Israel is nothing but trouble...

[spartacus]

if israel should be handed back to its rightful owners then shouldn`t the u.s. be handed back to its rightful owners, or should the israeli`s just exterminate the palestinians, as america did with the native indians. maybe many of you need a history lesson. the palestine has always had a large jewish population. what they suffered from was a couple of thousand years of occupation and when the oportunity came to re claim their land, they took it. in essence possession is nine tenths of the law. then again why not let the italians claim it, they occupied it for a couple of hundred years, or maybe  the parthians or egypt.

[Kyuuketsuki]

so two pain in the ass in one place  :mad:

You mean to the people who legally paid for it?

IOW the Jewish people?

Kyu

[karadan]

Honestly, I'm so tired of this "holy land" crap. I don't have some big diatribe to go on. I just wanted to say that.

It's stupid and people are killing each other for no good reason. Period.

Yep. The only people living in that area whom i don't label 'fucking idiots' are the ones who have no religious affiliation whatsoever... Which i guess represents 0.00001% of the population of Palestine and Israel.

[curiosityandthecat]

Here's an "Israel vs. Palestine" For Dummies sorta thing. It's an interesting situation. Stupid, but interesting. (The link may be biased; I didn't go through it with a fine-toothed comb.)

[Kyuuketsuki]

Honestly, I'm so tired of this "holy land" crap. I don't have some big diatribe to go on. I just wanted to say that.

It's stupid and people are killing each other for no good reason. Period.

Yep. The only people living in that area whom i don't label 'fucking idiots' are the ones who have no religious affiliation whatsoever... Which i guess represents 0.00001% of the population of Palestine and Israel.

Look I know that one can argue ad nauseum about whether Israel should or should not be there but for now let's just take it as a given that they are and that they legally, by both UN mandate and purchase, own the land Israel now sits on.

Israel has a democratically elected government (yes so does Palestine) and a significant part of ANY government's role is to protect it's people from all enemies foreign and domestic so, given that (on an event by event basis), it seems to me (from my admittedly simplistic POV) that it is nearly always the Palestinian based forces who fire first, that the Palestinian-based forces nearly always break existing agreements, that the Palestinian-based forces nearly always target soft (civilian) targets and base their weaponry in soft (civilian) areas (both significant characteristics of terrorism) just out of curiosity (humour me here) ... what exactly do you expect the Israeli government to do?

It seems to me (and I know my view is simplistic, I'm no politician) that the Israeli's (who I am sure are no angels) have no other choice but to hit them and hit them really frakking hard because if they don't they are failing in a prime part of their mandate.

This is based on something I wrote a while back during another Palestine/Israeli incident):

I wonder what a government (any government) is supposed to do in situations like these ... if someone, anyone but lets say for example the English county of Cornwall (which does or has claimed it should be independent), started a terror campaign like the Palestinians, hitting almost exclusively at civilians, suicide bombings, bombings & shootings on a nearly daily basis, men, women & children getting killed or mutilated including some I know and love! This is the scenario I am outlining ... perhaps a little analogous to Palestine?

I live in democracy, that democracy is not perfect, some people do not have the same rights as others but the recognised method of dealing with such claims is to vote in a representative of a party who will move your country closer to the kind of country you want it to be and, by virtue of voting that government (even if it is not my government of choice) in I effectively enter a pact with it. The deal I make is that I agree, in broad terms, to support their actions (or at least not to oppose them in any way more than peaceful protest), to allow them to proceed for around 5 years with the policies they have outlined in their manifesto and I will even tolerate some of things I do not like provided they do not go too far.

And what do I demand in return? Amongst other things I demand that my government protects me and mine from all enemies foreign and domestic. In the event that we are attacked by a foreign power I want my government to mount a sufficiently capable force to not only defend us but to drive the bastards back to where they came, to force them (not us) to sue for peace! If the enemy is internal then I expect my government to take appropriate action to protect the lives of those I care about and protect the perceived rights of the population in general.

So, given the scenario I have outlined, what would I expect my government to do? Negotiate with them? Perhaps but not until the slaughter stops ... until then I would want them to stop the slaughter with every possible means at their disposal. Honestly I would! If that means bringing in tanks, planes, bombs, guns & soldiers then so be it! That is one of the reasons I voted my government in ... so they would protect me, my family, those I love AND uphold the principles for which our nation now stands!

Now would I want to kill children ... the answer is an emphatic no! But the question, in reality, is how far would I go to protect the lives of those I love (men, women & children) and the answer is ... I don't know, I really don't know! If my child were killed (by them) would I care? If the child of a friend whom I knew and loved almost as my own were to be killed would I care? Where does that care for the children of your own local or wider community stop? In such a situation would I care overmuch whether innocents on the other side died? Isn't that what we did when we blitzed German cities in the war? What did the US pioneers do to the children of some Indian tribes, Australians to Aborigines and the British to just about everybody? How far would you, I or anybody else go in defence of their nation?

Returning to Palestine ... we have a situation that is almost unimaginable by our standards. In Palestine we have terrorists who have decided to buck the democratic process and take action independently at those they consider to be the infidel and I am sure there are those who would argue they are freedom fighters not terrorists but I disagree. These people strike almost exclusively at soft, non-military targets, their one and only aim is to spread terror, to put the Israeli's in so much fear for their lives that they will give in to almost any demand ... ergo they ARE terrorists. In Palestine we have a government that is tasked with the duty of protecting the people who voted it into office. In Palestine we have populations that are under a state of siege, people are being killed, arguably innocent men, women & children ... dying for no other reason than they are in the wrong part (of Israel) at the wrong time and have dared to stand & not run in the face of a hate-filled enemy, dared to consider it their home!
 
Broadly speaking, I accept the concept of collateral damage in war and I would consider what's happening in Palestine to be a war. No, I don't support the killing/maiming of children if it is in any way preventable and in this case I think it almost certainly was even if it was an error of some kind (the mistake should not have happened).

However, to my knowledge, the Israeli government have backed off on a number of occasions, they have attempted to get the peace process back on track but the bombers still came. I guess what I want to ask is what is that government supposed to do?

Interestingly of course the situation has changed slightly ... before everyone used to claim Israel was guilty of state terrorism (quite possibly are still claiming that) but now there has been a shift in that a terrorist group has now been elected to government ... in Palestine and that same group, Hamas, is firing terrorist-style on Israel so we now have an actual, quite literal, case of state-terrorism. Does that change the situation ... in my view yes because not only is it the actual state of Palestine's own forces that is attacking Israel but that Government was democratically elected so in essence this is no longer a local police type action but an implicit declaration of war by one state upon another. Given that that is so I see few reasons why Israel shouldn't grind Palestine into the dust and make that little patch of desert into something useful like they have with other parts of Israel.

My view has changed since I wrote the bit in blue above but not that much ... to be honest the only real reason I can think to say Israel should stop doing what it is doing is the absolute inequality in terms of armaments but then, as one US General said when reporters commented on the superiority of US firepower in Afghanistan that the last thing they sought was equality, that they sought pure and simple to win.

Oh and BTW I don't think the Israeli's (generally) are idiots, certainly no more than any other Western nation.

Kyu

[Asmodean]

...that they are and that they legally, by both UN mandate and purchase, own the land Israel now sits on.

...Then what's the deal with the military occupation of Palestine?

[Will]

Look I know that one can argue ad nauseum about whether Israel should or should not be there but for now let's just take it as a given that they are and that they legally, by both UN mandate and purchase, own the land Israel now sits on.

I have to disagree. Israel was allowed, by the UN, certain land. They've extended well beyond that land into what was allowed to Palestine by the UN.

Please see the image linked below. The second image shows the 1947 boarders of Israel and Palestine established by the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Those were the last legally established borders. In 1967, as a result of the Six-Day War, Israel illegally* annexed the difference between the second and third image, which was deemed illegal by Security Council resolution 242. Israel was called on by the UN to withdraw from the occupied territories and return to 1947 borders. Israel ignored this.

The fourth image shows, basically, what it looks like today.
http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/albums/maps_media/lg_044x.jpg

*while under international law it's legal to annex land of an enemy in time of war, Palestine was never officially in the Six Day War. The nations involved were Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq.

[Asmodean]

I have to disagree. Israel was allowed, by the UN, certain land. They've extended well beyond that land into what was allowed to Palestine by the UN.

BING!-o

 

[wazzz]

isreal throw the Palestinian anyway in 1948 war it's not who should own the land it's a matter of people u forced them to leave just to make ur raises  and still do .

[karadan]

In short, They are all idiots. None of this crap would be happening if both sides didn't think they had a god-given right to that small spot of dirt and sand.

If they really wanted peace (something i don't think either side really wants) then they would choose each others government. That way, neither side would have a radical government at the helm proclaiming the death of anyone silly enough to have a difference of opinion - which is essentially what this is - a difference of opinion giving both sides the assumed right to kill each other.

[Kyuuketsuki]

...that they are and that they legally, by both UN mandate and purchase, own the land Israel now sits on.

...Then what's the deal with the military occupation of Palestine?

I have to disagree. Israel was allowed, by the UN, certain land. They've extended well beyond that land into what was allowed to Palestine by the UN.

Buffer zone ... not saying it's right in this day & age (certainly not to build communities in) but it is understandable given the attacks Israel has near constantly been subjected to. Why should they give the land back UNTIL they have a definite and demonstrated commitment by surrounding nations to stop the attacks and enforce peace?

BING!-o

Idealistic bunk-o

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

In short, They are all idiots. None of this crap would be happening if both sides didn't think they had a god-given right to that small spot of dirt and sand.

If they really wanted peace (something i don't think either side really wants) then they would choose each others government. That way, neither side would have a radical government at the helm proclaiming the death of anyone silly enough to have a difference of opinion - which is essentially what this is - a difference of opinion giving both sides the assumed right to kill each other.

I agree ... I think the hatred now runs so deep that it will probably never be resolved (although I once would have said that was true of Ireland).

My argument is that the Israeli's don't deserve the bad press they get as they have little choice but to do what they do and that they probably make a lot better use of the land that the Palestinians would (you only need to consider what the land was before New Israel and look at Jordan to see what it probably would have been like.

Kyu

[Will]

In short, They are all idiots. None of this crap would be happening if both sides didn't think they had a god-given right to that small spot of dirt and sand.

Honestly, at the end of the day it does boil down to this. This belief that one is entitled by god to some land is, quite simply, completely insane. It goes beyond arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old. It goes beyond showing up at my doorstep on a Saturday morning to discuss mythology. It's sick, violent madness.

If they really wanted peace (something i don't think either side really wants) then they would choose each others government. That way, neither side would have a radical government at the helm proclaiming the death of anyone silly enough to have a difference of opinion - which is essentially what this is - a difference of opinion giving both sides the assumed right to kill each other.

One of the down sides of democracy can be seen when you have a desperate population. It turns from reasonable representation to mob rule.

Buffer zone ... not saying it's right in this day & age (certainly not to build communities in) but it is understandable given the attacks Israel has near constantly been subjected to. Why should they give the land back UNTIL they have a definite and demonstrated commitment by surrounding nations to stop the attacks and enforce peace?

That's just it, there have been attacks from each side consistently for decades. It's not been attacks on Israel and then measured responses; there have been unprovoked attacks on Palestine, killing many, many people, by Israel. And even if it was just radical Palestinian extremists attacking Israel, that's not all of Palestine, just radical elements. It doesn't give a nation permission to rewrite their borders.

The US has been fighting the drug war for decades. Most of the drugs coming into the US come from Mexico. What if the US moved our border across the Rio Grande during a drug raid and then refused to move it back? Would you be surprised if Mexicans were furious with their homes being taken? I'm not excusing their behavior, but you always, always have to understand someone in order to deal with them. Israel doesn't care to understand Palestine. They (most of the Israeli government and a lot of the Israeli public) want the Palestinians out of Israel. It's not about peace, it's about finishing the job of conquering the holy land.

[Kyuuketsuki]

That's just it, there have been attacks from each side consistently for decades. It's not been attacks on Israel and then measured responses; there have been unprovoked attacks on Palestine, killing many, many people, by Israel. And even if it was just radical Palestinian extremists attacking Israel, that's not all of Palestine, just radical elements. It doesn't give a nation permission to rewrite their borders.

Though there has been violence on both side, as far as I know, the first strikes have almost exclusively been against the Israeli's (once the nation was established).  

The US has been fighting the drug war for decades. Most of the drugs coming into the US come from Mexico. What if the US moved our border across the Rio Grande during a drug raid and then refused to move it back? Would you be surprised if Mexicans were furious with their homes being taken? I'm not excusing their behavior, but you always, always have to understand someone in order to deal with them. Israel doesn't care to understand Palestine. They (most of the Israeli government and a lot of the Israeli public) want the Palestinians out of Israel. It's not about peace, it's about finishing the job of conquering the holy land.

Personally I think that's a non sequitur but broadly speaking if the problem was bad enough and the government of Mexico were doing nothing about it (or as current actually aiding and abetting the action) I'd say it was understandable just like I have with Israel.

Surely, given my stance on war and peace, you didn't expect me to side with your argument? .

Kyu

[Will]

Though there has been violence on both side, as far as I know, the first strikes have almost exclusively been against the Israeli's (once the nation was established).

That's not always the case. Take this current situation for example. Did you know that Israel broke the so called 6-month ceasefire? Back in November an Israeli raid killed 6 Palestinians, breaking the ceasefire. That set off the Hamas rockets, firing in response. Israel started this recent conflict. And this isn't the first time.