurate but what is never said is that the 2% that was denied by Israel gave Israel complete control over both the water supply and the security of the Palestinian lands. I understand that it split the land in two with the connection between the two under Israeli control.

It's not difficult to understand why the Israelis would do this but it should also not be difficult to understand why the Palestinians did not see it in the same glowing terms as the Israelis. It was doubtless the best they're ever going to be offered but it was far from the "all you could ever want" that is so often suggested :)

[wade moore]

Just wanted to insert a comment here..

This has been one of the most educational, enlightening threads I have ever read on the internet... It is great that it has stayed at the intellectual level rather than the emotional level..

Ok, carry on...

[Flasch186]

Mac, the population figures I quoted are accurate. The Jews settled an area that was desolate and largely uninhabited. It didn't support anyone before they came in. And they've made enormous strides in reforesting the country, stretching those limited water resources.

Why is it unacceptable for the British to choose the Middle East for the Jewish state and acceptable to choose Kenya, another one of its colonies? That seems like hypocrisy.

There still would be indigenous people displaced. Fresh water would still be the most limiting resource - just ask the Kenyans what their biggest problem is right now. Presumably, they wouldn't want the Jews any more than the South African people want the British. They have their own history there. Nairobi is a thriving city with millions of people.

At least, in the Middle East, the Jewish people had history and a continued presence. True, there were more Arabs there than Jews by a factor of 8 to 1. But that doesn't justify eradication or refusal to allow more to come in.

Ideally, there would be a better place. But there wasn't at the time.

In the 1930s and 1940s, there could be no justification for refusing immigration. That was a sentence of death for those people. It had been decided that Palestine was where they should go. No matter how anyone felt about that decision, it was their only choice at the time. Palestine or death.

When the blockades went up, groups like Irgun committed crimes, true. Not all were justified, but the goal of the group was noble at least. Not at all like Hamas today. Never to commit genocide. Not even close. They can't be compared.

And no matter how the Arabs felt about broken promises, the proper solution wasn't to attack the settlements.

The Israelis have tried desperately to secure peace. The Arabs are still stuck on a decision made 88 years ago that can only partially be blamed on the Israelis. And was a matter of life or death for them.

Today, the problem is simple. Work together in peace to solve the region's resource problems. Or kill each other. The Israelis want the former, the Arabs the latter. That's what we're dealing with today.

Yes, there are militant Israelis who would rather fight for the settlements outside what are probably the best boundaries for a peaceful solution. I hope they can be calmed. The withdrawal is very good sign. The continued attacks from militant Arab groups isn't. Syria is becoming a bigger and bigger problem for more than just the Israelis.

Even if you believe that Israel was settled unfairly - and there are always groups that get screwed when there's a change in boundaries - you have to believe that there are six million Israelis living there today who deserve peace. If we in America had to face one tenth of what they have to face (and we got a taste of that on 9/11/01) we'd quickly realize that there is a right and a wrong side of this fight.



Absolutely correct in that the land was largely uninhabited and uninhabitable before the Jews beagn their irrigation processing. The Palestinians in the area didnt want the land for their own BUT also did not want the Jews to have it either.

The outside groups mentioned above Im sure are loving the cease fire and the strides made so far, like release of 500 of their bretheren. If they now selectively bomb things and slowly crack the truce they'll have a response from Israel and the ammo they need to start recruiting again.

I stand by my prophecy above...A palestinian land, which im in favor of, WILL be the start of the next world war (by definition).

Im sure there there is a ton of palestinians who just simply want peace, unfortunately the money and the weapons go to those in their membership who dont.

[ISiddiqui]

If we in America had to face one tenth of what they have to face (and we got a taste of that on 9/11/01) we'd quickly realize that there is a right and a wrong side of this fight.
Can we ask the Native Americans? Or the aboriginals? Or any group that has been thrown off their land (the 'desolate and barren land', does that include Jerusalem, pray tell?) which is the right and wrong side of the fight? THIS is what pisses me off, deciding one side is always right and the other side is always wrong. Calling Palestinian terrorists barbarians, but saying Israeli terrorists had a 'noble goal'. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong and the quicker we realize this, the quicker we can work to end it.

[Flasch186]

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

[-Mojo Jojo-]

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


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

[Crapshoot]

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

[Blackadar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Flasch186]

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

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

[SunDancer]

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

[Flasch186]

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

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

[SunDancer]

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

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

[Flasch186]

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

perhaps Flere could do a diagram?

[BishopMVP]

We have to find a way to work together to deal with them. The Ireland conflict has made immense progress hasn't it? I think in no small part that is because the oppressed groups got a voice in the governance, choking off that rage and anger. A lot of what Hamas gets are people who are just fed up with living badly (and Hamas provides food and shelter for a lot of poor).The Ireland conflict has actually taken a couple steps backward recently, since Sinn Fein was linked to the 26 million pound bank heist and subsequent withdrawal of their offer to completely disarm. But at least the two sides aren't killing each other right now.

[Solecismic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

[Crapshoot]

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

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

[Crapshoot]

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

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

[Solecismic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dutch]

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

[Klinglerware]

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




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

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

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

[Flasch186]

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

[Solecismic]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Klinglerware]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

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

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