Thoughts?
Personally I'm stoked - I think it's a great step forward and I hate those fucking settlers so I'm glad to see the Israeli Government taking some action about them. Obviously it's early days yet but I hope this is a move towards more negotiation and compromise instead of violent opposition.
Gaza pull out
-
Paul Agostinelli
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: 23 Jan 2005 14:38
- Location: Rochester NY
Re: Gaza pull out
watch what you say jeremy if you want to keep your ass flame free.Jeremy wrote: ..I hate those fucking settlers..
firts things first, the majority of the "settlers" as you put it that live there were born and raised there, yes, thats right, they've lived there their whole lives.
secondly, i was in israel when ariel sharon announced for the first time that they were going to pull out of the gaza strip, not only was i in israel, i was in the auditorium listening to his speech. he got up in front of 10,000 jewish teens from all over the world, most of whom didnt speak any hebrew and greeted us and welcomed us home, in english. then he proceeded to speak to us in hebrew and when he broke from his speech, us not knowing what he was saying, cheered our heads off. well on the front page of the israeli papers the next day was a headline that announced 10,000 americans cheering sharon's announcement to pull out of the gaza strip. we were used as a political tool. sharon had come directly from the k'nesset to our event and announced it internationaly in front of me.
i didnt agree with it then, and i dont agree with it now. i dont think that building a wall around gaza was the solution to this problem, and i sure as hell dont believe that pulling out of gaza is the solution either. it is my firm belief that no matter what the israeli government does, it will eventually bite them in the ass. by pulling out of gaza they are showing weakness that will in turn promote more palestinian violence. if you give an inch, they'll want a foot.
This will not be over until every israeli has left or is dead.
i am not one to be intolerent of people, but there are those on both sides of this that irk me terribly.
now that you know that i dont side with either the israeli govt or the PLO (palestinian liberation orginization) i am moving to israel in the late fall.
~NEL~
Precisely Mos Eisley
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Hesitantly, I say that I am glad that Israel is withdrawing from Gaza.
My problem with this process lately has been the media coverage. In particular, here, the news media keeps repeating that this is the first time that Israel has ever returned captured land to the Palestinians.
Technically, the phrase is correct, but I think that the media are being deliberately misleading about this. They keep repeating that phrase without any qualifications.
The qualifications that I would have them point out is this: Israel, when directly threatened, has captured land equal to MORE THAN THREE TIMES the size of Israel itself, and the vast majority has been returned in exchange for peace from the countries that have invaded them repeatedly before, the countries that they captured the land from in response to those aggressions. I'll rephrase that: Israel has been, in a sense, FOUR TIMES as large as it is now, and has given up most of that territory by far in negotiated peace deals.
Those territories include lands returned to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Some of these territories that Israel captured during these wars (in which Israel was not the aggressor) included the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. These were not territories that had been controlled by the Palestinians. These were territories under the control of Egypt and Jordan. Had Israel never captured these territories, or had they returned them decades ago along with other captured lands, Gaza and the West Bank would still be in the hands of Egypt and Jordan respectively.
It is only a very recent circumstance that would allow Israel to hand land over to the Palestinians at all. Previously, the Palestinians were not a political entity to which land could be turned over. The Palestinians were just another mistreated ethnicity under Egyptian and Jordanian rule (Jordan is over sixty percent ethnically Palestinian, but the country is completely dominated by other ethnicities, and the Palestinians of Jordan are essentially second-class citizens who the Jordanian powers-that-be keep from revolting by channeling the hostility of those repressed people towards another country entirely: Israel). It may be cynical and in poor taste, but one could say that Israel's capturing of Egyptian and Jordanian territories was the best thing that could ever have happened to the Palestinians. It was only through Israel's capturing of these lands that the Palestinians would ever have a hope of having these lands for themselves, as they would not have been able to liberate them from the Egyptians and Jordanians themselves (countries that don't have a free press [as Israel does], that don't have any institution comparable to a supreme court [as Israel does] and who are democratic in name only [Hosnie Mubarak has been president of Egypt for over twenty years, and is grooming his son to succeed him; how very democratic...] or are an outright monarchy [Jordan is run by King Hussein {no relations to Sadam}]).
None of these things are mentioned by the news media.
My problem with this process lately has been the media coverage. In particular, here, the news media keeps repeating that this is the first time that Israel has ever returned captured land to the Palestinians.
Technically, the phrase is correct, but I think that the media are being deliberately misleading about this. They keep repeating that phrase without any qualifications.
The qualifications that I would have them point out is this: Israel, when directly threatened, has captured land equal to MORE THAN THREE TIMES the size of Israel itself, and the vast majority has been returned in exchange for peace from the countries that have invaded them repeatedly before, the countries that they captured the land from in response to those aggressions. I'll rephrase that: Israel has been, in a sense, FOUR TIMES as large as it is now, and has given up most of that territory by far in negotiated peace deals.
Those territories include lands returned to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Some of these territories that Israel captured during these wars (in which Israel was not the aggressor) included the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. These were not territories that had been controlled by the Palestinians. These were territories under the control of Egypt and Jordan. Had Israel never captured these territories, or had they returned them decades ago along with other captured lands, Gaza and the West Bank would still be in the hands of Egypt and Jordan respectively.
It is only a very recent circumstance that would allow Israel to hand land over to the Palestinians at all. Previously, the Palestinians were not a political entity to which land could be turned over. The Palestinians were just another mistreated ethnicity under Egyptian and Jordanian rule (Jordan is over sixty percent ethnically Palestinian, but the country is completely dominated by other ethnicities, and the Palestinians of Jordan are essentially second-class citizens who the Jordanian powers-that-be keep from revolting by channeling the hostility of those repressed people towards another country entirely: Israel). It may be cynical and in poor taste, but one could say that Israel's capturing of Egyptian and Jordanian territories was the best thing that could ever have happened to the Palestinians. It was only through Israel's capturing of these lands that the Palestinians would ever have a hope of having these lands for themselves, as they would not have been able to liberate them from the Egyptians and Jordanians themselves (countries that don't have a free press [as Israel does], that don't have any institution comparable to a supreme court [as Israel does] and who are democratic in name only [Hosnie Mubarak has been president of Egypt for over twenty years, and is grooming his son to succeed him; how very democratic...] or are an outright monarchy [Jordan is run by King Hussein {no relations to Sadam}]).
None of these things are mentioned by the news media.
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
This is pretty sad appeasement if you ask me.
This is disturbing for many reasons, I only have time for a few right now:
1a. The anti-Israel groups say that they want it ALL, Israel must not exist.
After the "disengagement" was dictated to the people, those same groups said that Gaza is a start, but of course, the struggle must continue until all of Israel is returned.
So Israel didn't even get an empty promise of peace this time.
It was more like:
"Give me some land ,you fucking dupe, then we are going to kill you, and take it ALL later."
1b. This ethnic cleansing of a population will be observed by Western leaders around the world.
They will take notes, so they can use similar tactics against their own citizens, if and when they choose to appease fascist, intolerant Muslims next time.
2. "Militant" groups say that the withdrawl is because of their attacks, and are planning new ones, after their victory parade into Gaza.
Perhaps they are correct in arguing that their extermination campaign of the hated Jews is a functioning success.
Many new positions to rocket and mortar the Israeli population will be available.
3. They will have control of a seaport to more easily import agents and weapons. Perhaps OPEC will even ship oil to them.
4. How do you have a separated Gaza and West Bank? Is that supposed to be a new nation? That wont work, unless you cut Israel in half, which is probably the plan for the future.
5. Those greenhouses supposedly supplied Israel with 70-something percent of their total produce. What are they going to eat now? Their diets will no doubt became more unhealthy. Perhaps they will have to slaughter more animals for food. Call PETA!!!!!!!!!!!
And a few thousand Palestinians will lose their jobs, because you can't run greenhouses to feed even one hated Jew , so they will have to close it down.
Or maybe they will have to burn it down, in order to cleanse themselves of Jewry they so hate.
6. Creating a Nazi state, where those not pure will have to be killed on site.
If a hapless Jew(or Christian) gets lost and is grabbed by a mob in the street, should he be killed immediately? Will they write a constitution with a built-in death sentence for any infidel discovered?
And will President Bush shake their hands at the signing ceremony in Washington?
-n
This is disturbing for many reasons, I only have time for a few right now:
1a. The anti-Israel groups say that they want it ALL, Israel must not exist.
After the "disengagement" was dictated to the people, those same groups said that Gaza is a start, but of course, the struggle must continue until all of Israel is returned.
So Israel didn't even get an empty promise of peace this time.
It was more like:
"Give me some land ,you fucking dupe, then we are going to kill you, and take it ALL later."
1b. This ethnic cleansing of a population will be observed by Western leaders around the world.
They will take notes, so they can use similar tactics against their own citizens, if and when they choose to appease fascist, intolerant Muslims next time.
2. "Militant" groups say that the withdrawl is because of their attacks, and are planning new ones, after their victory parade into Gaza.
Perhaps they are correct in arguing that their extermination campaign of the hated Jews is a functioning success.
Many new positions to rocket and mortar the Israeli population will be available.
3. They will have control of a seaport to more easily import agents and weapons. Perhaps OPEC will even ship oil to them.
4. How do you have a separated Gaza and West Bank? Is that supposed to be a new nation? That wont work, unless you cut Israel in half, which is probably the plan for the future.
5. Those greenhouses supposedly supplied Israel with 70-something percent of their total produce. What are they going to eat now? Their diets will no doubt became more unhealthy. Perhaps they will have to slaughter more animals for food. Call PETA!!!!!!!!!!!
And a few thousand Palestinians will lose their jobs, because you can't run greenhouses to feed even one hated Jew , so they will have to close it down.
Or maybe they will have to burn it down, in order to cleanse themselves of Jewry they so hate.
6. Creating a Nazi state, where those not pure will have to be killed on site.
If a hapless Jew(or Christian) gets lost and is grabbed by a mob in the street, should he be killed immediately? Will they write a constitution with a built-in death sentence for any infidel discovered?
And will President Bush shake their hands at the signing ceremony in Washington?
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Here are my thoughts, based from a four day layover in Jerusalem when I was on my way to Kabul.
Let them kill each other. I'm tired of us trying to mediate our way in Isreali/Palestinian politics. Sure, the Jews needed a homeland after World War II, but it didn't have to be in the heart of the Arabs, who have been bitching before hand for their sovereignty from Britain since the French and British fucked the Syrians over during the Balfour Convention during World War I. Maybe if Balfour didn't happen, the ragheads wouldn't be as pissed as they are now towards Western nations. That's my opinion, anyway. Besides, I highly doubt that the Palestinians and their Arab allys will be happy about the Gaza withdraw. They say they are, but as the saying goes: if you give them a little bit, they'll just want more. The Palestinians won't be happy until all the Isrealis are either dead or gone from Palestine and the war won't stop until then. Hey, it kinda mirrors Iraq a bit, don't it?
Let them kill each other. I'm tired of us trying to mediate our way in Isreali/Palestinian politics. Sure, the Jews needed a homeland after World War II, but it didn't have to be in the heart of the Arabs, who have been bitching before hand for their sovereignty from Britain since the French and British fucked the Syrians over during the Balfour Convention during World War I. Maybe if Balfour didn't happen, the ragheads wouldn't be as pissed as they are now towards Western nations. That's my opinion, anyway. Besides, I highly doubt that the Palestinians and their Arab allys will be happy about the Gaza withdraw. They say they are, but as the saying goes: if you give them a little bit, they'll just want more. The Palestinians won't be happy until all the Isrealis are either dead or gone from Palestine and the war won't stop until then. Hey, it kinda mirrors Iraq a bit, don't it?
Sam Mayer
"Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one!" - Homer Simpson
"Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one!" - Homer Simpson
-
Paul Agostinelli
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: 23 Jan 2005 14:38
- Location: Rochester NY
was there any point to that post at all?
why do you feel the need to say that they should just kill eachother as if the americans have anything to do with them still being alive. THE U.S. HAS NO BEARING ON THE GAZA STRIP AT THIS TIME. THE PULLOUT IS OF ISRAELI SOLDIERS AND THE DECISION TO DO SO WAS MADE BY THE K'NESSET AND WAS PROPOSED BY ARIEL SHARON.
WHERE DOES THE U.S. HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS!?
are you actually trying to convince uninformed people that the U.S. mediation has anything to do with these israeli settlers still being alive, because you are delusional if that is the case.
Get off your american high horse and consider for just one second that the U.S. isnt doing anything positive here.
~NEL~
why do you feel the need to say that they should just kill eachother as if the americans have anything to do with them still being alive. THE U.S. HAS NO BEARING ON THE GAZA STRIP AT THIS TIME. THE PULLOUT IS OF ISRAELI SOLDIERS AND THE DECISION TO DO SO WAS MADE BY THE K'NESSET AND WAS PROPOSED BY ARIEL SHARON.
WHERE DOES THE U.S. HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS!?
are you actually trying to convince uninformed people that the U.S. mediation has anything to do with these israeli settlers still being alive, because you are delusional if that is the case.Get off your american high horse and consider for just one second that the U.S. isnt doing anything positive here.
~NEL~
Precisely Mos Eisley
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
The U.S. must have played applied some pressure, though.
My father sent me an email about the word "rag-head".
This is a derogatory slur.
In order to be more politically correct in the future, Blackend, you should use the more accurate term: "sheet"-head
-n
My father sent me an email about the word "rag-head".
This is a derogatory slur.
In order to be more politically correct in the future, Blackend, you should use the more accurate term: "sheet"-head
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Outsider wrote:Hesitantly, I say that I am glad that Israel is withdrawing from Gaza.
My problem with this process lately has been the media coverage. In particular, here, the news media keeps repeating that this is the first time that Israel has ever returned captured land to the Palestinians.
Technically, the phrase is correct, but I think that the media are being deliberately misleading about this. They keep repeating that phrase without any qualifications.
The qualifications that I would have them point out is this: Israel, when directly threatened, has captured land equal to MORE THAN THREE TIMES the size of Israel itself, and the vast majority has been returned in exchange for peace from the countries that have invaded them repeatedly before, the countries that they captured the land from in response to those aggressions. I'll rephrase that: Israel has been, in a sense, FOUR TIMES as large as it is now, and has given up most of that territory by far in negotiated peace deals.
Those territories include lands returned to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Some of these territories that Israel captured during these wars (in which Israel was not the aggressor) included the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. These were not territories that had been controlled by the Palestinians. These were territories under the control of Egypt and Jordan. Had Israel never captured these territories, or had they returned them decades ago along with other captured lands, Gaza and the West Bank would still be in the hands of Egypt and Jordan respectively.
It is only a very recent circumstance that would allow Israel to hand land over to the Palestinians at all. Previously, the Palestinians were not a political entity to which land could be turned over. The Palestinians were just another mistreated ethnicity under Egyptian and Jordanian rule (Jordan is over sixty percent ethnically Palestinian, but the country is completely dominated by other ethnicities, and the Palestinians of Jordan are essentially second-class citizens who the Jordanian powers-that-be keep from revolting by channeling the hostility of those repressed people towards another country entirely: Israel). It may be cynical and in poor taste, but one could say that Israel's capturing of Egyptian and Jordanian territories was the best thing that could ever have happened to the Palestinians. It was only through Israel's capturing of these lands that the Palestinians would ever have a hope of having these lands for themselves, as they would not have been able to liberate them from the Egyptians and Jordanians themselves (countries that don't have a free press [as Israel does], that don't have any institution comparable to a supreme court [as Israel does] and who are democratic in name only [Hosnie Mubarak has been president of Egypt for over twenty years, and is grooming his son to succeed him; how very democratic...] or are an outright monarchy [Jordan is run by King Hussein {no relations to Sadam}]).
None of these things are mentioned by the news media.
There are just a few things that I want to point out. I'll make it really short, not because I want to be rude in any way, I just have to get up in 6 hours..
Lebanon never attacked Israel, I don't even think the Lebanese army ever crossed the Israeli border.
During the Lebanese civil war, Syria and Israel took advantage of the situation to enter the country, and both didn't leave after it ended in 1990.
Israel occupied a good part of the South of Lebanon and hence gave Hezbollah a reason to exist after the war. So technically, this territory was never owned by Israel, so they didn't give it back, they just left and it was only something like 5 years ago.. Syria also stayed and had a HUGE political influence, with military and secret service presence, so they kind of lead the country. They only left Lebanon a few months ago, after half of the Lebanese population went down in the streets in the city center of Beyrouth (between 1.5 and 2 million, the Lebanese population is around 3.5 million) because Syria, no doubt about that, bombed the Lebanese Prime Minister Raffiq Hariri.
Also, the big majority of the 60% of the Jordanians that are ethnically Palestinians were Palestinian refugees of the israeli/Palestinian conflict (sorry for the repetitions
). King Hussein gave them the Palestinian nationality because his country at first benefited from their presence, but they quickly started to form a state in the state, and attempted a 'coup' (not sure if that means what I meant, they attempted to take over the country) against the Jordan regime. Following that, King Hussein killed tens of thousands of Palestinians that were in Jordan.And by the way, King Hussein died a few years ago, and Jordan is now run by his son King Abdallah. And freedom of speech in Jordan is not that bad now compared to before, it is improving really fast, same thing for the man/woman equity. I'm not saying it is comparable to western countries, but everything is relative, and a lot of arabic dictatorships should take exemple from them.
Serge Kaldany
75 Adds - Paris
75 Adds - Paris
And by the way, I'm not taking part on either side, I'm just stating facts.
I also want to add that the Lebanese civil war started because of the Palestinian refugees that were also forming a state in the state in Lebanon. Even now, there still are Palestinian camps in Lebanon who have armed forces and who don't let the Lebanese authorities in.
I also want to add that the Lebanese civil war started because of the Palestinian refugees that were also forming a state in the state in Lebanon. Even now, there still are Palestinian camps in Lebanon who have armed forces and who don't let the Lebanese authorities in.
Serge Kaldany
75 Adds - Paris
75 Adds - Paris
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Sergio said:
BBC.CO.UK says:Lebanon never attacked Israel, I don't even think the Lebanese army ever crossed the Israeli border.
Israel did not invade Lebanon to take advantage of the Lebanese civil war, Israel invaded Lebanon because Lebanon was sheltering the PLO, a terrorist organization responsible for murdering Jews in Israel, Europe, and on the Mediterranean sea. The PLO was based in Beirut, and Israel invaded to drive them out. Afterwards, the Hezbollah regularly attacked Israeli towns and farms from southern Lebanon with rockets and mortars launched from southern Lebanon, so the Israeli army invaded again, captured and held a twenty mile wide strip of land primarily to create a buffer zone, a margin of territory greater than the range of Hezbollah rockets, so that they could not fire at will on civilians in northern Israel.The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel but were repulsed, and the Israeli army crushed pockets of resistance.
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
My bad about Lebanon never crossing the Israeli border, I thought the war in 1948 was just before the proclamation of Israel.
And Israel didn't 'take advantage' of the Lebanese civil war, bad choice of words. Saying that Lebanon was sheltering the PLO is also a bad choice of words from your part (if you meant Lebanon as a state, not as a geographical territory). The war started because of the Palestinian refugees. At that time, in Lebanon, there were a bit more christians than muslims, and the arrival of many Palestinian refugees started to make the balance go the other way (furthermore than the fact that they were trying to overtake some of the regions). That created tensions, and that's how the civil war started. The south of Lebanon is a muslim region, so that's where most of the Palestinians and the PLO members were. The PLO members that were in Beirut were there to fight the Lebanese christian militias because that's where most of the civil war battles took part. The chief of the Lebanese army, Michel Aoun, even was christian. I don't recall if the army officially chose a side in the conflict, but they did at least unofficially, and it was against the 'muslim side'. So Lebanon didn't really shelter the PLO.
I'm not saying the 'christian' Lebanese don't hate the Israelis and have nothing against them, they do and that disgusts me in a way ; but it goes both sides, the Israeli army regularly airstriked some strategic points (usually power plants) in Lebanon, even in christian residential regions, and even after they retrieved from the south of Lebanon.
I hate generalizing and talking about christian/muslim sides, but that's how people there thought/think..
And Israel didn't 'take advantage' of the Lebanese civil war, bad choice of words. Saying that Lebanon was sheltering the PLO is also a bad choice of words from your part (if you meant Lebanon as a state, not as a geographical territory). The war started because of the Palestinian refugees. At that time, in Lebanon, there were a bit more christians than muslims, and the arrival of many Palestinian refugees started to make the balance go the other way (furthermore than the fact that they were trying to overtake some of the regions). That created tensions, and that's how the civil war started. The south of Lebanon is a muslim region, so that's where most of the Palestinians and the PLO members were. The PLO members that were in Beirut were there to fight the Lebanese christian militias because that's where most of the civil war battles took part. The chief of the Lebanese army, Michel Aoun, even was christian. I don't recall if the army officially chose a side in the conflict, but they did at least unofficially, and it was against the 'muslim side'. So Lebanon didn't really shelter the PLO.
I'm not saying the 'christian' Lebanese don't hate the Israelis and have nothing against them, they do and that disgusts me in a way ; but it goes both sides, the Israeli army regularly airstriked some strategic points (usually power plants) in Lebanon, even in christian residential regions, and even after they retrieved from the south of Lebanon.
I hate generalizing and talking about christian/muslim sides, but that's how people there thought/think..
Serge Kaldany
75 Adds - Paris
75 Adds - Paris
Also, may be you'll prove me wrong, but I don't think they invaded 'again', they stayed during the whole time after the war.Outsider wrote: Afterwards, the Hezbollah regularly attacked Israeli towns and farms from southern Lebanon with rockets and mortars launched from southern Lebanon, so the Israeli army invaded again
Serge Kaldany
75 Adds - Paris
75 Adds - Paris
You yanks really do hate muslims, I seriously doubt you even know a muslim person. How can you hate someone you don't know? Naming Arabs "ragheads" is the same as calling all Americans "fat fuckers" You probably say raghead to a palestinian-like Arab, but if you see a wealthy Saudi prince, then you think of him as a honorable man who takes care of your SUV.
If decisions on how to run Israel and Palestine were left to normal people, and not religious fanatics, both sides would probably live in peace and could lead a normal life.
If decisions on how to run Israel and Palestine were left to normal people, and not religious fanatics, both sides would probably live in peace and could lead a normal life.
I guess in order to be consistant I should start calling Arabs "rag heads" then 
Good post Paulista - welcome to the forum too. Good start!
I agree with Paulista on that. The problem with the Israel situtation is how hardline people are - probably caused by a lifetime of fighting and oppression. It's very hard to compromise with people who have killed your friends and family. I'm not sure that religious conviction plays as big a part as is made out. I mean I'm sure many people believe God gave them the land etc. but I also think that if there wasn't the violent past they would be much more likely to compromise. Instead both sides are always on the back foot. Even people who aren't part of the country are still always defending the side they agree with - just look at the posts in this topic.
I guess I've become much more moderate on this issue and issues like this. The fact is that both sides have committed some horrible crimes and really the leaders of both sides should face the ICC. The same defence Jon talks about with Lebennon was used to justify a massacre of refugees of between 700 and 3.500. Admitadly some of them may have been PLO members but many were also woman and children.
I now believe that defending either side is pointless. Yes there are reasons why things happen. Nothing ever happens without reasoning. The people involved in this fight both think they are right. Both sides may have good arguements. However they both fail at achieving peace. Neither side can control what the other side does and their efforts at this only lead to more violence, more hate and a longer and bloodier conflict. The solution is to do what Sharon is now maybe doing - what the Palestinian leadership has been trying to do. To stop the violence on their side - to do the right thing on their side. If you're in a fight with somebody and they punch you - well that's your fault - it takes two to tango. If you walk away and they still punch you - well that's a different matter entirely and I would like to think the international community would see that difference.
When you look at the way similar conflicts have ended in the past - it's been through non violent methods.
I say don't support violence at all. Israel are doing horrible and unjustifiable things - and have been for decades. Palestine have been doing horrible and unjustifiable things. The countries around have done horrible and unjustifiable things. To side with any side is to say that you support those actions in some situtations. I can't support that. The innocent lives that have been lost in Sabra, in Jenin, in Jerusalem and through out the area are crimes against humanity - not against one race or another - but are people killing people. Innoncence is relative. We all think we're right and that the other people are wrong. If we don't understand that point we'll never achieve peace in the world.
Good post Paulista - welcome to the forum too. Good start!
I agree with Paulista on that. The problem with the Israel situtation is how hardline people are - probably caused by a lifetime of fighting and oppression. It's very hard to compromise with people who have killed your friends and family. I'm not sure that religious conviction plays as big a part as is made out. I mean I'm sure many people believe God gave them the land etc. but I also think that if there wasn't the violent past they would be much more likely to compromise. Instead both sides are always on the back foot. Even people who aren't part of the country are still always defending the side they agree with - just look at the posts in this topic.
I guess I've become much more moderate on this issue and issues like this. The fact is that both sides have committed some horrible crimes and really the leaders of both sides should face the ICC. The same defence Jon talks about with Lebennon was used to justify a massacre of refugees of between 700 and 3.500. Admitadly some of them may have been PLO members but many were also woman and children.
I now believe that defending either side is pointless. Yes there are reasons why things happen. Nothing ever happens without reasoning. The people involved in this fight both think they are right. Both sides may have good arguements. However they both fail at achieving peace. Neither side can control what the other side does and their efforts at this only lead to more violence, more hate and a longer and bloodier conflict. The solution is to do what Sharon is now maybe doing - what the Palestinian leadership has been trying to do. To stop the violence on their side - to do the right thing on their side. If you're in a fight with somebody and they punch you - well that's your fault - it takes two to tango. If you walk away and they still punch you - well that's a different matter entirely and I would like to think the international community would see that difference.
When you look at the way similar conflicts have ended in the past - it's been through non violent methods.
I say don't support violence at all. Israel are doing horrible and unjustifiable things - and have been for decades. Palestine have been doing horrible and unjustifiable things. The countries around have done horrible and unjustifiable things. To side with any side is to say that you support those actions in some situtations. I can't support that. The innocent lives that have been lost in Sabra, in Jenin, in Jerusalem and through out the area are crimes against humanity - not against one race or another - but are people killing people. Innoncence is relative. We all think we're right and that the other people are wrong. If we don't understand that point we'll never achieve peace in the world.
-
dragonhack
- Atomsmashasaurus Dex
- Posts: 787
- Joined: 05 Feb 2004 16:41
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
WORST POST EVERYou yanks really do hate muslims, I seriously doubt you even know a muslim person. How can you hate someone you don't know? Naming Arabs "ragheads" is the same as calling all Americans "fat fuckers" You probably say raghead to a palestinian-like Arab, but if you see a wealthy Saudi prince, then you think of him as a honorable man who takes care of your SUV.
If decisions on how to run Israel and Palestine were left to normal people, and not religious fanatics, both sides would probably live in peace and could lead a normal life.
2 out of 3 got it, not that bad
Sergio is from France, so he lives among something like 5 million muslims (correct me if wrong) he went to school with some of then, has muslim neighbours, coworkers, probably friends, etc...
He knows them and doesn't hate them
Average American has a friend's friend who thinks he once met a guy who could be Arab, but isn't sure if he's not from Samoa
But hates Arabs more than anything
Sergio is from France, so he lives among something like 5 million muslims (correct me if wrong) he went to school with some of then, has muslim neighbours, coworkers, probably friends, etc...
He knows them and doesn't hate them
Average American has a friend's friend who thinks he once met a guy who could be Arab, but isn't sure if he's not from Samoa
But hates Arabs more than anything