How can you ever say that Israel is an innocent victim if it is occupying palestinian territory as defined in various UN resolutions? How can you ever say that Israel is an innocent victim if it is building a wall on palestinian territory, not only creating a new (and illegal) border, but also disrupting palestinian economy and social life? How can you say Israel is an innocent victim if more palestinians than israelis have been killed throughout the years? How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if Sharon simply rejects any attempts at peace? How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if it has encouraged to build colonies on enemy territory? How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if it has never supported a plan for peace that had any chance of success? How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if it started the six day war? How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if it has been found wihout the consent of the original inhabitants on their ground?
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Nov 4 2003, 09:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Nov 4 2003, 09:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you ever say that Israel is an innocent victim if it is occupying palestinian territory as defined in various UN resolutions? How can you ever say that Israel is an innocent victim if it is building a wall on palestinian territory, not only creating a new (and illegal) border, but also disrupting palestinian economy and social life? How can you say Israel is an innocent victim if more palestinians than israelis have been killed throughout the years? How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if Sharon simply rejects any attempts at peace? How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if it has encouraged to build colonies on enemy territory? How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if it has never supported a plan for peace that had any chance of success? How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if it started the six day war? How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if it has been found wihout the consent of the original inhabitants on their ground?
Come on, you know better than that <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No... The Palestinians were given the chance to have their own nation. They didn't take it. Instead they, along with various neighboring nations, attacked Israel. The land that you say Israel now occupies was taken during those various wars. So Israel actually has that land justly now. They have actually given back A LOT of the land they captured during those wars ( which I must remind you they did not start ).... In hopes of obtaining peace.
Also... The land you considered occupied was given back to the Palestinians to rule as they wish... But with expectations that militants would be stopped. That has not happened... So the Palestinians have not lived up to their side of the bargain. So once again... Israel moves out to protect itself ( you know... because staying in one place and letting your enemy control vasts swathes of land unchallenged is such a smart move ).
No one has said Israel is an innocent victim... All that has been said thus far is that the burden of providing peace rests solely in the hands of the Palestinians. Israel has tried to make peace time and again... Yet the Palestinians cannot live up to their end of the bargain. Israel has supported numerous plans for peace... Except for the removal of the Israeli state and its people. Other than that... They are the ones giving the biggest concessions.
OMG... I just finished reading your post and you are obviously so misinformed its sad. Israel started the 6 day war? Are you kidding me?!? Go back to world history. Original inhabitants? There were many Jews living in what is now known as Israel ( and the surrounding areas ). When Israel was formed, it was a British mandate... Israel was formed for there to be a homeland for the Jews... A similar homeland was envisioned for the Palestinians... But they refused to accept that. The Jews lived in this area just like the Palestinains... Neither side had political power ( the British did ). Both sides were given the chance to create a new nation... Only the Jews took the offer. The Palestinians and surrounding Arab nations then proceeded to start war after war after war with the Israelis... Read that again... The Israelis DID NOT START ANY OF THESE WARS!
It's not just Israel who wants peace. The majority of Palestinians also want peace. However, on both sides there are extremists who continue to perpetuate the cycle of violence and revenge. Both sides are pretty much fed up with the fighting, but both sides also have strong "hawkish" elemants who advocate further fighting and bloodshed.
In truth it doesn't matter who started the whole thing. The situation is that one side attacks, claiming they are seeking revenge for the previous attack made against them. The other side retaliates, claiming revenge for the attack that just occured. This just keeps on going. Neither side will accept that they started the whole cycle. The fact is that both sides are probably to blame for the whole thing starting up: The Jews (or Zionists) insisted on a Jewish state in Palestine and the Arabs objected to what they believed was a hostile take over of their land (which it was).
Israel isn't as lily white as people make it out to be. Whilst Israel talks big about peace, they keep building fortress settlements inside Palestinian cities and settlements. Imagine if, during the Cold War, a group of Soviet communists had moved into New York and built themselves a whole compound surrounded by concrete walls and patrolled by snipers and gunmen. I think people in New York would be pretty **** off. Plus there are the water issues. Israel consistantly regulates water consumption and flow throughout the whole Palestinian region, giving it's own citizens far more water, and of a higher quality, than the Palestinians are allowed. Water is a very touchy subject, and Israel hasn't done anything to win friends with regards to it's water policies.
Finally there's Israel's reaction to attacks. Quite often, Israel goes way over the top. They invade with masses of tanks and bulldozers, demolish houses, shoot civilians and arrest terror "suspects". This is something that really pushes people into siding with the Palestinians. Simply because Israel seems to be applying far too much force. I for one have never seen the wisdom is bulldozing a terror suspects' house. Because hey, if he didn't have a reason to hate you before, he sure as hell has a reason to hate you now. Sending tanks into a refugee camp is something that plays really badly on the 6.00pm news. With good reason; images of frightened children throwing rocks at an armoured monster evoke powerful sentiments throughout the globe. Recall the world's reaction to Israel dropping a one ton bomb on an apartment block to kill one guy, and then casually saying "Oh, we regret the collateral damage".
Israel believes it is justified in it's reaction to these attacks. Much the same way that the US believes it was justified in attacking Iraq. In both cases, the rest of the world tends to disagree. That doesn't stop either nation from doing exactly what they please, as both have the force and clout to enforce their will.
Neither side is innocent in this whole messy conflict. I do not for one moment imply that all Palestinians want peace, nor do I imply that all Israelis want war. On both sides though, the average, ordinary Joe Citizen just wants to get on with his life. It is the extremists, both in Israel and in Palestine, who cause the cycle to go on.
EDIT: Urza, whilst I agree with much of your post, this part <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if it started the six day war?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> is a little bit groundless. Yes, Israel did start the war itself but the surrounding Arab nations were going to attack. That is absolutly unquestionable. So in that respect, Israel was justified in defending itself.
See Ryo... I agree that neither side is innocent. It would be extremely foolish to make that statement.
However... With the peace processes that have occured... The Israelis are not the ones to stop the peace process in its tracks. You cannot expect the Israelis to just agree to a ceasefire and then have militants keep attacking and Israel do nothing...
Many of the Palestinians most likely do want peace... But they need to stop expecting no retaliation from Israel after these suicide bombings. Israel may use alot of force in comparison to a regular police action... But this is not a regular police action. They are actually going into hostile territory. So its not unexpected that they'll use a lot of force in such a circumstance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No... The Palestinians were given the chance to have their own nation. They didn't take it. Instead they, along with various neighboring nations, attacked Israel. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, kind of. Let's say tomorrow, ten million kurds arrive in the US, and say: "Heya folks, we want to create our own state here, but you may have a state of your own too, so that's kind of fair." How would you react?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The land that you say Israel now occupies was taken during those various wars. So Israel actually has that land justly now. They have actually given back A LOT of the land they captured during those wars ( which I must remind you they did not start ).... In hopes of obtaining peace.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does gaining land in war make it legitimately make it your land?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also... The land you considered occupied was given back to the Palestinians to rule as they wish... But with expectations that militants would be stopped. That has not happened... So the Palestinians have not lived up to their side of the bargain. So once again... Israel moves out to protect itself ( you know... because staying in one place and letting your enemy control vasts swathes of land unchallenged is such a smart move ).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Palestine State did not (and Israel knew this very well) have the capacity to effectively control their land and root out terrorist organizations. Especially not when Israel started bombing state buildings.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No one has said Israel is an innocent victim... All that has been said thus far is that the burden of providing peace rests solely in the hands of the Palestinians. Israel has tried to make peace time and again... Yet the Palestinians cannot live up to their end of the bargain. Israel has supported numerous plans for peace... Except for the removal of the Israeli state and its people. Other than that... They are the ones giving the biggest concessions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The palestines do not have many concessions to give. It does not have an army, nor does it control any israeli land. Palestines also tried to make peace (I mean like, who did the israeli negotiate with when making peace?). As pointed out above, the palestines did not have the capacity to root out the islamic jihad and stuff like that. On vbarious occasions, however, Israel decided to end the peace process (for example the Wye treaty)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OMG... I just finished reading your post and you are obviously so misinformed its sad. Israel started the 6 day war? Are you kidding me?!? Go back to world history.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they did. And no flaming, please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Original inhabitants? There were many Jews living in what is now known as Israel ( and the surrounding areas ).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was the jewish population a majority i, let's say, 1900? By far not. Did I say Israel was void of jews? No.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> When Israel was formed, it was a British mandate... Israel was formed for there to be a homeland for the Jews... A similar homeland was envisioned for the Palestinians... But they refused to accept that. The Jews lived in this area just like the Palestinains... Neither side had political power ( the British did ). Both sides were given the chance to create a new nation... Only the Jews took the offer. The Palestinians and surrounding Arab nations then proceeded to start war after war after war with the Israelis... Read that again... The Israelis DID NOT START ANY OF THESE WARS!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are justy repeating yourself. Jews did have political power in a great interest group to push the Uk into creating a jewish state.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Go back to school. You're too misinformed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OMG... I just finished reading your post and you are obviously so misinformed its sad. Israel started the 6 day war? Are you kidding me?!? Go back to world history. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would ask you, sir, to kindly return to your history books. The war was started by Israel. They struck first; indeed they managed to strike so successfully that the war was ended in less than a week.
Now your point may be that Israel was reacting to a definite threat. This is correct; the nations surrounding Israel were going to attack. Israel was able to achieve much of it's victories in that war by attacking the concentrations of troops and aircraft that were poised to attack.
However, despite the fact that Israel was going to be attacked, it must be said that it was Israel who fired the first shots. So if you are going to make a comment such as the one I have quoted, please back it up as I have done here.
Since when does taking land in war not make it yours? That is the grim reality of war. You're not going to fight a war... Win... And then give back all the land that you captured from the aggressors. Its stupid to even think such a thing.
The 6th day war... Did Israel start it? No. Did Israel do the first strike? You betcha. So how does this mean Israel didn't start it? Well lets look at the facts... The 6th day war started on June 5. For less than a month before that Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon ( these are the regular armies... There were irregular Palestinian Arab soldiers as well. ) amassed troops along the Israeli border. And I don't just mean a usual number of troops for protection... I mean just 20 days before June 5th three Egyptian Army Divisions along with 600 tanks. Egypt tells the UN to get out of Israel ( the UN had instituted a buffer zone between Israel and Egypt ). Syria increases border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights ( along with mobilizing it troops ). Egypt also did a naval blockade of the Tiran Straights. With each of these nations amassing troops along Israel's borders, Egypt and Jordan sign a mutual defense pact. Then Egypt and Iraq. Israel had no choice but to mobilize its forces ( ~80% of which were civilian reservists. Which caused a virtual economic standstill within Israel. ). So instead of waiting for the Arab forces to attack ( which with all the rhetoric and proclamations made... It was imminent. ).... Israel did the first strike.
It would be extremely stupid for Israel not to have attacked first. The civilian deaths that would have occurred had they waited would have been enormous. After the 6 day war Israel captured the Sinai peninsula, eastern Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip ( the Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt between 1972 and 1982 as part of a peace treaty with Egypt ). What Israel did is considered anticipatory self-defense... Israel did not start the fight. They finished it before it could go any further.
The Yom Kippur War almost cost Israel its existence. The major reason was because the Israeli intelligence didn't predict the actual attack... The other is because the current government decided not to exercise anticipatory self-defense.
The Palestinians can develop the capacity to self-govern. They do not have a standing army ( who said it did? ), but it does have a "police" force ( one which has been known to perpetrate attacks against Israel ). The Palestinians tried to make peace? Please! Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize for his attempts to make peace. Which is utterly rediculous. He has more influence over the terrorists than people lead themselves to believe. He's just a terrorrist with a suit on. Then we have the the Palestinian government... And the PM... Who tried to start a peace process with Israel... succeeded to a certain extent, but could go no further because Arafat would not give him the power to ( i.e. stop the militants ). The Palestinians never live up to their ends of the bargains... They make a futile gesture here and there... but they never do it. The Wye Accord was nothing more than a rehasing of Oslo 1 & 2. Except it gave the Palestinians more land for things they were supposed to do in the previous agreements. Israel has the right to end a peace process that is not creating peace.
Israel was created in 1948... Not 1900 ( FYI that's almost 50 years ), in which time a number of things had occured ( primarily WWI, WWII & the Holocaust ). Hundreds of thousands ( millions ? ) of Jews had imigrated to the British mandate during this time. The Palestinians had political influence just like the Jews. Who had more? That's more a matter of opinion. The facts however are that both groups were given the option of creating their own state. The Jews accepted the offer... The Palestinians rejected it. If it seems I am rehasing this... It's probably because it has not sunk in yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since when does taking land in war not make it yours? That is the grim reality of war. You're not going to fight a war... Win... And then give back all the land that you captured from the aggressors. Its stupid to even think such a thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is totally illegitimate. Borders are (or should be) defined by whether the population wants to hand over its power to the regime (the social contract thought). Basically, everyone agrees that a population should be able to choose their own government. Annexing land is undemocratic and against human rights.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 6th day war... Did Israel start it? No. Did Israel do the first strike? You betcha. So how does this mean Israel didn't start it? Well lets look at the facts... The 6th day war started on June 5. For less than a month before that Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon ( these are the regular armies... There were irregular Palestinian Arab soldiers as well. ) amassed troops along the Israeli border. And I don't just mean a usual number of troops for protection... I mean just 20 days before June 5th three Egyptian Army Divisions along with 600 tanks. Egypt tells the UN to get out of Israel ( the UN had instituted a buffer zone between Israel and Egypt ). Syria increases border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights ( along with mobilizing it troops ). Egypt also did a naval blockade of the Tiran Straights. With each of these nations amassing troops along Israel's borders, Egypt and Jordan sign a mutual defense pact. Then Egypt and Iraq. Israel had no choice but to mobilize its forces ( ~80% of which were civilian reservists. Which caused a virtual economic standstill within Israel. ). So instead of waiting for the Arab forces to attack ( which with all the rhetoric and proclamations made... It was imminent. ).... Israel did the first strike.
It would be extremely stupid for Israel not to have attacked first. The civilian deaths that would have occurred had they waited would have been enormous. After the 6 day war Israel captured the Sinai peninsula, eastern Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip ( the Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt between 1972 and 1982 as part of a peace treaty with Egypt ). What Israel did is considered anticipatory self-defense... Israel did not start the fight. They finished it before it could go any further.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pre-emptive strike, is your argument. There were other options for Israel, however, like calling the US for assistence, or a mutual militairy treaty. Israel surely would not have been attacked if Egypt knew it to be backed by the US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Yom Kippur War almost cost Israel its existence. The major reason was because the Israeli intelligence didn't predict the actual attack... The other is because the current government decided not to exercise anticipatory self-defense.
The Palestinians can develop the capacity to self-govern. They do not have a standing army ( who said it did? ), but it does have a "police" force ( one which has been known to perpetrate attacks against Israel ). The Palestinians tried to make peace? Please! Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize for his attempts to make peace. Which is utterly rediculous. He has more influence over the terrorists than people lead themselves to believe. He's just a terrorrist with a suit on.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The police force does not have the capacity to stop the Hamas, nor the popular support to stop Hamas. And please, use arguments, not just say "oo Arafat is a big fat meanie!11"
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then we have the the Palestinian government... And the PM... Who tried to start a peace process with Israel... succeeded to a certain extent, but could go no further because Arafat would not give him the power to ( i.e. stop the militants ). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, Arafat IS kind of a selfcentred autocrat. But I never have said otherwise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Palestinians never live up to their ends of the bargains... They make a futile gesture here and there... but they never do it. The Wye Accord was nothing more than a rehasing of Oslo 1 & 2. Except it gave the Palestinians more land for things they were supposed to do in the previous agreements. Israel has the right to end a peace process that is not creating peace.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who decides whether it leads to peace? Israel? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Israel was created in 1948... Not 1900 ( FYI that's almost 50 years ), in which time a number of things had occured ( primarily WWI, WWII & the Holocaust ). Hundreds of thousands ( millions ? ) of Jews had imigrated to the British mandate during this time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said that Israel was created in 1900. The palestinians never had any influence about the influx of jews.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Palestinians had political influence just like the Jews. Who had more? That's more a matter of opinion. The facts however are that both groups were given the option of creating their own state. The Jews accepted the offer... The Palestinians rejected it. If it seems I am rehasing this... It's probably because it has not sunk in yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Balfour Declaration, 1917, was clearly heavily influenced by the zionist lobby: During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). After discussions in the British Cabinet, and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision was made known in the form of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist aims by a Great Power.
Palestinians could have had their own state, but it would leave out great portions of the palestinian people. Accepting the creation of a new state equals the acceptance of its borders. No wonder they did not accept.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Balfour Declaration, 1917, was clearly heavily influenced by the zionist lobby: During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). After discussions in the British Cabinet, and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision was made known in the form of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist aims by a Great Power.
Palestinians could have had their own state, but it would leave out great portions of the palestinian people. Accepting the creation of a new state equals the acceptance of its borders. No wonder they did not accept.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just something to add to this. In exchange for the right to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, Zionists promised Britain that they would deliver the U.S. to the allied side to help win the war. Both sides kept their promise. Unfortunately, Britain had already promised the same land to the Palestinians so that they could have their own independent country. Britain made this promise to the Palestinians long before the Zionist deal. The U.N. got involved in 1947 when Britain decided the problem they had created had no workable solution and turned it over. One can easily speculate that had the Zionists not even been involved, and had the Allies still won without needing to make the deal, we would today have a Palestine run by Palestinians instead of Israel run by Israelis.
In war land is not annexed... Land captured in war is completely legit. Especially if you were not the one to start the war.
Calling the US was a possibility... But at the time, the US was committed to a diplomatic solution ( yes, every now and then that does occur here ). But unfortunately, it could not get the support it needed. Besides... Should Israel get the US to help it all the time? And Egypt was not the only nation preparing to attack Israel. Saying they would not have attacked if the US was there with military support is a nice easy way to say that Israel had no right to defend itself... But its an argument that has no grounding whatsoever. There is no reason to believe Israel would not have been attacked... Especially after the massive miltary buildups.
In regards to the Palestinian police force.... They can stop Hamas... Or at least start the process. It wouldn't happen over night of course. It would take time... But first you'd have to make sure the police force itself was not helping the militants... Saying they can't do it because of popular support for the militants brings the question of whether the Palestinians want peace or not... Arafat is a terrorist... There's plenty of history to back that up... Why should we assume he's not a terrorist any more when so many around him are still considered thus? Or better yet... Have been caught as such ( e.g. smuggling arms )?
If Israel continues to be attacked with suicide bombers..... Where is the peace? Why do they not have the right to defend themselves? Why should they continue with a peace process that is not working?
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 5 2003, 02:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 5 2003, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just something to add to this. In exchange for the right to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, Zionists promised Britain that they would deliver the U.S. to the allied side to help win the war. Both sides kept their promise. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And here I was thinking it was the attacking of US ships that helped bring the US into the war... Or even the possibility of Germany helping Mexico retake parts of Texas and Arizona... SILLY ME!
The Zionists have never had that much influence over American policy.
IMO, when facing an imminent attack, a spoiling attack (aka pre-emptive strike) is perfectly justifiable.
On the other hand, attacking people over and over and then using the "Well they're a threat, so this is a pre-emptive attack" excuse each time isn't.
In the case of Israel, IMO they were justified in attacking first. This does not mean they started the war; the bottom line is they would not have attacked if the surrounding countries didn't mobilize. Just as they aren't attacking egypt right now. If egypt builds up it's forces on the border tomorrow, I wouldn't be surprised if they get nailed.
Call the US? First of all, any real military support would take months to arrive. Israel doesn't have that kind of time. Pre-emptive attacking killed two birds with one stone. First, it turned the tables on the aggressors. Second, destroying much of the attacking forces means they are crippled for the time being and cannot build up to the same level any time in the near future. Meaning the threat of egypt attacking in the immediate future lessened.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 5 2003, 02:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 5 2003, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Both sides kept their promise. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please tell me how the zionists "delivered" us to the allied cause.
[quote]In war land is not annexed... Land captured in war is completely legit. Especially if you were not the one to start the war.[/quote]
Give me one reason why it is legit
[quote]Calling the US was a possibility... But at the time, the US was committed to a diplomatic solution ( yes, every now and then that does occur here ). But unfortunately, it could not get the support it needed. Besides... Should Israel get the US to help it all the time? And Egypt was not the only nation preparing to attack Israel. Saying they would not have attacked if the US was there with military support is a nice easy way to say that Israel had no right to defend itself... But its an argument that has no grounding whatsoever. There is no reason to believe Israel would not have been attacked... Especially after the massive miltary buildups.[/quote]
There would be no reason to assume that, except when there would be a fundamental change in the power balance. The UN would also have been an option, but the system of decisionmaking is kind of ... slow.
[quote] In regards to the Palestinian police force.... They can stop Hamas... Or at least start the process. It wouldn't happen over night of course. It would take time... But first you'd have to make sure the police force itself was not helping the militants... Saying they can't do it because of popular support for the militants brings the question of whether the Palestinians want peace or not... [/quote]
Hamas is more than a terrorist organisation; it also funds schools and hospitals. Starting the process to eradicate the Hamas without being able to start with a decisive blow would only lead to further destabilisation of palestine, and maybe an all out civil war between the authority and the terrorist organisations.
[quote] Arafat is a terrorist... There's plenty of history to back that up... Why should we assume he's not a terrorist any more when so many around him are still considered thus? Or better yet... Have been caught as such ( e.g. smuggling arms )?[/quote]
Twerrorism does not mean smuggling arms. If you do that, you're a smuggler. Not a terrorist. Yea, Arafat might have been a terrorist once, but there is absolutetly no proof that he still is.
[quote] If Israel continues to be attacked with suicide bombers..... Where is the peace? Why do they not have the right to defend themselves? Why should they continue with a peace process that is not working?[/quote]
The right to defend yourself as a state only goes as far as your own territory (unless you are attacked by another state, or a state gives you explicit consent to enforce your law on another states territory. If Palestine continues to be occupied.... Where is the peac? Why do they not have the right to defend themselve Why should theycontinue with a peace process that is not working? [/quote]
Its legit... because... it... is... war.... Israel controlled those lands after winning a war. Thus they belonged to Israel. That is the way war works. If you're the losing side... Expect to lose something. Its really that simple.
There is far less reason to assume US intervention would have protected Israel. Especially since that would have taken more time than Israel had ( had it not attacked ).
Man... a civil war between the Palestinian government and the terrorrist organizations would be a bad thing.... Except that the Palestinian government has a far better chance of stopping the terrorrists than the Isrealis. The Palestinian government must do something. If it were to do something then it could actually get support from other nations ( including Israel ) in support of its fight.
Terrorrism involves multiple layers of works. You have to get the supplies to commit terrorrist acts first. Smuggling supplies for terrorrist acts makes one just as much of a terrorrist.
It is extremely easy to assume Arafat is still a terrorrist. Its similar to Al Capone... In the end, he could not be arrested for any of the things he was known to have ordered be done ( or provided support for them to be done ), in the end he was arrested on tax evasion charges ( unfortunately this last part doesn't apply to Arafat ). At the very least Arafat is guilty by association. He is surrounded by those who support the militants... It's not hard to assume that he supports the militants as well.
How does Israel not have the right to defend itself? It is being attacked within its borders and without by the terrorrists. If Israel did not occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip the terrorrists would just all go into Israel itself. Its much better to have them remaind outside Israel than to always look inside. Israel is defending itself. If the Palestinians would live up to their end of any of these peace treaties or accords... Then the Israelis would remove themselves. After each treaty, the Israelis start the process... Only to move back in again when the suicide bombings continue.
<!--QuoteBegin--Josiah Bartlet+Nov 4 2003, 05:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Nov 4 2003, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its a shame that a debate about the European view on Israel has turned into Israel vs Palestine, I was quite looking forward to defending European views. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree. Get this back on topic right now people, and go start some other topic about how you hate/love/are ambivilant over Israel. I am getting pretty irritated with a lot of your manners and disregard for polite posting etiqutte. Some forum accounts are about to not have posting rights in Discussions if it does not do a 180 real quick.
1) Israel is isolationist - Its a nation founded out of conflict and religious device. As a nation founded on a religious basis, by its nature it semi-excludes "non-believers". Also, whilst people can be Jewish, and not Israeli, its very rare for Israelis not to be Jewish. 2) Most Europeans will have contact with Jewish people, but not Israelis. Israelis are AFAIK much more likely to visit the USA, their economic, political and military prop. Europeans therefore have little knowledge of what makes Israelis tick. 3) The predominant media images we have of Israel are of a technologically superior nation indescriminantly raining munitions on neighbours (I know theres a bit more to it than that). 4) The holocaust. I accept it happened. I know it was very wrong. I don't believe that the way to prevent it happening again is to become like your aggressors. I also don't think its correct to use is as a justification for every act the rest of the world finds unpalatable.
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Nov 6 2003, 04:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Nov 6 2003, 04:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> See MonsE's post above.
I was answering the question originally posted. If you want to argue about Zionist consipracies, start a new thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wasn't talking directly to you, but all forum goers. English needs to replace 'you-in-plural' with something else <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Maybe we can turn this around a bit with a followup question: what nations or people's do YOU consider the biggest threats to world peace? This poll was fundamentally flawed if only because the biggest threats are not always countries - Al Quaeda, Palestinian suicide bombers, Indonesian extremists, etc. answer to no government, but they are undeniably threats to civilization. What is on your list?
Mine would be some of the above naturally. I'd add in the usual national suspects like North Korea as well. I might have to add Russia pretty soon, considering their behavior in Chechnya, combined with their somewhat malevolent treatment of the YUKOS president lately (apparently due mostly to a personal dislike between Putin and him), as well as the problems of former soviet nuclear and chemical weapons being mishandled and possibly blackmarketted.
It depends how you want to look at it. Do you mean nations that cause most hassle and are constantly in conflicts or nations that are potential threat to world peace(but haven't necessary done anything lately)?
If the former: I hate to say this but USA and Isreal <b>are</b> constantly doing some weird shizzle, not always their fault though. Locally and all over the world. As for people, those more and less faceless terrorist organisations.
If the latter: Still the Monses list of bombers/terrorists, Israel, Iran/Iraq/Syria, N-Korea, USA/UK(though UK doesn't work without US), Russia(things are going pretty bad here, I think I'll start a thread about it), China.
In no specific order. I threw in some nuke-owning and generally restless nations.This is how I see it: -Big nations are often in small conflicts, because they can afford it. The possibility of larger wars between dominating countries is(hopefully) very small. -Small nations generally have much more civil unrest but those don't pose a threat to world peace. They try to avoid armed conflicts with other nations in fear of retribution from above(mainly US, shut up monse <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->). However once they start a war, they will throw in everything they've got. Even nukes.
As you can see, Israel/USA are both on my list. The reason is that even if USA has good intentions, someday it will try to defuse a bomb, it will blow up when it would have been better to let the timer run. Israel(and palistine, I'm not blaming one side, palistine isn't just a nation), well, constant civil war can't be good. It will get really ugly sooner or later. Worst case scenario: Palestine raidicals obtain a nuke and use it because they want to revenge some especially bloody Israels punishment strike -> fuxored up mid-east.
Remember; we are talking about world peace. Not about a country possibly kicking a little bit some small neighbour nation.
Certainly an organization, which is all Al Qaeda is (I see where you're going - now take us there <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> )
I certainly will. Threats to world peace come in the form of destabilizing , not so much a physical threat. The reason Hitler was such a problem was he was completely destabilizing Europe. First world countries run on a very refined infrastructure and things must run smoothly otherwise an entire country can implode on itself, say if the US somehow lost the power to import and export goods for a month we'd probably be a 2nd or 3rd world country in a matter of years.
So a threat to the world can very much come from an unconventional source, such as an organization of people with similar beliefs, a country is a very vague term these days because all countries are broken up into factions and can have radical differences in beliefs in the ruling government, so they are limited in what they can do, dictators are less limited but yet have to understand that their power comes from their country and any radial action will lead to either their deaths, or them being overthrown, hardline rulers are even less limited since they often defy convention and their own greater good for a cause, but the least defined most effective threat is an organization because their sole purpose is to achieve a goal.
Al Qaeda is certainly one of these organizations but instead of economic terror they focus on ideology change and attacking a countries foundations, now this may seem less of a threat then trying to take over a country's ports and crippling its economy, but it is just as much of a problem. If Al Queda were successful and they completely destroyed American culture it would be near impossible for the country to function efficiently, if beliefs and cultures changed radically state to state it really wouldn't be possible to provide any kind of national demand for anything, much less a national budget, or an efficient way to get trading done...say California, Nevada, and Washington decided technology was evil and closed all sea ports. All that being said the reason Israel is frowned upon is that its current administration is being greatly influenced by an organization that wants to destroy Islamic culture, and not just the fundamentalists like they want you to believe, the problem is unlike Al Qaeda, Israel has a lot more clout.
Now on to who I think the biggest threat to world peace is. OPEC for those of you who don't know is in charge of most of the worlds energy supply, and is in every sense of the word a legal monopoly, my problem is that they are by my own definition an organization, probably the most powerful one on Earth, with all the capabilities to commit economical terrorism. It is very likely to be run by like minded people since they are a business and when it comes to money everyone is like minded, and they have more clout than probably Israel and the EU put together. So here you have an organization with no real political ties, no one to answer to, and no threats to their stability with one of the biggest influence over global economy in an age where fossil fuels are becoming more and more scarce, what limits would such an organization go to perceive its own existence?
And the best part - only two of the eleven OPEC nations are run by democratically elected officials. And (gasp!) neither one is in the mideast (Indonesia and Venezuela). What a shock!!!
I think OPEC pretty much takes the cake. Hell, what happens after we move to fuel cells? Not only are all of those nations going to be very, very poor, but the destabilization of those nations WILL cause untold ammouts of death in the form of civil war as rebels attempt to overthrow the panicing government.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All that being said the reason Israel is frowned upon is that its current administration is being greatly influenced by an organization that wants to destroy Islamic culture, and not just the fundamentalists like they want you to believe, the problem is unlike Al Qaeda, Israel has a lot more clout. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just going to play devil's advocate here, it's been a long time since I got to argue about anything that I didn't actually believe to be truth. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Israel, in wanting to destroy Islamic culture within their own borders, is doing the only thing that is truely acceptable to ensure their survival. I have absolutely no doubt that the majority of Muslim peoples living in and around Israel are peace-loving people. However, all it takes is one man in the right place with 20 pounds of C4 strapped to his chest to take out hundreds of others, and the literacy level is so low in places like the middle east that it is very, very easy for someone to be convinced to do something like that for the good name of the faith. Allowing even small remenants of Islamic culture to prosper inside a nation bordered by hostile nations with possible strong affiliation with people who will easily become scared and desperate at the slightest hint of a holy war. Israel is simply doing what it needs to do to destroy threats to Her people, and the safest way to do that is to destroy islamic culture outright.
Comments
Come on, you know better than that
Come on, you know better than that <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No... The Palestinians were given the chance to have their own nation. They didn't take it. Instead they, along with various neighboring nations, attacked Israel. The land that you say Israel now occupies was taken during those various wars. So Israel actually has that land justly now. They have actually given back A LOT of the land they captured during those wars ( which I must remind you they did not start ).... In hopes of obtaining peace.
Also... The land you considered occupied was given back to the Palestinians to rule as they wish... But with expectations that militants would be stopped. That has not happened... So the Palestinians have not lived up to their side of the bargain. So once again... Israel moves out to protect itself ( you know... because staying in one place and letting your enemy control vasts swathes of land unchallenged is such a smart move ).
No one has said Israel is an innocent victim... All that has been said thus far is that the burden of providing peace rests solely in the hands of the Palestinians. Israel has tried to make peace time and again... Yet the Palestinians cannot live up to their end of the bargain. Israel has supported numerous plans for peace... Except for the removal of the Israeli state and its people. Other than that... They are the ones giving the biggest concessions.
OMG... I just finished reading your post and you are obviously so misinformed its sad. Israel started the 6 day war? Are you kidding me?!? Go back to world history. Original inhabitants? There were many Jews living in what is now known as Israel ( and the surrounding areas ). When Israel was formed, it was a British mandate... Israel was formed for there to be a homeland for the Jews... A similar homeland was envisioned for the Palestinians... But they refused to accept that. The Jews lived in this area just like the Palestinains... Neither side had political power ( the British did ). Both sides were given the chance to create a new nation... Only the Jews took the offer. The Palestinians and surrounding Arab nations then proceeded to start war after war after war with the Israelis... Read that again... The Israelis DID NOT START ANY OF THESE WARS!
Go back to school. You're too misinformed.
In truth it doesn't matter who started the whole thing. The situation is that one side attacks, claiming they are seeking revenge for the previous attack made against them. The other side retaliates, claiming revenge for the attack that just occured. This just keeps on going. Neither side will accept that they started the whole cycle. The fact is that both sides are probably to blame for the whole thing starting up: The Jews (or Zionists) insisted on a Jewish state in Palestine and the Arabs objected to what they believed was a hostile take over of their land (which it was).
Israel isn't as lily white as people make it out to be. Whilst Israel talks big about peace, they keep building fortress settlements inside Palestinian cities and settlements. Imagine if, during the Cold War, a group of Soviet communists had moved into New York and built themselves a whole compound surrounded by concrete walls and patrolled by snipers and gunmen. I think people in New York would be pretty **** off. Plus there are the water issues. Israel consistantly regulates water consumption and flow throughout the whole Palestinian region, giving it's own citizens far more water, and of a higher quality, than the Palestinians are allowed. Water is a very touchy subject, and Israel hasn't done anything to win friends with regards to it's water policies.
Finally there's Israel's reaction to attacks. Quite often, Israel goes way over the top. They invade with masses of tanks and bulldozers, demolish houses, shoot civilians and arrest terror "suspects". This is something that really pushes people into siding with the Palestinians. Simply because Israel seems to be applying far too much force. I for one have never seen the wisdom is bulldozing a terror suspects' house. Because hey, if he didn't have a reason to hate you before, he sure as hell has a reason to hate you now. Sending tanks into a refugee camp is something that plays really badly on the 6.00pm news. With good reason; images of frightened children throwing rocks at an armoured monster evoke powerful sentiments throughout the globe. Recall the world's reaction to Israel dropping a one ton bomb on an apartment block to kill one guy, and then casually saying "Oh, we regret the collateral damage".
Israel believes it is justified in it's reaction to these attacks. Much the same way that the US believes it was justified in attacking Iraq. In both cases, the rest of the world tends to disagree. That doesn't stop either nation from doing exactly what they please, as both have the force and clout to enforce their will.
Neither side is innocent in this whole messy conflict. I do not for one moment imply that all Palestinians want peace, nor do I imply that all Israelis want war. On both sides though, the average, ordinary Joe Citizen just wants to get on with his life. It is the extremists, both in Israel and in Palestine, who cause the cycle to go on.
EDIT: Urza, whilst I agree with much of your post, this part <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can you say that Israel is an innocent victim if it started the six day war?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> is a little bit groundless. Yes, Israel did start the war itself but the surrounding Arab nations were going to attack. That is absolutly unquestionable. So in that respect, Israel was justified in defending itself.
However... With the peace processes that have occured... The Israelis are not the ones to stop the peace process in its tracks. You cannot expect the Israelis to just agree to a ceasefire and then have militants keep attacking and Israel do nothing...
Many of the Palestinians most likely do want peace... But they need to stop expecting no retaliation from Israel after these suicide bombings. Israel may use alot of force in comparison to a regular police action... But this is not a regular police action. They are actually going into hostile territory. So its not unexpected that they'll use a lot of force in such a circumstance.
True, kind of. Let's say tomorrow, ten million kurds arrive in the US, and say: "Heya folks, we want to create our own state here, but you may have a state of your own too, so that's kind of fair." How would you react?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The land that you say Israel now occupies was taken during those various wars. So Israel actually has that land justly now. They have actually given back A LOT of the land they captured during those wars ( which I must remind you they did not start ).... In hopes of obtaining peace.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does gaining land in war make it legitimately make it your land?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also... The land you considered occupied was given back to the Palestinians to rule as they wish... But with expectations that militants would be stopped. That has not happened... So the Palestinians have not lived up to their side of the bargain. So once again... Israel moves out to protect itself ( you know... because staying in one place and letting your enemy control vasts swathes of land unchallenged is such a smart move ).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Palestine State did not (and Israel knew this very well) have the capacity to effectively control their land and root out terrorist organizations. Especially not when Israel started bombing state buildings.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No one has said Israel is an innocent victim... All that has been said thus far is that the burden of providing peace rests solely in the hands of the Palestinians. Israel has tried to make peace time and again... Yet the Palestinians cannot live up to their end of the bargain. Israel has supported numerous plans for peace... Except for the removal of the Israeli state and its people. Other than that... They are the ones giving the biggest concessions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The palestines do not have many concessions to give. It does not have an army, nor does it control any israeli land. Palestines also tried to make peace (I mean like, who did the israeli negotiate with when making peace?). As pointed out above, the palestines did not have the capacity to root out the islamic jihad and stuff like that. On vbarious occasions, however, Israel decided to end the peace process (for example the Wye treaty)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OMG... I just finished reading your post and you are obviously so misinformed its sad. Israel started the 6 day war? Are you kidding me?!? Go back to world history.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they did. And no flaming, please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Original inhabitants? There were many Jews living in what is now known as Israel ( and the surrounding areas ).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was the jewish population a majority i, let's say, 1900? By far not. Did I say Israel was void of jews? No.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> When Israel was formed, it was a British mandate... Israel was formed for there to be a homeland for the Jews... A similar homeland was envisioned for the Palestinians... But they refused to accept that. The Jews lived in this area just like the Palestinains... Neither side had political power ( the British did ). Both sides were given the chance to create a new nation... Only the Jews took the offer. The Palestinians and surrounding Arab nations then proceeded to start war after war after war with the Israelis... Read that again... The Israelis DID NOT START ANY OF THESE WARS!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are justy repeating yourself. Jews did have political power in a great interest group to push the Uk into creating a jewish state.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Go back to school. You're too misinformed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*flames back*
I would ask you, sir, to kindly return to your history books. The war was started by Israel. They struck first; indeed they managed to strike so successfully that the war was ended in less than a week.
Now your point may be that Israel was reacting to a definite threat. This is correct; the nations surrounding Israel were going to attack. Israel was able to achieve much of it's victories in that war by attacking the concentrations of troops and aircraft that were poised to attack.
However, despite the fact that Israel was going to be attacked, it must be said that it was Israel who fired the first shots. So if you are going to make a comment such as the one I have quoted, please back it up as I have done here.
The 6th day war... Did Israel start it? No. Did Israel do the first strike? You betcha. So how does this mean Israel didn't start it? Well lets look at the facts... The 6th day war started on June 5. For less than a month before that Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon ( these are the regular armies... There were irregular Palestinian Arab soldiers as well. ) amassed troops along the Israeli border. And I don't just mean a usual number of troops for protection... I mean just 20 days before June 5th three Egyptian Army Divisions along with 600 tanks. Egypt tells the UN to get out of Israel ( the UN had instituted a buffer zone between Israel and Egypt ). Syria increases border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights ( along with mobilizing it troops ). Egypt also did a naval blockade of the Tiran Straights. With each of these nations amassing troops along Israel's borders, Egypt and Jordan sign a mutual defense pact. Then Egypt and Iraq. Israel had no choice but to mobilize its forces ( ~80% of which were civilian reservists. Which caused a virtual economic standstill within Israel. ). So instead of waiting for the Arab forces to attack ( which with all the rhetoric and proclamations made... It was imminent. ).... Israel did the first strike.
It would be extremely stupid for Israel not to have attacked first. The civilian deaths that would have occurred had they waited would have been enormous. After the 6 day war Israel captured the Sinai peninsula, eastern Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip ( the Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt between 1972 and 1982 as part of a peace treaty with Egypt ). What Israel did is considered anticipatory self-defense... Israel did not start the fight. They finished it before it could go any further.
The Yom Kippur War almost cost Israel its existence. The major reason was because the Israeli intelligence didn't predict the actual attack... The other is because the current government decided not to exercise anticipatory self-defense.
The Palestinians can develop the capacity to self-govern. They do not have a standing army ( who said it did? ), but it does have a "police" force ( one which has been known to perpetrate attacks against Israel ). The Palestinians tried to make peace? Please! Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize for his attempts to make peace. Which is utterly rediculous. He has more influence over the terrorists than people lead themselves to believe. He's just a terrorrist with a suit on. Then we have the the Palestinian government... And the PM... Who tried to start a peace process with Israel... succeeded to a certain extent, but could go no further because Arafat would not give him the power to ( i.e. stop the militants ). The Palestinians never live up to their ends of the bargains... They make a futile gesture here and there... but they never do it. The Wye Accord was nothing more than a rehasing of Oslo 1 & 2. Except it gave the Palestinians more land for things they were supposed to do in the previous agreements. Israel has the right to end a peace process that is not creating peace.
Israel was created in 1948... Not 1900 ( FYI that's almost 50 years ), in which time a number of things had occured ( primarily WWI, WWII & the Holocaust ). Hundreds of thousands ( millions ? ) of Jews had imigrated to the British mandate during this time. The Palestinians had political influence just like the Jews. Who had more? That's more a matter of opinion. The facts however are that both groups were given the option of creating their own state. The Jews accepted the offer... The Palestinians rejected it. If it seems I am rehasing this... It's probably because it has not sunk in yet.
It is totally illegitimate. Borders are (or should be) defined by whether the population wants to hand over its power to the regime (the social contract thought). Basically, everyone agrees that a population should be able to choose their own government. Annexing land is undemocratic and against human rights.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 6th day war... Did Israel start it? No. Did Israel do the first strike? You betcha. So how does this mean Israel didn't start it? Well lets look at the facts... The 6th day war started on June 5. For less than a month before that Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon ( these are the regular armies... There were irregular Palestinian Arab soldiers as well. ) amassed troops along the Israeli border. And I don't just mean a usual number of troops for protection... I mean just 20 days before June 5th three Egyptian Army Divisions along with 600 tanks. Egypt tells the UN to get out of Israel ( the UN had instituted a buffer zone between Israel and Egypt ). Syria increases border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights ( along with mobilizing it troops ). Egypt also did a naval blockade of the Tiran Straights. With each of these nations amassing troops along Israel's borders, Egypt and Jordan sign a mutual defense pact. Then Egypt and Iraq. Israel had no choice but to mobilize its forces ( ~80% of which were civilian reservists. Which caused a virtual economic standstill within Israel. ). So instead of waiting for the Arab forces to attack ( which with all the rhetoric and proclamations made... It was imminent. ).... Israel did the first strike.
It would be extremely stupid for Israel not to have attacked first. The civilian deaths that would have occurred had they waited would have been enormous. After the 6 day war Israel captured the Sinai peninsula, eastern Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip ( the Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt between 1972 and 1982 as part of a peace treaty with Egypt ). What Israel did is considered anticipatory self-defense... Israel did not start the fight. They finished it before it could go any further.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pre-emptive strike, is your argument. There were other options for Israel, however, like calling the US for assistence, or a mutual militairy treaty. Israel surely would not have been attacked if Egypt knew it to be backed by the US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Yom Kippur War almost cost Israel its existence. The major reason was because the Israeli intelligence didn't predict the actual attack... The other is because the current government decided not to exercise anticipatory self-defense.
The Palestinians can develop the capacity to self-govern. They do not have a standing army ( who said it did? ), but it does have a "police" force ( one which has been known to perpetrate attacks against Israel ). The Palestinians tried to make peace? Please! Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize for his attempts to make peace. Which is utterly rediculous. He has more influence over the terrorists than people lead themselves to believe. He's just a terrorrist with a suit on.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The police force does not have the capacity to stop the Hamas, nor the popular support to stop Hamas. And please, use arguments, not just say "oo Arafat is a big fat meanie!11"
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then we have the the Palestinian government... And the PM... Who tried to start a peace process with Israel... succeeded to a certain extent, but could go no further because Arafat would not give him the power to ( i.e. stop the militants ). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, Arafat IS kind of a selfcentred autocrat. But I never have said otherwise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Palestinians never live up to their ends of the bargains... They make a futile gesture here and there... but they never do it. The Wye Accord was nothing more than a rehasing of Oslo 1 & 2. Except it gave the Palestinians more land for things they were supposed to do in the previous agreements. Israel has the right to end a peace process that is not creating peace.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who decides whether it leads to peace? Israel? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Israel was created in 1948... Not 1900 ( FYI that's almost 50 years ), in which time a number of things had occured ( primarily WWI, WWII & the Holocaust ). Hundreds of thousands ( millions ? ) of Jews had imigrated to the British mandate during this time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said that Israel was created in 1900. The palestinians never had any influence about the influx of jews.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Palestinians had political influence just like the Jews. Who had more? That's more a matter of opinion. The facts however are that both groups were given the option of creating their own state. The Jews accepted the offer... The Palestinians rejected it. If it seems I am rehasing this... It's probably because it has not sunk in yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Balfour Declaration, 1917, was clearly heavily influenced by the zionist lobby:
During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). After discussions in the British Cabinet, and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision was made known in the form of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist aims by a Great Power.
Palestinians could have had their own state, but it would leave out great portions of the palestinian people. Accepting the creation of a new state equals the acceptance of its borders. No wonder they did not accept.
During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). After discussions in the British Cabinet, and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision was made known in the form of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist aims by a Great Power.
Palestinians could have had their own state, but it would leave out great portions of the palestinian people. Accepting the creation of a new state equals the acceptance of its borders. No wonder they did not accept.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just something to add to this. In exchange for the right to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, Zionists promised Britain that they would deliver the U.S. to the allied side to help win the war. Both sides kept their promise. Unfortunately, Britain had already promised the same land to the Palestinians so that they could have their own independent country. Britain made this promise to the Palestinians long before the Zionist deal. The U.N. got involved in 1947 when Britain decided the problem they had created had no workable solution and turned it over. One can easily speculate that had the Zionists not even been involved, and had the Allies still won without needing to make the deal, we would today have a Palestine run by Palestinians instead of Israel run by Israelis.
Calling the US was a possibility... But at the time, the US was committed to a diplomatic solution ( yes, every now and then that does occur here ). But unfortunately, it could not get the support it needed. Besides... Should Israel get the US to help it all the time? And Egypt was not the only nation preparing to attack Israel. Saying they would not have attacked if the US was there with military support is a nice easy way to say that Israel had no right to defend itself... But its an argument that has no grounding whatsoever. There is no reason to believe Israel would not have been attacked... Especially after the massive miltary buildups.
In regards to the Palestinian police force.... They can stop Hamas... Or at least start the process. It wouldn't happen over night of course. It would take time... But first you'd have to make sure the police force itself was not helping the militants... Saying they can't do it because of popular support for the militants brings the question of whether the Palestinians want peace or not... Arafat is a terrorist... There's plenty of history to back that up... Why should we assume he's not a terrorist any more when so many around him are still considered thus? Or better yet... Have been caught as such ( e.g. smuggling arms )?
If Israel continues to be attacked with suicide bombers..... Where is the peace? Why do they not have the right to defend themselves? Why should they continue with a peace process that is not working?
And here I was thinking it was the attacking of US ships that helped bring the US into the war... Or even the possibility of Germany helping Mexico retake parts of Texas and Arizona... SILLY ME!
The Zionists have never had that much influence over American policy.
On the other hand, attacking people over and over and then using the "Well they're a threat, so this is a pre-emptive attack" excuse each time isn't.
In the case of Israel, IMO they were justified in attacking first. This does not mean they started the war; the bottom line is they would not have attacked if the surrounding countries didn't mobilize. Just as they aren't attacking egypt right now. If egypt builds up it's forces on the border tomorrow, I wouldn't be surprised if they get nailed.
Call the US? First of all, any real military support would take months to arrive. Israel doesn't have that kind of time. Pre-emptive attacking killed two birds with one stone. First, it turned the tables on the aggressors. Second, destroying much of the attacking forces means they are crippled for the time being and cannot build up to the same level any time in the near future. Meaning the threat of egypt attacking in the immediate future lessened.
Please tell me how the zionists "delivered" us to the allied cause.
Give me one reason why it is legit
[quote]Calling the US was a possibility... But at the time, the US was committed to a diplomatic solution ( yes, every now and then that does occur here ). But unfortunately, it could not get the support it needed. Besides... Should Israel get the US to help it all the time? And Egypt was not the only nation preparing to attack Israel. Saying they would not have attacked if the US was there with military support is a nice easy way to say that Israel had no right to defend itself... But its an argument that has no grounding whatsoever. There is no reason to believe Israel would not have been attacked... Especially after the massive miltary buildups.[/quote]
There would be no reason to assume that, except when there would be a fundamental change in the power balance. The UN would also have been an option, but the system of decisionmaking is kind of ... slow.
[quote]
In regards to the Palestinian police force.... They can stop Hamas... Or at least start the process. It wouldn't happen over night of course. It would take time... But first you'd have to make sure the police force itself was not helping the militants... Saying they can't do it because of popular support for the militants brings the question of whether the Palestinians want peace or not... [/quote]
Hamas is more than a terrorist organisation; it also funds schools and hospitals. Starting the process to eradicate the Hamas without being able to start with a decisive blow would only lead to further destabilisation of palestine, and maybe an all out civil war between the authority and the terrorist organisations.
[quote] Arafat is a terrorist... There's plenty of history to back that up... Why should we assume he's not a terrorist any more when so many around him are still considered thus? Or better yet... Have been caught as such ( e.g. smuggling arms )?[/quote]
Twerrorism does not mean smuggling arms. If you do that, you're a smuggler. Not a terrorist. Yea, Arafat might have been a terrorist once, but there is absolutetly no proof that he still is.
[quote]
If Israel continues to be attacked with suicide bombers..... Where is the peace? Why do they not have the right to defend themselves? Why should they continue with a peace process that is not working?[/quote]
The right to defend yourself as a state only goes as far as your own territory (unless you are attacked by another state, or a state gives you explicit consent to enforce your law on another states territory.
If Palestine continues to be occupied.... Where is the peac? Why do they not have the right to defend themselve Why should theycontinue with a peace process that is not working? [/quote]
Cant get the quotes right... sorry...
There is far less reason to assume US intervention would have protected Israel. Especially since that would have taken more time than Israel had ( had it not attacked ).
Man... a civil war between the Palestinian government and the terrorrist organizations would be a bad thing.... Except that the Palestinian government has a far better chance of stopping the terrorrists than the Isrealis. The Palestinian government must do something. If it were to do something then it could actually get support from other nations ( including Israel ) in support of its fight.
Terrorrism involves multiple layers of works. You have to get the supplies to commit terrorrist acts first. Smuggling supplies for terrorrist acts makes one just as much of a terrorrist.
It is extremely easy to assume Arafat is still a terrorrist. Its similar to Al Capone... In the end, he could not be arrested for any of the things he was known to have ordered be done ( or provided support for them to be done ), in the end he was arrested on tax evasion charges ( unfortunately this last part doesn't apply to Arafat ). At the very least Arafat is guilty by association. He is surrounded by those who support the militants... It's not hard to assume that he supports the militants as well.
How does Israel not have the right to defend itself? It is being attacked within its borders and without by the terrorrists. If Israel did not occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip the terrorrists would just all go into Israel itself. Its much better to have them remaind outside Israel than to always look inside. Israel is defending itself. If the Palestinians would live up to their end of any of these peace treaties or accords... Then the Israelis would remove themselves. After each treaty, the Israelis start the process... Only to move back in again when the suicide bombings continue.
I agree. Get this back on topic right now people, and go start some other topic about how you hate/love/are ambivilant over Israel. I am getting pretty irritated with a lot of your manners and disregard for polite posting etiqutte. Some forum accounts are about to not have posting rights in Discussions if it does not do a 180 real quick.
I'd guess it is for the following reasons:
1) Israel is isolationist - Its a nation founded out of conflict and religious device. As a nation founded on a religious basis, by its nature it semi-excludes "non-believers". Also, whilst people can be Jewish, and not Israeli, its very rare for Israelis not to be Jewish.
2) Most Europeans will have contact with Jewish people, but not Israelis. Israelis are AFAIK much more likely to visit the USA, their economic, political and military prop. Europeans therefore have little knowledge of what makes Israelis tick.
3) The predominant media images we have of Israel are of a technologically superior nation indescriminantly raining munitions on neighbours (I know theres a bit more to it than that).
4) The holocaust. I accept it happened. I know it was very wrong. I don't believe that the way to prevent it happening again is to become like your aggressors. I also don't think its correct to use is as a justification for every act the rest of the world finds unpalatable.
I could be wrong, however.
I was answering the question originally posted. If you want to argue about Zionist consipracies, start a new thread.
I was answering the question originally posted. If you want to argue about Zionist consipracies, start a new thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't talking directly to you, but all forum goers. English needs to replace 'you-in-plural' with something else <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Mine would be some of the above naturally. I'd add in the usual national suspects like North Korea as well. I might have to add Russia pretty soon, considering their behavior in Chechnya, combined with their somewhat malevolent treatment of the YUKOS president lately (apparently due mostly to a personal dislike between Putin and him), as well as the problems of former soviet nuclear and chemical weapons being mishandled and possibly blackmarketted.
If the former: I hate to say this but USA and Isreal <b>are</b> constantly doing some weird shizzle, not always their fault though. Locally and all over the world. As for people, those more and less faceless terrorist organisations.
If the latter: Still the Monses list of bombers/terrorists, Israel, Iran/Iraq/Syria, N-Korea, USA/UK(though UK doesn't work without US), Russia(things are going pretty bad here, I think I'll start a thread about it), China.
In no specific order. I threw in some nuke-owning and generally restless nations.This is how I see it:
-Big nations are often in small conflicts, because they can afford it. The possibility of larger wars between dominating countries is(hopefully) very small.
-Small nations generally have much more civil unrest but those don't pose a threat to world peace. They try to avoid armed conflicts with other nations in fear of retribution from above(mainly US, shut up monse <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->). However once they start a war, they will throw in everything they've got. Even nukes.
As you can see, Israel/USA are both on my list. The reason is that even if USA has good intentions, someday it will try to defuse a bomb, it will blow up when it would have been better to let the timer run. Israel(and palistine, I'm not blaming one side, palistine isn't just a nation), well, constant civil war can't be good. It will get really ugly sooner or later. Worst case scenario: Palestine raidicals obtain a nuke and use it because they want to revenge some especially bloody Israels punishment strike -> fuxored up mid-east.
Remember; we are talking about world peace. Not about a country possibly kicking a little bit some small neighbour nation.
So a threat to the world can very much come from an unconventional source, such as an organization of people with similar beliefs, a country is a very vague term these days because all countries are broken up into factions and can have radical differences in beliefs in the ruling government, so they are limited in what they can do, dictators are less limited but yet have to understand that their power comes from their country and any radial action will lead to either their deaths, or them being overthrown, hardline rulers are even less limited since they often defy convention and their own greater good for a cause, but the least defined most effective threat is an organization because their sole purpose is to achieve a goal.
Al Qaeda is certainly one of these organizations but instead of economic terror they focus on ideology change and attacking a countries foundations, now this may seem less of a threat then trying to take over a country's ports and crippling its economy, but it is just as much of a problem. If Al Queda were successful and they completely destroyed American culture it would be near impossible for the country to function efficiently, if beliefs and cultures changed radically state to state it really wouldn't be possible to provide any kind of national demand for anything, much less a national budget, or an efficient way to get trading done...say California, Nevada, and Washington decided technology was evil and closed all sea ports. All that being said the reason Israel is frowned upon is that its current administration is being greatly influenced by an organization that wants to destroy Islamic culture, and not just the fundamentalists like they want you to believe, the problem is unlike Al Qaeda, Israel has a lot more clout.
Now on to who I think the biggest threat to world peace is. OPEC for those of you who don't know is in charge of most of the worlds energy supply, and is in every sense of the word a legal monopoly, my problem is that they are by my own definition an organization, probably the most powerful one on Earth, with all the capabilities to commit economical terrorism. It is very likely to be run by like minded people since they are a business and when it comes to money everyone is like minded, and they have more clout than probably Israel and the EU put together. So here you have an organization with no real political ties, no one to answer to, and no threats to their stability with one of the biggest influence over global economy in an age where fossil fuels are becoming more and more scarce, what limits would such an organization go to perceive its own existence?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All that being said the reason Israel is frowned upon is that its current administration is being greatly influenced by an organization that wants to destroy Islamic culture, and not just the fundamentalists like they want you to believe, the problem is unlike Al Qaeda, Israel has a lot more clout.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just going to play devil's advocate here, it's been a long time since I got to argue about anything that I didn't actually believe to be truth. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Israel, in wanting to destroy Islamic culture within their own borders, is doing the only thing that is truely acceptable to ensure their survival. I have absolutely no doubt that the majority of Muslim peoples living in and around Israel are peace-loving people. However, all it takes is one man in the right place with 20 pounds of C4 strapped to his chest to take out hundreds of others, and the literacy level is so low in places like the middle east that it is very, very easy for someone to be convinced to do something like that for the good name of the faith. Allowing even small remenants of Islamic culture to prosper inside a nation bordered by hostile nations with possible strong affiliation with people who will easily become scared and desperate at the slightest hint of a holy war. Israel is simply doing what it needs to do to destroy threats to Her people, and the safest way to do that is to destroy islamic culture outright.
*end weak devil's advocate argument*