Jump to content

Israel Issues


Recommended Posts

regardless of you not believing in private ownership of land... Purge's comments about Jews buying land back from Arabs legitly and turning the wasteland into something useful,  is a very powerful arguement.  The Jews may have bought back their own land which they were entitled to anyways... but they didnt care... they realized they lost the land but they worked hard to reacquire it.

Actually, they didn't buy back ALL the land that is currently part of Israel, and, in any case, owning a piece of land usually does not give you the right to establish your own government with your own laws over it.

Also you must have private ownership of land.... or else where will you place your bed on your wedding night to make love to your wife.  By your logic some guy could come stomping into your room and lay down between you and your wife and say... HEY ALL LAND IS PUBLIC , mind if i move in?  (ok i'm stretching things)

Different public land is put to different uses. The White House is built on public land, but that doesn't mean anyone can just walk into any room in the White House, does it? It is perfectly reasonable for private homes to be built on public land, and that does in fact happen in many places around the world right now.

Simply put.... simplistic  arguments based on non-applicable systems at this stage of human development (such as communism or socialism) are pointless.  At this point you MUST accept private ownership of land. And therefore your objections are overruled.  Lets try to view this conflict through realistic eyes.

That wasn't an argument based on communism or socialism, it was an argument based on the moral principle that private ownership of land is illegitimate (and, theoretically speaking, you could have all land be public and still live in capitalism, with the public land being rented out to private businesses). Since we are having a discussion on whether the Israelis or the Palestinians have a moral right to the Holy Land, moral arguments fit in perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I go away for 10 days and the entire Middle East goes up in flames!"

Did anyone read this and wonder exactly where Edric went?

Oh I like that. ;D

I am in two minds about the situation, and fortunately I can neatly see why.

Situation 1: Israel was created following World War 2 as a land for the Jews to settle in. It was poorly thought out and, lets face it, a stupid idea, which the Western world is directly culpable in. For this reason we are indebted to both sides of the conflict and should dedicate ourselves to finding a peaceful resolution (note that 'peaceful' does not have to equate with 'anyone left alive'). This will require compromises on all sides.

Situation 2: As Purge claims, it was the Jews themselves who started buying land in the area, only given the last little push by the end of WW2. Again this was none too bright, but at least they had dedicated intentions. In this case the Western world can just sit back and let people blow the hell out of each other until both (all?) countries are severely weakened. At this point we can either step in and declare a 'winner,' which nobody will have the strength to argue with; or just let it continue until either one state wins, they reach a resolution on their own, or the entire area is turned into a gigantic crater. Israel is the better armed, methinks, but is dwarfed by strength of numbers. And nobody has the moral high ground.

Whee. Two nice little summaries, both of which I alternatively support, depending on how friendly I'm feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private homes on public land?  How is that not an oxymoron?  The white House is not public land .. it is Government property... there's a difference.  If you dont believe me try to drive your car into Area 51.  In any case the white house only "works" because the president doesnt live there his whole life.  What you're proposing is the extermination of home ownership and having everyone live in mobile homes.

What intrigues me is that you said that owning land doesnt give you the right to set up a government and make your own laws?   Huh?  So then our forefathers shouldnt have written a constitution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't Israel's fault that the British promised land to both Palestinians and Jews and didn't deliver.  It's also not Israel's fault that the minute Israel became a state the British left, and left their weapons to the Arabs to war with the new state.  It's not Israel's fault that, rather than accept Israeli *and* Palestinian states, the surrounding Muslim nations instead chose to *invade* and try to take it *all*, in the process losing *even more* land.

Israel has observed the protection of Jerusalem and the Muslim temples there.  Despite the fact that there is a Muslim temple built on the spot where their Holy Temples stood and where a rebuilt Holy Temple is supposed to stand, you don't see the Israelites going off and destroying it out of spite to Muslims.

Why?

Because it's never been the Jews' goal to wipe out Islam, or the Arabs.  They've spent most if not their entire existence on the receiving end of those kinds of motives.  The Jews don't have this constant hostility and desire to kill the Muslims off like the vocal leaders of Islam have towards Jews.

The Jews have been persecuted and scattered for thousands of years.  Their intention has been to fulfill the word of their God (again, long before Islam or Christianity existed) and return to the land they were promised, a land for *all* Jews.  And when they went to fulfill this, they didn't do it by invading or taking over the land, and destroying all the people on it.  They did it by legitimately purchasing BARREN land that the Arabs and Ottomans did not want, and they did this for between 50-100 years before Israel was declared a state, actually employing otherwise poor Arabs to help in the process of restoring these lands.  Lands, mind you, that are - at the time - barren in the first place, because the former Arab occupiers would take and take and take from the land and never replenish it.

So to say that Statehood is the only thing seperating the military action of the Israelites and the terrorist actions of Hezbollah or Palestinians is to lack a basic understanding of the facts.  Israel won't hesitate to retaliate when they are wronged, but that is a far cry from going around bombing and terrorizing a race of people you've made clear you want to kill every member of off entirely.

A Jew isn't gonna strap a bomb on himself and kill 20 fellow Jews just for the glory of taking out a handful of Muslims who happen to share the same street as them.  It's a huge fundamental difference in thinking between the two that some people are either unaware of or are just refusing to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It isn't Israel's fault that..."

Nor is it that of the Palaestinians.

"problem is you must accept who bought what off whom 50 years ago..... because thats what civilized society is all about. "

If I had paid the British government some vast sum of money in 1940 to buy India, I would not have the right to chuck a billion Indians off it today. That would not only be uncivilised, it would be genocide of a sixth of the world's population.

Moreover, I don't believe for a minute that every corner of the modern boundaries Israel and Palaestine had been legally bought by Jews. A large proportion of the area of Israel, perhaps, but unless you own all of it, you definitely can't just annex the rest of it and call it legal.

The Palaestinians, who, as Purge points out, have also inhabited the land before the creation of the modern state of Israel, can also be said to have 'made something' of the wasteland. Ok, they never acquired a piece of paper from the British government to say they 'owned it' - some imperial flunkies got that. They probably never had any decent chance to buy the land, knowing the way the British Empire conducted itself.

The laws are there to guarantee us our rights. However, they are not perfect, and when they are (ab)used to violate our rights, we should . There's also the huge question of what it means to own something. Most Palaestinians have lived all their lives on the same land (apart from those in refugee camps - and even there, you can find children who've never lived elsewhere) and consider it to be theirs - but legally, being a native isn't the same as owning the land. In that sense it is their land. In Britain, for example, if you alone care for the same land for 11 years, it is legally considered yours. The government, and, by extension, the law of the land is also responsible to the people of said land.

And Gunwounds, my house is your house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the fault of the British Empire and of the surrounding Muslim nations who claimed to back the Palestinians, but also wanted little part of them coming to *their* states.

However, Palestinians are certainly at fault for terrorist attacks towards the established and recognized State of Israel.

As for huge amounts of the population being kicked out or any type of genocide, puhlease.  Most of the 9.something million population of Palestinians lives in Israel, West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.  The next largest population lives in Jordan with 2-3 million less, with the rest being small groups of tens and hundreds of thousands in various surrounding countries (countries who have since closed their borders to Palestinians who aren't already considered citizens of their land).

Every corner of modern Israel *wasn't* owned by Jews.  That's irrelevent, because what the Jews didn't own sure as hell didn't belong to the Palestinians.  And that is despite the fact that Jews in Palestine weren't even allowed to purchase land, thus the task being taken on by wealthy American and European Jews, and donated.  Something Muslim owners had no desire to do for their suffering Palestinian brothers.  In fact, they were the ones selling the land to the Jews in the first place *because* of that very reason.  They only wanted it back after the Jews had already made it worth money and habitable again.

And it's not that they just failed to acquire a piece of paper.  The people the Jews were buying the land from were Arabs and Muslims, not Christians or other Jews.  These were owners who didn't care for the people inhabiting *their* land and thus sold it to people who could actually, you know, provide some kind of compensation for it.  The land wasn't being paid for by the Palestinian inhabitants, and it's not like they were providing crops and livestock in return for the squatting they were allowed and afforded by it's previous owners.

Thus it can't possibly, in any way or by any angle, be considered theirs or something they have rights to.  If the Jews don't deserve all of Israel just because they didn't own every square inch, then how can you possibly arrive at the conclusion that the people who didn't own any significant land deserve to?  Using basic logic doesn't it make sense that people can't own what they - or anyone on their behalf - never paid for or acquired?

And as for Jews getting favors from the British, or the Arabs being discriminated against by the British when it came to purchasing land, keep in mind that even after WWII the British blocked Holocaust refugees from going to Palestine, instead sending them to camps and back to Germany, in one case intercepting a French ship full of Jews bound for Palestine and sending it back to Europe.  Also keep in mind that when the British left the new State of Israel they left their artilerary to the Palestinians to be used against Israel.  Not to mention the fact that much of the land Jews purchased was before the British had the mandate, and when it was owned by the Ottomans and private Arab land owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private homes on public land?  How is that not an oxymoron?  The white House is not public land .. it is Government property... there's a difference.  If you dont believe me try to drive your car into Area 51.

Maybe we're using different definitions of "public land". In my book, "public land" = land owned collectively by the people of a country, who elect a government or some other administrative body to take care of it on their behalf. In a democratic country, government land is public land.

In any case the white house only "works" because the president doesnt live there his whole life. What you're proposing is the extermination of home ownership and having everyone live in mobile homes.

Uh, no. If you built a copy of the White House on some government land somewhere and the current president moved there for the rest of his life, how would that be a problem...?

You are correct that I oppose home ownership (like I oppose the ownership of all things), but that doesn't mean you can't live permanently in the same house. When you "own" something, that means you can (1) use that object, (2) prevent other people from using that object, and (3) rent or sell that object. In one phrase, you have total control over the objects you own. Abolishing ownership means abolishing such total control - nothing more, nothing less. Even with ownership abolished, individuals may still have partial control over some objects. For instance, you may have the right to deny people access to the house you live in, but not the right to sell that house.

What intrigues me is that you said that owning land doesnt give you the right to set up a government and make your own laws?  Huh?  So then our forefathers shouldnt have written a constitution?

What I mean is that just because you own your house, that doesn't mean you can declare the Independent Republic of Gunwounds, set up a border crossing at your front door, and refuse to pay taxes to the US government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Israeli resort to disproportionate force is predicated on a conception of "escalation dominance," a flawed notion that the massive force can reduce the motivation of its adversaries to attack Israeli targets. Israelis still subscribe to the notion that if a problem cannot be solved by force, it would be solved by applying greater force. The current conflict demonstrates again that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) lost its capacity to stage surgical operations. It is covering for its incompetence in managing low-intensity warfare by applying massive area bombardments of questionable strategic value, and of unquestionably huge diplomatic damage. Israeli politicians are willing participants in this self-deception.

But all these problems of military strategy pale in comparison to the fundamental weakness of Israel's foreign policy. Israel may have a well-established military policy, but it does not have a peace policy. This is why Israel so often shoots before it thinks, and why Israeli leaders so often succumb to the military establishment each time a crisis arises. If the current conflict escalates to a confrontation with Syria and Iran, it will be largely because of Israel's tendency to substitute military strategy for diplomacy.

Instead of searching for a policy that explores ways to stabilize the Middle East and offer concrete peace proposals to its enemies, Israeli leaders are busy preparing military plans for every conceivable contingency. These plans are the first to be pulled out of the drawer whenever a crisis erupts, and are often applied without proper political consideration. A military policy cannot be a permanent substitute for diplomacy. The continued subjugation of diplomacy to security considerations and the domination of the Israeli security establishment on matters of foreign policy are bound to result in the failure of both military policy and of foreign policy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flaw with that argument is the fact that Israel is reactive and if you see Israel's army going to town on someone it is because said someone attacked them.  And time and time again "said someone" is the Muslim countries surrounding them.  Israel doesn't claim to want to wipe Islam off the map like the Muslims do the Jews, they are happy to stay confined within their borders and protect themselves from the surround 57 Muslim countries who want all Jews wiped out once and for all, no exceptions.

Step 1 is understanding that the Jews and Muslims *are not* doing the same thing here.  One is a State protecting itself, the other is Muslims countries and terrorist organizations funded, provided with weapons, and harbored by said Muslim countries with the specific purpose of destroying the Jews.  I don't know how much clearer it can be when their leaders have vocally proclaimed this over and over ad nauseum.

If you can't comprehend this you have no place discussing the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flaw with that argument is the fact that Israel is reactive and if you see Israel's army going to town on someone it is because said someone attacked them.

"He started it!" is a kindergarden excuse for punching someone in the face. Both the Jews and the Muslims can make a convincing argument that the other side "started it".

Israel doesn't claim to want to wipe Islam off the map like the Muslims do the Jews, they are happy to stay confined within their borders...

I was not aware that the borders of Israel extend all the way to Beirut.

...Muslims countries and terrorist organizations...

What exactly is a "terrorist organization"? I will insist on this because the label "terrorist" seems to mean very little beyond "armed people who I do not like".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He started it!" is a kindergarden excuse for punching someone in the face. Both the Jews and the Muslims can make a convincing argument that the other side "started it".

No, they couldn't.  That's what you guys are failing to accept, this isn't a symmetric situation.  The Jews and Muslims coexisted just fine until the land the Jews owned and then some (of which Palestinians didn't own and just lived off of) was officially made a state of Israel when they wanted it *all* to be Palestine.  So instead of accepting the proposed states, they just invaded and tried to take it over, and failed miserably, and lost even more land in the process.  Don't mistake military retaliation for terrorism, they are two completely different things.  In the real world retalitation is necesssary, especially when you are one Jewish State surrounded by countries who literally want every last one of you destroyed *because* you are a Jew.

I was not aware that the borders of Israel extend all the way to Beirut.

Just because you disregarded my first statement doesn't mean I didn't make it.  Israel *will* retaliate.  They don't just go blow themselves up to take out some Muslims.  They get involved when their country or it's citizens are attacked.  It's not difficult to understand.

What exactly is a "terrorist organization"? I will insist on this because the label "terrorist" seems to mean very little beyond "armed people who I do not like".

Then maybe you need to examine your tendencies to assume based on your own biases.  These people are terrorists because they are going into the Israeli cities unprovoked and blowing citizens of the State of Israel to pieces.  Or coming into the State illegally and kidnapping citizens and/or soldiers.  Be reasonable man, what Hamas and Hezbollah are doing and what Israel is doing are worlds apart.  "Not being a state" isn't the half of it.  I know it's popular to talk about how terrorists are just armies without a state, but that isn't true whatsoever in this case.  These are people who instigate and draw Israel into conflicts with the intent on killing as many Jews as they can at a time in the process.  They are - not coincidentally - funded and provided weapons by Israel's biggest enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel navy stopped rented Canadian ships that were taking Canadians back to Cyprus to meet the prime minister several times, each taking 2 hours.

So they think the terrorists are getting on board ships with Canadians and leaving Lebanon?

Thanks for helping our people leave, Israel.

Why don't you try and kill more of our civilians

Sadly, I bet by the end of this, a ship will end up sinking in the mediteranean sea killing civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they couldn't. That's what you guys are failing to accept, this isn't a symmetric situation.
From my perspective at least, it is. Or if anything, Israel is in the wrong...

"This is my land, you die!"

"No, this is my land, you die!"

"No, this is MY land, YOU die!"

Etc. The little differences may look very important to those who either are or think they are on the inside, but to those of us who aren't involved it looks like two sides fighting over dirt and bricks.

The Jews and Muslims coexisted just fine until the land the Jews owned and then some (of which Palestinians didn't own and just lived off of) was officially made a state of Israel when they wanted it *all* to be Palestine. So instead of accepting the proposed states, they just invaded and tried to take it over, and failed miserably, and lost even more land in the process. Don't mistake military retaliation for terrorism, they are two completely different things. In the real world retalitation is necesssary, especially when you are one Jewish State surrounded by countries who literally want every last one of you destroyed *because* you are a Jew.
Then perhaps the Jewish state was rather poorly placed. Besides which, military retalitation may be different from terrorism but that doesn't automatically make it acceptable or advisable.

Also, just because some distant country told them to, they should just accept rearrangement of their own lands? I don't think so.

Just because you disregarded my first statement doesn't mean I didn't make it. Israel *will* retaliate. They don't just go blow themselves up to take out some Muslims. They get involved when their country or it's citizens are attacked.  It's not difficult to understand.
Ah, I see. So when their citizens are attacked they retaliate by invading another country and killing its civilians. And this is more acceptable how?
Then maybe you need to examine your tendencies to assume based on your own biases. These people are terrorists because they are going into the Israeli cities unprovoked and blowing citizens of the State of Israel to pieces. Or coming into the State illegally and kidnapping citizens and/or soldiers. Be reasonable man, what Hamas and Hezbollah are doing and what Israel is doing are worlds apart.
They're both killing people...
"Not being a state" isn't the half of it. I know it's popular to talk about how terrorists are just armies without a state, but that isn't true whatsoever in this case. These are people who instigate and draw Israel into conflicts with the intent on killing as many Jews as they can at a time in the process. They are - not coincidentally - funded and provided weapons by Israel's biggest enemies.
In which case perhaps Israel should aim at those enemies or the terrorist organisations themselves, rather than the country that has already expressed the desire for a ceasefire and claims to have no control over these organisations.

As I said before, I don't care which piffling moral arguments that both sides utter in their whining little voices, nor do I care who eventually wins or loses. I just think that the justifications for these actions and arguments are pathetic and I like to say so.

If I were a General of the British empire, if it still existed today, I would be inclined to treat Israel as a failed experiment. I emphasise that I'm not pro-Hamas or anti-Israel (though I am anti-Iran), I just think it was rather dim to put Israel there. "Gee, lets put this sheep in a room with lots of wolves, that's the perfect place for it!"

Riiiight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what you guys are failing to accept, this isn't a symmetric situation.  The Jews and Muslims coexisted just fine until the land the Jews owned and then some (of which Palestinians didn't own and just lived off of) was officially made a state of Israel when they wanted it *all* to be Palestine.  So instead of accepting the proposed states, they just invaded and tried to take it over, and failed miserably, and lost even more land in the process.

Yes, the Israelis say that the Palestinians got greedy and wanted more land than in the original agreement, and the Palestinians say that the Israelis had no right to declare a "Jewish state" on Palestinian land in the first place. As for ownership, keep in mind that the Israelis bought the land from the Ottomans and later the British, who were foreign oppressors that enslaved the Palestinian people and stole their land. Thus, from the Palestinian point of view, Israel is just continuing the legacy of those foreign oppressors.

I'm just trying to make you see the Palestinian point of view, so you understand where they're coming from.

Also, I dislike referring to the actions of the State of Israel as "the Jews did this" and "the Jews did that". Not all Jews are Israelis and not all Jews agree with the actions of Israel, just like not all Muslims are in Hamas or Hezbollah and not all Muslims agree with their actions.

Don't mistake military retaliation for terrorism, they are two completely different things. In the real world retalitation is necesssary, especially when you are one Jewish State surrounded by countries who literally want every last one of you destroyed *because* you are a Jew.

Only a small number of fanatics actually want that. Most Muslims, like most Jews, just want this stupid war to end. Palestinians want better living conditions and a country of their own. The leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel often play upon the fears of common people to advance their own agendas.

Just because you disregarded my first statement doesn't mean I didn't make it.  Israel *will* retaliate.  They don't just go blow themselves up to take out some Muslims.  They get involved when their country or it's citizens are attacked.  It's not difficult to understand.

You don't see anything a little unusual about launching a full-scale military invasion because the enemy captured two of your soldiers?

Then maybe you need to examine your tendencies to assume based on your own biases.  These people are terrorists because they are going into the Israeli cities unprovoked and blowing citizens of the State of Israel to pieces.

Ok, so terrorism means going into the cities of an enemy state and blowing civilians to pieces.

Ummm, but Israel has done that too, repeatedly. And so have most governments during most wars.

Or coming into the State illegally and kidnapping citizens and/or soldiers.

Again, that's what most armies do in most wars. They don't ask permission to go into enemy cities, and they certainly do take prisoners.

I'm not saying that what Hamas and Hezbollah are doing is right. I'm only saying that everyone else does it, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective at least, it is. Or if anything, Israel is in the wrong...

"This is my land, you die!"

"No, this is my land, you die!"

"No, this is MY land, YOU die!"

Etc. The little differences may look very important to those who either are or think they are on the inside, but to those of us who aren't involved it looks like two sides fighting over dirt and bricks.

So the people who actually bought and owned land are in the wrong, while the people who never owned it and were just living off Arab and Ottoman owners who specifically sold it, because the people they allowed to live on the land destroyed it without replenishing it and it was now worthless aren'?

That makes tons of sense.   ::)

Then perhaps the Jewish state was rather poorly placed. Besides which, military retalitation may be different from terrorism but that doesn't automatically make it acceptable or advisable.

Also, just because some distant country told them to, they should just accept rearrangement of their own lands? I don't think so.

If Israel didn't retaliate when they are attacked they would no longer exist.  It is completely acceptable for them to protect themselves and their state when provoked.

Ah, I see. So when their citizens are attacked they retaliate by invading another country and killing its civilians. And this is more acceptable how?

No, not "another country", *the* country that facilitated the attacks.  Israel has been telling Lebanon to reel in Hezbollah for years.  Lebanon has instead allowed them to operate in the south right on the borders of Israel despite numerous requests on Israel's part to reign them in.  Instead they've continually allowed them to use it as a strategic base to attack and carry out plots against Israel.  If Israel just allowed them to continue doing it without repercussion there would be no Israel.  Lebanon put their citizens in the line of fire.

They're both killing people...

I'm sorry your "killing is killing" logic doesn't work, and isn't logical whatsoever.  Common sense says that if you are attacked you will become extinct if you don't then protect yourself from future attacks.  Especially when the leaders of the nations funding these terrorist organizations and the organizations themselves have made clear their goal to kill every Jew in existance.

In which case perhaps Israel should aim at those enemies or the terrorist organisations themselves, rather than the country that has already expressed the desire for a ceasefire and claims to have no control over these organisations.

As I said before, I don't care which piffling moral arguments that both sides utter in their whining little voices, nor do I care who eventually wins or loses. I just think that the justifications for these actions and arguments are pathetic and I like to say so.

If I were a General of the British empire, if it still existed today, I would be inclined to treat Israel as a failed experiment. I emphasise that I'm not pro-Hamas or anti-Israel (though I am anti-Iran), I just think it was rather dim to put Israel there. "Gee, lets put this sheep in a room with lots of wolves, that's the perfect place for it!"

Riiiight.

They *are* aiming at the terrorist organizations themselves.  What part of "Lebanon has willingly housed and provided regions of their land - especially the south - to Hezbollah for years" do you not get?

You need to understand that regardless of what you think, you couldn't be more wrong in this situation.  You are so worried about "not being part of either side of the situation" that you are deluding yourself into thinking both sides are doing the same thing and trying to base it on moral arguments.  No, there is no moral argument for "kill all Jews and take their land".  Sorry.  If you were really worried about being objective you'd be able to accept that.

As for Israel being a failed experiment, or being placed there by the British Empire, again, they bought land from the Arabs and Ottomans that surrounded them.  I've never heard of wolves selling land to or living quite peacefully with their prey.  The fact is, this conflict didn't start until after Israel made the land the Arabs didn't want, and sold to them for way more than it was ever worth, habitable and beautiful again for the first time in hundreds if not 1,000+ years.  Furthermore, considering Israel has thwarted every attempt of invasion and take over attempted on them, I'd hardly call them sheep.  Considering, outside of the United States, Israel is the largest home of Israelites/Jews in the world, I'd say it's been quite sucessful.  Every country has to have the ability to defend themselves.  Unfortunately the surrounding Muslim nations want Israel as their own, so Israel has had to do more than their fair share of defending.

The fact is, this is important land to them.  It has been for 3,500-4,000 years.  Long before Muslims knew what a Jew was, let alone wanted to wipe them out, let alone before there were even Muslims to claim the land.  It must always be kept in mind that the Jews bought this land from much of the same group of people that now declares war on them for it.  It was crap land then, it's beautiful now.  It must also always be kept in mind that, despite not actually owning the land, the Palestinians WERE going to be given almost half of the entire land before they fought on the side of the invading Muslim armies in an attempt to secure more than what was allotted to them.

Your argument seems to be that it's more Israel's fault because they are the State, but also that it's Israel's fault for settling between tons of enemies.  Fact is, these Palestinians and surrounding countries made themselves Israel's enemies after the fact (when they all invaded), when they tried to invade the land and take it *all* instead of what was allotted to them.  And when it was all done they had lost even more based on their greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Israelis say that the Palestinians got greedy and wanted more land than in the original agreement, and the Palestinians say that the Israelis had no right to declare a "Jewish state" on Palestinian land in the first place. As for ownership, keep in mind that the Israelis bought the land from the Ottomans and later the British, who were foreign oppressors that enslaved the Palestinian people and stole their land. Thus, from the Palestinian point of view, Israel is just continuing the legacy of those foreign oppressors.

I'm just trying to make you see the Palestinian point of view, so you understand where they're coming from.

Also, I dislike referring to the actions of the State of Israel as "the Jews did this" and "the Jews did that". Not all Jews are Israelis and not all Jews agree with the actions of Israel, just like not all Muslims are in Hamas or Hezbollah and not all Muslims agree with their actions.

It wasn't Palestinian land, it was Arab owned and Ottoman land.  Arab Muslims selling to Jews.  In fact, it was the Jews who provided the Palestinians work and steady pay in some of the re-construction of the land they purchased.  It's a shame that the Palestinians were duped by surrounding Muslim countries who really didn't have their best interest at heart into trying to take over all the land, but the terrorist groups that claim to fight in the name of Palestine have only continued to dig their people in a hole.

I completely know and see where the Palestinians are coming from.  The thing is, they (or their leaders) chose religious brotherhood and greed over diplomacy.  And unfortunately chose to follow the lead of countries who had no interest in the Palestinian people other than securing another Muslim stronghold.  And when those countries were stonewalled where were the Palestinians left?  Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon wanted little to nothing to do with them.  While hundreds of thousands were allowed into some of these countries initially, they all ended up facing oppression under the same Muslim countries who convinced them to attempt to take the whole of Israel along with the land they were to be granted.  The same Arab league that started this back in 47-48 issued instructions barring their members from granting Palestinians and their descendants citizenship and many rights, under the guise of "avoiding dissolution of their identity and protecting their right to return to their homeland".  Which, of course, hasn't exactly worked out that way in two sense (Palestinians having rights in the lands of their brothers, and Palestinians having a larger home, which coincidentally was ruined by these same countries' decisions to invade Israel)

Only a small number of fanatics actually want that. Most Muslims, like most Jews, just want this stupid war to end. Palestinians want better living conditions and a country of their own. The leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Israel often play upon the fears of common people to advance their own agendas.

No, it's not a small number.  It isn't every single Arab or Muslim alive, but it surely is not a small number.  The evidence is in the fact that these fanatics continue to be put in power by the "regular population".  So while they supposedly don't have the same agenda, they are in no way opposed to that agenda if it means being able to steal back some of the land they lost.  Israel is nothing like the two organizations you named.  They value their citizens and do whatever it takes to protect them.  That is the exact opposite of Hezbollah and Hamas, who's sole purpose is the destruction of Jews and Israel, and will kill their soldiers and send them to blow themselves out to take out as many Jews as they can.  Israel's agenda is to protect Israel and it's people.  These people's agenda isn't about it's people, it's about it's enemies' people.

Ok, so terrorism means going into the cities of an enemy state and blowing civilians to pieces.

Ummm, but Israel has done that too, repeatedly. And so have most governments during most wars.

Going into the Israeli section of town and blowing yourself up to take out 40 Israelis is terrorism.  Again, this all goes back to the fact that there was land laid out for them, but they refused it because they believed - with the help and advice of the surrounding Muslim nations - they could just have it all.  It isn't theirs, so yes, when they go into the designated Israeli cities for the sole purpose of just killing Jews, that is terrorism.

Israel is reactive.  Responsive.  When they are attacked they will retaliate.  There is a difference between baselessly going on the attack on someone elses' State (as countries constantly do with Israel) and retaliating to said attacks for the safety of your State.  Hezbollah came into Israel illegally, killed 8 Israelis, and kidnapped two.  That was an attack by a foreign terrorist group.  They have since retaliated against Hezbollah, and since Lebanon willingly houses them they have put their citizens in harm's way when they otherwise wouldn't be.

Again, that's what most armies do in most wars. They don't ask permission to go into enemy cities, and they certainly do take prisoners.

I'm not saying that what Hamas and Hezbollah are doing is right. I'm only saying that everyone else does it, too.

This isn't a war.  No war has been declared.  Both sides have declared the other's actions "acts of war", but this is a conflict between an existing state and a group of Lebanese and Syrian terrorists, with Iranian and Syrian backing.  This is acts of terrorism against the citizens of the established and recognized State of Israel, being retaliated against with military action.

If Lebanon would clamp down on Hezbollah and rid themselves of them there wouldn't be a problem between them and Israel.  Lebanon *was* a glorious place, some parts of it considered at one time to be the France of the Middle East.  Remember that it was Palestinian forces who moved into Lebanon and fought with the inhabitants causing Syria to actually get involved on the opposing side of Palestinians, fighting them back down into the south, then eventually somehow leading to Syria and Palestinians being alligned, which then led to Palestinian and Syrian forces constantly attacking Israel from accross the border.

Hezbollah being in Lebanon in the first place is and has been a clear violation of the cease fire agreement since 1978.  They have constantly disregarded the cease fire and used that southern area to attack Israel over and over again over the last 25+ years, many times drawing the Israeli army into southern Lebanon to stop the attacks.

There is a clear difference between what the terrorist groups do and what Israel does.  I'm not just some asshole screaming "Israel can do no wrong".  I'm very conscious of the circumstances, variables, and history between all fronts, and am not just slinging shit to get a rise out of people.

It just pains me that all this information is out there, and yet people still want to try to describe this as a symmetric conflict between two sides with equal motivation.  It just isn't the case, guys.  There is a right and wrong, and when a State or country is being attacked they are going to and have every right to protect themselves and retaliate against people who have no regard for their people, and willingly use them as shields and human explosives against Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...